Humanities desk
< November 25	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 27 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 26

A History of the English-Speaking Peoples

How does Churchill manage to write such bombastic prose yet appear eloquent?

Would any contemporary writer, no matter how talented, be laughed at as a pompous windbag for writing in that style?

lots of issues | leave me a message 00:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because he is eloquent, though his eloquence is both original and that of a different age- arguably a more literate age-a little florid, perhaps, for present-day usage. I have to say, though, that the 'bombastic' quality to which you refer is something I associate more with his public speeches, rather than his historical writing, which proceeds more with simple narrative force. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must disagree. Please look over volume 1 again if you think his writing "proceeds more with simple narrative force". lots of issues | leave me a message 19:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotsofissues (talk • contribs) [reply]

Regional Carbonated Beverage Preferences

I am from Texas. I like to drink Dr. Pepper the most. I also sometimes have a Coca-Cola. Recently I traveled a bit, namely to New York City and Seattle, Washington. While there I noticed some that there just WASN'T any Dr. Pepper. Not a single restaurant I went to had a Dr. Pepper. A lot didn't have Coke. Instead I was offered Pepsi. Why? Dr. Pepper is a profitable company with many customers. What makes the restaurants in The North think that northerners wouldn't want some Dr. Pepper? Just struck me as strange. On a side-note, I also noticed that it no one calls a carbonated beverage a soda in The North. Pop. That's what it is called. 'You want a pop?' I don't get that either. Thanks for any insight into this perplexing mystery. schyler (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurants want to make money. If people regularly ask for Dr Pepper or Vimto or Sarsparilla or Dandelion and burdock or Lucozade or Cream soda or Ginger beer or Tizer or Orangina or Irn Bru they'll have them. Otherwise they won't because it would be a waste of money stocking something that nobody but the occasional tourist from Texas, or Yorkshire, or Scotland, would drink. I'm not a Northerner (well, not in the way you mean), but Dr Pepper and Sarsparilla remind me of the horrid cough medicines I used to be given as a kid. Bleh! Different places have different kinds of food and drink and sometimes different names for the same kinds. Potato chips are not the same thing everywhere, and I've been told that some people confuse fried bread and french toast. Sometimes regional delicacies are simply unobtainable elsewhere. For example, there are some benighted foreign lands where pickled eggs or pickled walnuts have never yet been seen. Now there's a terrifying thought. Angus McLellan (Talk) 03:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While your 'make money' argument and 'cough medicine' explanation both make sense to me, WHY would the restaurants not make money if they offered Dr. Pepper? Thanks. schyler (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't answer most of these questions, but here is a map of regional terms for soft drinks. Note first that the map is the result of a rather informal survey, and second that while the map makes it look like "pop" dominates much of the north one should look at the percentages too -- "Soda" makes up over 50% of all replies. Also, the map makes it look like "pop" is the normal in the northwest, but I find that hard to believe. I grew up in Buffalo, where "pop" was definitely the norm, but now live in Seattle and almost always hear "soda" instead. Each reply is mapped by itself as well -- since many dots overlap one another the individual maps show where that occurs. There are other such maps, and full on studies of this on the Internet, but my google-fu is failing at the moment. As for why "pop", one could ask why "soda"? Both terms strike me as having obvious connections to the way carbonated drinks are made and how they behave. The mainly New England "tonic" strikes me as revealing how carbonated drinks have been around for a long time -- time enough for many terms to gain regional usage. There are many other examples of dialects by region in the US at that website, main map index here. Fun fun.. Pfly (talk) 04:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just replace "Dr. Pepper" here with some other soda that isn't expected to be sold in restaurants by people in a region. Why not Barq's Root Beer? Why not Fanta? Why not Mountain Dew? Why not Sierra Mist? All of these are widely distributed soft drinks (I purposely chose ones distributed by Coke and Pepsi, so it's not an issue of them being obscure) and can be purchased at any well-equipped convenience store. But none of them are common in restaurants (at least not where I live, in the "North"). What's more interesting to me is why Dr. Pepper became popular in your region (no doubt because it was originally based there, yes?) as something other than "cola" or "non-cola" (Sprite, 7-Up, whatever), the two standard options for soft drinks. (Personally I'm in the "Dr. Pepper tastes like cough syrup" camp, but my wife loves it.) --24.147.86.187 (talk) 05:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can also be a company thing,the restaurants may have contracts with certain suppliers who do not carry certain produces and therefore even if there is a demand,they would never be stocked...hotclaws 12:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Most restaurants only offer a limited number of drinks 'on tap' as the equipment for storing, chilling and serving them is relatively expensive while a convenience store selling bottled drinks can offer a lot more variety. Here in the UK, Dr Pepper is pretty popular and can be found in most stores that sell fizzy drinks (as we generally call them, pop is sometimes used bu soda is quite a rare term except for specific types of drink, ie [Cream Soda]) but I've never seen it in a restaurant, the common choices are Coca Cola or Pepsi, a diet or max version of the same, Fanta or Tango (nearly always the orange version) and Sprite. Pubs generally sell lemonade instead of Sprite. As a previous person said, a lot of restaurants are tied into contracts with specific brands and are forbidden from selling rival products. GaryReggae (talk) 13:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I live near Seattle and go there occasionally for holidays and such, never had a problem getting a Dr. Pepper. You must have gone to the wrong places :p -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 14:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that restaurants that carry pop/soda in can or bottle form tend to have a larger selection than those that use "soda fountain" dispensers. There's a couple of reasons for that. First, cans and bottles tend to have a larger shelf lives (meaning you can wait longer for someone to buy 'em). Second, the smallest syrup bags on market are 10L, with most being 20L. Even 10L of syrup makes for a LOT of pop - you've gotta be reasonably sure the stuff is going to move and once you pop the bag, the best-before is going to run out even faster. Thus, even small convenience stores that sell cans/bottles will have more variety than most restaurants.

Ultimately, the answer comes down to what Angus mentioned - there are hundreds of varieties of soda/pop to choose from. It costs money to stock each and each brand you stock will to some degree 'eat' the movement on your other stocks, so that adding an extra line of drinks may increase your total sales, but partially at the expense of your other lines. What you want is just enough lines to cover people's basic requests. Matt Deres (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Americans in general have a larger range of sodas (we say fizzy drink or soft drink) than we do in Australia. We get vanilla coke, diet coke and coke zero. We had lemon coke for a while but it didn't catch on. I haven't even heard of half the ones mentioned above. In China, Pepsi definitely has the upper hand over Coke. (oh, and for us, chips can mean potato chips or fries - mondo bizarro). Steewi (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurants in America will generally have a cola (Coke or Pepsi), a diet cola (Diet Coke or Diet Pepsi) and a lemon-lime drink (Sprite, Sierra Mist or Seven-Up). They sometimes have root beer. In the Ohio-Pennsylvania area, anyway, Dr. Pepper is a relative rarity at restaurants. I've seen it on self-serve fountains at Subway franchises. I suppose it's more common in Texas because the old Dr. Pepper company was based there. While the trio of cola, diet cola and lemon-lime is consistent nationwide, the fourth and fifth soda options, when they exist, tend to differ across regions. I've seen Fresca in soda fountains on the East Coast -- you'd never see that in the Midwest. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Threat of nuclear weapons in North Korea

Shall we share the opinions on the topic above, on the threat of nuclear weapons in North Korea? What is your value points of view on it? Ahlong1234 (talk) 03:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I think it is in a pretty good situation at the moment, if I dare say so. The North Koreans have shown enough of their ability that the Americans and others are willing to take it seriously and stop much of the "hardline regime change" talk that gets nothing for anybody except entrenchment, yet at the same time the North Koreans have at best a very small plutonium-based arsenal (a much safer proliferation risk than enriched uranium one would be) and no real evidence that they have much knowledge of how to assemble weapons successfully (their only test was a dud). With any luck they'll trade their remaining plutonium for some valuable treaties and everybody will be a bit safer for the short term. Or, of course, the negotiations could break down in another awful Bolton-esque fashion but we can hope that the Bush administration won't let him tank their only diplomatic success of this term. I am not too worried about the bugaboo of terrorism or them using the nukes against anyone else—neither of which are in the DPRK's interests, both of which would be a sure way to get into a war they couldn't win. The one thing that Kim Jong-Il seems to respect is threats to his ability to maintain power, and that's exactly what would be most jeapordized if he started letting nuclear bombs go off with his plutonium in them. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 05:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy medium betweem altruism and egoism?

When it concerns consequentialist ethics, I keep hearing about egoism and altruism. The former proposes that we should think only of what would produce the best outcome for ourselves, while the latter asserts that we should think of everybody but ourselves. However, it can easily be argued that most people don't fall into either extreme. What is the term for a happy medium between egoism and altruism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.216.37.31 (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there are two kinds of third ways between the two moral theories you propose:

Utilitarianism: which roughly holds that one should look at everyone's concerns (including your own) equally. This is a much more accepted moral theory than egoism or altruism. It would demand that with every thing you do you figure out whether that course of action would make every one in the entire world happiest, if there is a course of action that would make the total happiness in the world higher one should pursue that: it would be undoable.
Caring for one's kin: instead of caring for only oneself or the whole world one could look out for the wellbeing of one's next of kin, friends or personal circle. This would be a form of rule utilitarianism: if everyone would care for one's kin then the world would be happier than if everyone tried to care for everyone else, as utilitarianism demands.

I would advise you to read utilitarianism for more information about this. C mon (talk) 09:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hirohito's speech

(moved to Language Desk)Edison (talk) 03:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boswell's Life of Johnson

I've recently finished reading Boswell's Life of Johnson and it's peaked my interest to find out more about it. I've found some seemingly contradicting comments and reviews though. Some places, such as wikipedia, claim it to be an important part of the development of the modern biography...even the greatest biography ever written in the english language. However, there are several places I've seen where writers/critics will not even allow it to be called a "biography" proper or something like that. I guess my question is: what criteria has to be met for a book to be considered a biography? Is there a recognized list by an organization like MLA or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.8.69.82 (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though Greene opines that Boswell's Life of Johnson is best considered a memoir or "Conversation with Johnson", that's just quibbling; most people recognize the work as a biography (successful or not). There is certainly no "standard" that need be met, nor does MLA have anything to say about it. A biography is the story of a life; if a critic wishes to add supplemental requirements to that definition, he's obligated to tell you what his (idiosyncratic) criteria are, or his essay won't mean much. An additional, unsolicited comment: if in any formal setting you use the phrase "piqued my interest", make sure you spell it "piqued" and not "peaked" - it's from the French, piquer, indicating your interest has been aroused, much as if it had been poked with a pike. - Nunh-huh 08:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...which is not as bad as when it's slapped with a trout. --Lambiam 19:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...or prodded with a perch. —Kevin Myers 19:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

catholic church and "heresy" (in 1752?)

When did the catholic church stop referring to (any) protestants as heretics? I'd be interested in the general question, but am also wondering more particularly: A papal bull called Pierre Comte de Vignory (also known as Peter Graf von Vignory) a "calvinist" in 1752 (probably completely baseless, but that's not the point). Did they thereby claim the person was a "heretic", or what was the meaning of the term? Was it "only" slander? I should add that the (self-declared) "Comte" had died almost a century earlier, so there was obviously no talk about persecuting him. So if it was simply a matter of condemning him and his deeds, I wonder what exactly constituted this "condemnation" etc. Thanks, Ibn Battuta (talk) 07:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding (and I am not at all an expert on canon law) that an excommunication issued by either a council or the pope must be explicitly revoked to be considered voided. That is, in layman's terms, a person or view that is declared to be heretical continues to be so until such a time as the church declares otherwise. That said, the statement that a person is a calvinist mean a couple of different things, depending on what the rest of the papal bull says: (1) If it is a bull of exommunication, then the "calvinist" statement is probably listed among the reasons for excommunication, and he remains excommunicated unless the excommunication has been officially lifted, (2) if the document is not explicitly excommunicating him, he might not have been. I wasn't able to find any info on the person in question, so I cannot answer more explicitly than that. Pastordavid (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's already giving me some general idea. Yes, it'd be interesting to find out what the bull was really about. Which makes me wonder: How many papal bulls were actually issued in the 1750s? Would the Pope issue them for any minor issue, or would he try to put several topics into one, etc.? And generally, which importance had a bull at that time? "Just another" bull, or something relatively important? I've read in the Wikipedia article that they're today reserved for few occasions, but also that it used to be different...

As for the supposed calvinist, yes, he's not very well-represented on the internet. I've been looking through some books on books.google.com to find some references, and this (about his death) has been my only English find so far. I guess his only claim to fame, at least according to the French and German books I've found, is that he was the commander of occupied Trier from 1673 to 1675 and during this time demolished virtually all monasteries, churches, Roman ruins etc. around the town. Well, and arguably the story in the English book about him dying on the way to battle when his horse started and fell with him from a bridge.

Anyways, this German book mentions the papal bull, which made me curious. The reference for the bull is "K Abt.213 Nr. 248", which apparently designates the section about the monastery/chapter St. Paulin (Trier) in the State Archives in Koblenz. Too bad that google hasn't yet got the permission of the Vatican to scan all their documents... :o) --Ibn Battuta (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undoubtedly, if we are talking about 1752, the bull was issued by Benedict XIV. Some info about the bulls he issued can be found in our article, but only the basics. He was, it seems quite prolific, and one bullarium devotes four volumes to Benedict's bullae. Perhaps the bull in question was related to the rise of Jansenism or Freemasonry in France, both of which were significant issues at the time. If your latin is any good, you may want to peruse the this list of the encyclicals of Benedict XIV and see if an encyclical is really meant instead of a bull. Pastordavid (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! Too bad, I'm afraid my Latin is unfortunately almost non-existent... Anyways, yes, I wonder if the bull was actually about a different topic. I'm not sure, though, if it was related to heresy--as I wrote, the real reason to condemn this man seem to have been his actions against monasteries etc. (for military, not religious reasons). The author writing about the papal bull portrayed it as if the claim that de Vignory was a calvinist may have just been a way to vilify him. That's why I got curious... --Ibn Battuta (talk) 06:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic this and that, an ethnicist contrivance of the 18th-20th centuries or not?

The ancient Britons surely knew who the Keltoi and Galatians were, so why did they not claim to be of this heritage, if true--considering the perks with being evangelized by St. Paul? The Britons cherished a mutual Trojan origin with the Latins and the Irish cherished their Scythian roots. So, is there any respect ever going to be given them for their own designations, like there is for other established ethnolinguistic groupings of Europe, or are they to fit like a square peg in a round hole, forever marginalized by disinformation and racial supremacist Teutonisms of the Victorian era? So are they doomed to be Nordicized forever, at the loss of their own acclaimed heritage, supplanted by the whims of foreign ideologies and hostile academia? Scholars like the "Venerable" Bede propagandized the righteousness of his pagan brethren at the expense of the Christian Britons, considered culpable for the failure of the repulsion of the Saxons by Gildas's own account of his people. In scholastics, Teutonic stories are given a human face of legitimacy, even if folk history and oral traditions over a much longer period without accompanying literature, whilst the British and Irish suffer the indignation of being told that their culture is a total sham of mythology. The Latin and Hellenic cultures as they continued to have existed elsewhere, lose credibility but still save face because of the hegemony they wielded. How fair for Saxon mythology to be lauded and Arthur said to be a fraud? 24.255.11.149 (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You ask a lot of questions... and it's not clear which of them are genuine questions, as some read as rhetorical questions and soapboxing. I'll assume good faith and break down and simplify what I perceive as being your questions (and forgive me if I misunderstand some - others or you are welcome to edit this list) to aid answerers:

Why did the Ancient Britons choose to claim to be descendants of Trojans, rather than more salubrious peoples?
Given that they did claim to be descendants of the Trojans, why do modern scholars ignore this and designate them as Nordic?
Why do scholars deride the Arthurian legends as myth, but accept Saxon tales as rooted in fact? --Dweller (talk) 12:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some attempted answers:

Overlooking the temptation to say that the British penchant for supporting the underdogs is clearly well-established, and assuming that the claim was a falsification by someone/s at some point (as your question seems to imply) perhaps this is to with the well-known tale of Rome's origins coming from the same source (cf the Aeneid) and therefore a parallel with the traditions of validity, civility and imperium. But more than anything, this question is almost impossible to answer without speculating, as the earliest surviving relevant texts may well significantly post-date the "creation" of the legend.
Are you referring in this section to the racial origins of Britons or the British? The British people, like their language and landscape, are a palimpsest. The Briton strand has been overlaid by so many "invasions" its importance, even if your assertion is true, is much diminished by the passing of millennia.
Which Saxon tales are you referring to? Also, I'm unsure of your characterisation of the Arthurian tales. I've seen many scholarly workings of the Arthurian legend, attempting to give historical validity to elements of it in a variety of different periods/cultures/locations.

Hope that's helpful. --Dweller (talk) 12:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why does anybody take the "Celtic" category seriously, if without foundation? Why is the Trojan heritage of the Latins accepted, but not the Britons? I guess I'm looking for systemic bias to leave the Britons alone. For centuries upon end, the Britons and Europeans in general accepted these stories, until the Protestant Reformation. I was essentially asking, why not give the Britons respect for their traditional history, even at the basics of what they mean, with the Mediterranean origins of this people? The Cornish also have a tale of Phoenicians as being some root of their heritage. Everyone in the British Isles is supposed to laud or accept the Saxon story as their own. Why is that there is a lot of uncritical support for their own stories? 24.255.11.149 (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I've removed the soapboxing elements of your last post. Please do not soapbox here. This board is for asking and answering questions. --Dweller (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to understand your questions, it might even be helpful to hear your assumptions given that they seem to differ quite a bit from common historic assumptions. On the other hand, I'm not sure if this is a good forum for long descriptions of people's opinions... - From what I understand from your "questions", however, I'd like at least to question your assumption that "the Trojan heritage of the Latins [is] accepted". Yes, there is an old and beautiful tale about Aeneas travelling to Italy after being beaten out of Turkey. But neither genetically nor culturally, the Romans are today "accepted" to be Trojan. Regarding historic facts of the Arthurian tales, Dweller has already said what there is to say. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Celtic" is a linguistic category, and a perfectly valid one. Welsh, Irish, Cornish, Scots Gaelic, Manx and Breton are related to ancient Gaulish, Galatian and Celtiberian. This is well established. However, despite sensationalist newspaper reporting, it's fairly irrelevant to genetic origins. Languages can spread without large-scale population movement. A large majority of the gene pool of Britain and Ireland is believed to have arrived in the islands shortly after the Ice Age, with subsequent "invasions" contributing rather small proportions. The Norman conquest was very small in terms of people, but Norman French had a massive influence on the English language. The Normans, incidentally, were Germanic-speaking only a few generations earlier.

The British legend of Trojan origin is fairly obviously cribbed from the Aeneid, and very likely derives from a cultural cringe to the Romans, like those Pacific islanders who worship the Duke of Edinburgh (nobody, incidentally, gives much credence to the Roman myth of Trojan origins these days - that was more a cultural cringe to the ancient Greeks. All Roman history before Polybius's time is now considered unreliable legend, and more unreliable the further back you go). The Irish origin legends start at the Tower of Babel, takes in Egypt at the time of Moses, Scythia, a period of wandering in the Mediterranean (including Sirens!), a period in Spain, and finally invading Ireland, and is equally obviously cobbled together from the Aeneid, the Bible, and late antique Christian histories by the likes of Jerome and Isidore. The only element of it that seems likely to derive from genuine native tradition is that Ireland was settled from Spain. I also don't think the tales of Hengist and Horsa, with their clearly symbolic names, are taken any more seriously than those of Arthur these days. --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St bede, in proving English wrote poetry in their own langugae

What did St. bede the Venerable use to prove that there is an evidence that the English wrote poetry in their own language (not in English words)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.213.91.246 (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The story of Caedmon, in Book IV, Chapter 24 of the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum, which you can read here in Latin (where it is actually in chapter 22), or here in English. Our own Caedmon article should be useful enough though, it is a Featured Article. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

West Saxon, as quoted by Bede:

Nū sculon herigean heofonrīces Weard.
Meotodes meahte ond his mōdgeþanc.
weorc Wuldorfæder, swā hē wundra gehwæs.
ēce Drihten. ōr onstealde.
Hē ǣrest sceōp eorðan bearnum
heofon to hrōfe. hālig Scyppend;
þā middangeard monncynnes Weard.
ēce Drihten. æfter tēode,
fīrum foldan, Frēa ælmihtig.

Anglian, as presumably originally spoken:

Nū scylun hergan heafænrīcaes Uard.
Metudæs maecti end his mōdgidanc.
uerc Uuldurfadur, swē hē uundra gihuaes.
ēci Dryctin. ōr āstelidæ.
Hē ǣrist scōp aelda barnum
heben til hrōfe. hāleg Scepen;
thā middungeard moncynnæs Uard.
ēce Dryctin. æfter tīadǣ,
fīrum foldan, Frēa allmectig.

Are all those languages up there in Old English?

18th century music

can you please tell me exactly what would constitute 18th Century Musical STYLE? Schwalbe1 (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you are referring to European classical music, major developments took place during the 18th century, and there is no single 18th century music style. The 18th century begins in the heydays of Baroque music, with composers like Antonio Vivaldi, George Frederick Handel, and Johann Sebastian Bach. Through a transitional period, with innovators like Domenico Scarlatti and Christoph Willibald Gluck, this segues into the Classical period, with composers like Johann Christian Bach, Franz Joseph Haydn, and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. The articles linked to contain further information. --Lambiam 19:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the 18th century musical style was mostly baroque, moving into classical. Baroque style's most overt characteristic was the ornamentation on the melody, which was not completely notated, but a proper musician would be expected to be able to properly ornament a piece from looking at the melody. Steewi (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Himmler's Economy

Please tell me how, why, and by what means, the German SS attempted to develop its own system of business and finance. Thank you very much. Jane Hardy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.38.201 (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jane, it is a story of mass expropriation as well as one of mass murder. From the very beginning Heinrich Himmler had an eye out for commercial and financial opportunities, designed to support and extend his SS empire. There was a certain degree of necessity to this, inasmuch as the organistaion from the very beginning was expected to be largely self-financing. Even after the seizure of power in 1933 matters did not noticeably improve. Wilhelm Frick, the man who controlled state funds, was an old enemy of the Reichsfüher; and Franz Xaver Schwarz, the man who controlled party funds, was notoriously tight-fisted. Though the SS was given the task of running the new concentration camps, these were expected to be run at no cost to the state, with prisoners even required to buy their own bowls and spoons. Before the war it was even possible for those rich enough to buy their freedom.

The outbreak of war opened fresh commercial opportunities, with Himmler taking control of several confiscated enterprises. In 1942 he began a campaign against beer consumption in Germany, aimed, so it was said, at reducing drunkenness by promoting mineral water. The truth is that by this time the SS was the main distributer of mineral water in Europe. The more mineral water consumed, the higher the profits for Himmler; it's as cynical as that.

But the real break comes with the formal launch of the Holocaust. The purpose of the infamous Wannsee Conference was not to announce the mass-murder of Europe's Jews-that was already in progress-but to discuss and co-ordinate strategy and financing. Adolf Eichman was given the task of ensuring that the mass deportations would proceed with the minimum financial burden to the organisation. He did this by getting people to pay for their own transports. In other words, the deportees would be carried to the death camps with tickets paid for by themselves, at special excursion rates agreed with the Reichsbahn, half-price for children.

Of greater interest to Himmler was the disposable wealth that these people would leave behind, which is why, a few weeks after the meeting at Wansee, the SS Wirtschaft und Verwaltungshauptampt (Economic and Administrative Head Office) or WVHA was set up. With Operation Reinhard underway Odilo Globocnik was also given the task of accounting for the wealth that would naturally fall to the SS administration. Under Globocnik's direction the Reichsbank had to open seventy-six separate acconts to cope with the huge deposits accrued. By January 1944 he estimated in a report to Himmler that Aktion Reinhard had yielded up 178.7 million marks in cash and gold coins, as well as 16,000 carats in diamonds. What he did not say was that he, along with a great many others, was on the take, keeping one set of books for himself, and another set for the organisation.

But despite the skimming SS enterprises was now operating at a profit. The whole camp system was now functioning as one huge commercial enterprise, where wealth, if not stolen, was created by slave labour, worked to death in the process. Workers were also leased-out to adjacent businesses in the private sector, I. G. Farben being among the biggest of these customers. The whole thing was the economy of death. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobite questions

I have some questions relating to the Scottish Jacobites and would be grateful for your help. First, why do so many Jacobite portraits feature a green ribbon? Was this a party badge? Second, Who is red John of the Battles? Third, what does a black ribbon signify? Thanks. David C Bruce (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe "Red John of the Battles" was John Campbell, 2nd Duke of Argyll. DuncanHill (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A green ribbon was part of the insignia of a Knight of the Thistle, which is of course a Scottish Order. DuncanHill (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The black ribbon you are refering to could be the sash of the Order of the Garter. See the description in the article. Pastordavid (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The black ribbon, usually bunched into a cockade, was the badge worn by the clans loyal to the house of Hanover. The green ribbon does indeed refer to the Order of the Thistle, founded by James VII, from whose name the term Jacobite comes. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Black cockade Hanoverian, white cockade Jacobite. (I am now whistling Gone with the laddie in the white cockade...) Shimgray | talk | 01:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mcferran is highly steeped in Jacobite lore... AnonMoos (talk) 23:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rome and Constantinople

Why did the eastern Roman Empire survive the onslaughts of the fifth century and the western did not? Pacific231 (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the foederatii were in collusion with the Huns, so they could win the spoils of Rome by feasting on her remains through such double-agency. This led to the creation of the Holy Roman Empire. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not exactly, the HRE was not created until long after the fifth century. Some sweeping generalities are that the East was far richer than the West and could pay off the barbarians (or hire them as foederatii, as mentioned), the West was neglected because the real capital had been moved to Constantinople and Rome (or Milan or Ravenna) was the seat of the weaker of the two emperors, Italy is geographically more vulnerable than Thrace (Constantinople is surrounded by water on three sides, and the Germanic/Hunnic tribes were not seafaring people; even then the Theodosian Walls made the land side almost impenetrable; the Carpathians and the Danube make travelling further west the more attractive option), most of the land in the East was in Anatolia, Asia, and Egypt, which the Germanic/Hunnic tribes never reached (but they were extremely vulnerable to the Arabs shortly afterwards; although remember that the other areas of the East, Greece and Illyria, were similarly overrun by Slavs), etc...that's a start, anyway. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still, the HRE was the ultimate end of the barbarian infiltration in the West, although they had to prove themselves capable of ruling and were eventually, tentatively given the honor of imperium by the Papacy, which was trying to continue Rome and keep the religious status quo on par with the stability of the East. What of the Aurelian Walls? Wasn't Rome much more built up than Constantinople through the centuries that led to its making? 24.255.11.149 (talk) 20:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The east had a stable agriculture, while the west was running dry, hurting their economy and standard of living. Wrad (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not entirely true, since the largest grain sources were from the Province of Africa in the Prefecture of Italy, while Gaul and Britain had no particular shortage of crops either. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 04:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The crisis for both parts of the Empire really begins with the defeat and death of the Emperor Valens at the Battle of Adrianople in 378AD. Theodosius the Great managed to stabilise the situation for a time by co-opting the semi-independent barbarian tribes into the army as foederatii. As a strategy this was not new; the Romans had been in the practice of absorbing potentially useful auxiliaries for centuries. The problem was on this occasion there were simply too many, and the conventional Roman forces were too weak to deal with these new allies if the turned troublesome, as they did after the death of Theodosius in 395. The commander of the Visigoths, Alaric, declared himself a king and started to ravage the eastern provinces. This came at an especially bad time, for the empire was divided between two particularly weak rulers, Arcadius in the east and Honorius in the west, whose governments intrigued shamelessly, one against the other. Caring nothing for the wider welfare of the Empire, and anxious only to be rid of Alaric, the chamberlain Eutropius, chief minister to Arcadius, tempted Alaric to the west by granting him the top command of the province of Illyricum. Now another dangerous precedent had been set; for Alaric was both Barbarian king and Roman general, well placed to exploit the political divisions within the empire.

Eutropius' actions had, with deliberation, created huge problems for Stilicho, guardian of Honorius and a talented soldier, who was viewed in the east as a political enemy. To defend Italy Stilicho was forced to find troops wherever he could, abandoning Britain, and weakening the Rhine fortresses, which added still further to his problems by allowing new groups of barbarians to cross the river in force, entering Gaul virtually without opposition. They were never to be removed. Stilicho's enemies used this as an excuse to have him executed, causing thousands of troops loyal to him only to join up with Alaric, who entered Rome itself in 410AD.

The east learned quickly from the process of disintegration and collapse in the west by closing ranks among the leading political class, thus avoiding the destructive public struggles which was doing so much to weaken the remainder of the empire. Barbarian commanders in the eastern army were, in time to come, not allowed to become too powerful, usually by keeping them seperate from a foederatii power base. In the west-what was left of the west-stability could only be achieved by granting ever greater concessions to barbarian strongmen, and by allowing ever larger foederatii 'kingdoms'. In the east power was transmitted through established bureaucratic structures in church and state; in the west much depended on the transitory and uncertain authority of a single strongman, like Stilicho, Flavius Aetius and then Ricimer. By this means a serious gap grew up between the nominal authority of the Emperor, usually hidden away in Ravenna, and the real authority of a virtual military dictator. When the Attila and the Huns came there was nothing at all in the west to deter their progress, no great strategic barrier like Constantinople in the east. At the Battle of Chalons in 451, the last epic contest of the Roman west, one barbarain army faced another barbarian army; the barbarians won.

After the murder of Aetius the empire in the west was really no more that a series of dying fragments, with almost no tax base, where the fate of one shadowy emperor after another lay in the hands of Ricimer, before the last was sent packing by yet another ambitious commander in 476. In the east the great gate of Constantinople kept the Huns and others out of the rich and populated provinces of Anatolia and beyond, safe for as long as relations were good with the Persian Empire. The east was certainly saved by its shorter frontiers, by its greater wealth and by its strategically placed capital. But in the end perhaps the only thing that really mattered was that it had a far higher degree of statecraft; a reliance not on the strength of generals but the cunning of politicians. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Romulus Augustus for information on the end of the empire in the west. See Fall of Constantinople for information on the end of the empire in the west. Edison (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of an article on the Battle of the Winter Palace ...?

Because Wikipedia is so good on this kind of stuff I was surprised not to find an entry for the Battle of the Winter Palace early in the Russian Revolution. Further, there appears to be no explicit entry in the index for the Battle, even though it is mentioned twice in the entry for the Russian Revolution.

Assuming I'm not missing something, I hope someone who knows the details from the White Russian side can write something. (I once had a friend whose father was a 17 year old cadet in the Czar's Army, and he fought in that battle.)

The American version is described by John Reed at http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/bolshevik.htm .

Again, my hat is off to Wikipedia and those who create and edit the entries.

-- Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark S. Tuttle (talk • contribs) 21:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mark. I suppose the thing is that the Bolshevik attack on the Winter Palace was in every sense anti-climatic; more of a walk-in than a battle. Anyone whose view of the event is shaped by retrospective depictions, like that of Sergei Eisenstein's October, is almost certain to be disappointed by just how pedestrian the whole thing actually was. This point is made in the existing article on the October Revolution. You can, if you wish, expand it a little to introduce some more detail, though I am not convinced that it deserves a separate page, certainly not one with such a grand title!

I hope you don't mind if I draw your attention to one or two small inaccuracies in your submission. First, your friend's father may very well have served as a cadet in the Tsar's army, but if he was present in the Winter Palace in October/November 1917 he would, of course, have been fighting for the Russian Provisional Government, headed at the time by Alexander Kerensky. The last Tsar, Nicholas II, had abdicated in February/March. Second, it is not really correct to describe the defenders of the Palace, such as they were, as 'White Russians'. The term 'White Guard' emerges later during the Russian Civil War as another term for the counter-revolutionary Volunteer Army, which had nothing at all to do with Kerensky, or the liberals and socialists who dominated the Provisional Government. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does the pedestrian nature of the battle make it significant enough to warrant an article? I would imagine that such a soft battle wouldn't occur very often. Steewi (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although he never in any real sense ruled Russia, Nicholas II's brother Michael was at least briefly the last Tsar. See Russian Provisional Government. Xn4 03:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]