Humanities desk
< November 1	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 3 >

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 2

Countries that have never lost a war

...Are there any? Googling just returns sources from people who...well, I don't trust them as much as the Wikipedia ref desk. Because you're just that awesome. The conversation that prompted me to ask was based primarily around Russia, who I've been told have never lost a war due to their impenetrable winters. But other countries are interesting too. Vimescarrot (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Ireland due to being neutral in WWII and not existing before that? Their soldiers have taken part in various peacekeeping operations. You'd need to confirm, don't take my word for it. Vatican also probably. DJ Clayworth (talk) 00:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Switzerland has never been at war since they regained independence in 1815, and it's been suggested (Jaffee, Al, Al Jaffee's Mad Inventions, ISBN 0446861162) that this is why Swiss army knives are useless as weapons. Neon Merlin [1] 01:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of wiggle room in this question. For example, would you include any of Russia's failed foreign campaigns as a failed war? Further, would you rule out the United States right away since half of it lost the Civil War? Do you only consider the country to exist from the most current form of government - meaning that any country with a recently overthrown government is a "new" country that has not lost a war, such as Iraq? Only by really nailing down all the variables can you get a worthwhile answer. -- kainaw ™ 01:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a loss for early Russia Mongol invasion of Rus', and a more recent one Russo–Japanese War. As has been said, definitions are difficult. The Vatican might not have lost any wars but the Papal States certainly have. meltBanana 01:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Germany defeated Russia in World War I, even though Germany ended up losing the war the following year. See Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. --Anonymous, 08:17 UTC, November 2, 2009.

You need to define "war" and "lose" (and "country" as Kainaw points out). There is no universal definition of what is and isn't a war (I remember the invasion of Iraq in 2003 being called "the Iraq conflict" in the news reports at the time, for some reason they weren't calling it a war). It is also often very difficult to determine who won a war since it is very common for the two sides to sign a truce before anyone was truly defeated. The conditions of a peace agreement will usually benefit both sides. There are also other complicating factors. For example, did the US lose the Vietnam War? They certainly didn't win, but at no point were the Viet Cong any threat to the US, so can you really say they were defeated? There is no universally accepted answer to that. --Tango (talk) 01:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Re: Iraq: Probably because no war was declared - but it did amount to an armed conflict nevertheless) --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we count countries that have never lost because they've never fought one? The Federal Republic of Germany has never lost a war (nor, for that matter, had the German Democratic Republic before its dissolution). The German Reich, though? They had a couple big losses.... --M @r ē ino 04:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Third Reich only lost once..... --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 11:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably most of the tiny nations in the South Pacific. Tuvalu for example doesn't even have a military. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And some of the not-so-tiny ones. Depending on your definition of "losing" the Vietnam War (as mentioned above), both Australia and New Zealand may qualify. Grutness...wha? 09:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - PS -thanks for the compliments, Vimescarrot - you can ask us questions any time you like ;) Grutness...wha?

Thanks for all the answers so far.

I wouldn't count any kind of civil war.
I wouldn't consider a new form of government to be a new country.
I wouldn't generally tend to count "failed foreign campaigns" as a loss unless it incurred significant losses to the sovereign state.

Do those help? You might have guessed already, but I don't actually know very much about war... Vimescarrot (talk) 10:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Russians were massacred during their invasion of Finland in the Winter War of 1939-1940. They also didn't have much success in Afghanistan. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 10:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see why you would not count "failed foreign campaigns" as a lost wars though. Depends on what your definition of "foreign campaigns" is of course. If you mean campaigns that was only part of a greater war, then I would agree, but if you also mean wars where the "foreign campaign" constituted the entire war, then I would disagree. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. USSR lost Afghanistan, USA lost Vietnam. The exact numbers don't really matter on those fronts, except that both states invested large resources in "victory" and neither achieved anything close to it, with massive political repercussions. That's a "loss" by any definition. More problematic would be, say, the Korean War, where the US/UN didn't really achieve its stated aims, but neither did the other side (no absolute winners, really, but calling it an absolute loss seems not quite on the mark, either). --Mr.98 (talk) 14:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big difference between a war where there is a threat to your homeland and one where there is just a threat to the troops you choose to send to war, so I can understand why the OP might not count foreign campaigns. --Tango (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iceland. It won the Cod Wars. Dmcq (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which wars has Britain lost? I'm curious. 78.146.167.26 (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Revolutionary War, Irish War of Independence. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 15:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the British invasions of the Río de la Plata as well. MBelgrano (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Israel has been at war for over 60 years and hasn't lost any of them. That being said, it doesn't necessarily mean they have all of them either. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't Britain at the time, but the Norman, Saxon, Angle and Roman invasions spring to mind. The other wars mentioned could be dismissed as foreign campaigns - it's the OP's question, the OP sets the rules. --Tango (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While it's reasonable to consider the United Kingdom and England to be one continuous country, most people would not trace it back further than the Norman invasion. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canada has never fought an international war of its own, but it has never fought on the losing side of a conflict. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My memory is certainly very faulty on this, but I remember something about a rather worthless island that was claimed by both Canada and Greenland. After many years of neither side putting any effort of any kind to win the war over the island, Canada just gave in and let Greenland have the island. Does that ring a bell in anyone else's memory? Hopefully someone can correct me as I'm certain I've got it completely wrong. -- kainaw ™ 05:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's always the war that was narrowly averted between the U.S. and Canada over the possession of Frostbite Falls, Minnesota: each country strenuously declined possession and insisted that the other one accept it. (The main factor preventing the eruption of military conflict, as I recall, was the very worthlessness of the territory involved.) —— Shakescene (talk) 06:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly sounds interesting, if only for the lol factor. Thanks for the answers, everyone - I'll be bookmarking this topic once it's archived. Vimescarrot (talk) 06:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if you are thinking about Hans Island, but there has never been an actual war over it, neither for any other island that might be disputed between Canada and Greenland (aka Denmark).--Saddhiyama (talk) 10:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for others' comments, I'm not sure if the Crimean War can be considered an Anglo-Franco-Turkish victory. Perhaps it ended like so many others (e.g. the War of 1812) as a stalemate. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re The Cod Wars: is it really "war" if no-one gets hurt and only one side actually does any shooting? Maybe all wars should be like that!Alansplodge (talk) 09:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most critically, you have to qualify what you mean by country. Relating to the first reply to this post: Ireland as a nation has never lost a war, though it has been occupied by peace keeping British forces before, however peoples who occupied the island of Ireland have been defeated by invading Norman forces at times, and have adopted into their culture and ancestry a number of Viking, Welsh, Scottish and other peoples who have at times come to raid or settle. Likewise, Germany in its current state has never lost a war, but the Third Reich did, as did the German Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, Prussia and other incarnations over similar geographic areas. Likewise, South Africa has not been defeated in war, however peoples of the South African colonies suffered at the hands of the Zulus and in the Boer War. SGGH ^ping! 14:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible examples: The state of Greece has existed since 1822 and was on the winning side in both world wars (Greece didn't really exist as a political entity before then); it has had civil wars, and did lose some minor disputes like the Greco-Turkish War when it tried to annex Turkish territory, but I'm not aware of any major conflict it lost. Kuwait has only been independent since 1961 and aside from border disputes the only conflict it's been involved in is the First Gulf War of 1990-91; although it was invaded it ended up on the winning side. Excluding the brief Nazi puppet state, Croatia has only been involved in the Croatian War of Independence and the Bosnian War in its few years of existence; there are issues of definition, but it didn't lose either war. --Lesleyhood (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A correction: Yes, Croatia rejects association with Nazi puppet state of NDH, but it claims it's sovereignty based on continual existence of Croatian identity since 7th century, particularly it's during Kingdom of Croatia in 9th century. And they did lose wars, in fact, Kingdom ended with Battle of Gvozd Mountain where Croatians were butchered and last Croatian king, Petar Svačić, was killed. So, no, Croatians lost wars... 124.169.15.112 (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odin

In Norse mythology, did Odin discover the secrets of the runes before or after Midgard was built? Neon Merlin [2] 01:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer would come from a canonical "biography" of Odin. But when historicised narratives are applied to myth, the "before and after" of narratives have been applied to a pre-existing dreamlike perception. The question is, do runes figure in the mythic theme of Odin-in-Midgard? Or are the themes of Odin-and-runes and Odin-in-Midgard incommensurate?--Wetman (talk) 01:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After. Midgard was fashioned from the cadaver of the slain giant Ymir. Odin only learned the runes by hanging speared from a tree for nine days; this was after the death of Balder, so quite a bit after Midgard's creation. Rhinoracer (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

addition--- in many cultures writing was considered a magical or holy craft. See Egypt and Ibis.

I'd say this was the same for Runic writing: made holy by its association with Odin. That said, we have to be skeptical about the "purity" of much of Norse mythology; Odin's hanging from the tree is a little too close to the passion of Christ, and the Ragnorok as well as its aftermath, as set forth in the Eddas, is a little too close to the eschatology of the Christian religion to be considered 'purely Heathen'.

By the way...did you know that Her Majesty Elizabeth II claims descent from Odin? No 'Blood Eagles', i should hope. Rhinoracer (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind seeing a cite for that. Does she herself claim this, or do others claim it for her? -- JackofOz (talk) 04:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Through Cerdic of Wessex. Tevildo (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See specifically the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, entry for AD 552. Tevildo (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions about Julius Caesar (the play)

Why isn't it classified as a history play?
My English teacher said that Brutus was Caesar's son. Is this true?

--76.194.201.103 (talk) 01:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link that you provided (Shakespearean history), explains this in the first paragraph. The histories were mainly about English kings. This is just the way it was classified. If you only define "historical play" as "play about history", then it would fit in, but there are other points of division.
Brutus was not Caesar's son. See Marcus Junius Brutus#Early life. —Akrabbim^talk 01:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 - because it's not about English history. Non-English history is not counted as history in this classification.

2 - It's possible, but unlikely, that Brutus was Caesar's son, either in fact or in Shakespeare's play. If he was, he would have been a bastard son fathered when Caesar was 15 years old. See [3] and [4]. From Plutarch's Life of Brutus:

And this he is believed to have done out of a tenderness to Servilia, the mother of Brutus; for Caesar had, it seems, in his youth been very intimate with her, and she passionately in love with him; and, considering that Brutus was born about that time in which their loves were at the highest, Caesar had a belief that he was his own child. The story is told, that when the great question of the conspiracy of Catiline, which had like to have been the destruction of the commonwealth, was debated in the senate, Cato and Caesar were both standing up, contending together on the decision to be come to; at which time a little note was delivered to Caesar from without, which he took and read silently to himself. Upon this, Cato cried out aloud, and accused Caesar of holding correspondence with and receiving letters from the enemies of the commonwealth; and when many other senators exclaimed against it, Caesar delivered the note as he had received it to Cato, who reading it found it to be a love-letter from his own sister Servilia, and threw it back again to Caesar with the words, "Keep it, you drunkard," and returned to the subject of the debate. So public and notorious was Servilia's love to Caesar.

Perhaps your teacher was trying to point out some way in which Brutus was like Caesar's son, or considered him his son. - Nunh-huh 01:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely enough, in Conn Iggulden's The Gates of Rome, Gaius and Brutus are best friends who grew up together, and Brutus's mother was a prostitute. That sort of sullies the reputation of Servilia Caepionis, and makes one wonder whether to believe anything Iggulden writes. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Gates of Rome is a novel, in the genre of Historical fiction. While writers of historical fiction usually try to work within established historical facts as far as possible, most of them alter non-major facts (admittedly a subjective judgement) as they think necessary to achieve an artistically satisfying narrative, and all of them invent additional "facts" (such as conversations of which there are no records). These are accepted conventions of the genre, and no "fact" in a historical novel should be assumed to be necessarily true unless the author explicitly states that it is (in, say, an afterword). Having "belief" in the contents of Iggulden's fiction is therefore inappropriate, except in the sense of the "willing suspension of disbelief" usual when reading any fictional work. If one cares about the actual historical facts, either for their own sake or to see how far an author of historical fiction has departed from them, one should consult appropriate works of historical reference. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Writers of stories in this genre, while penning fiction, nominally attempt to capture the spirit, manners, and social conditions of the persons or time(s) presented in the story, with due attention paid to period detail and fidelity. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, what he said. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Reimerswaal

Something is amiss. In the article on Floris V, Count of Holland it says the Battle of Reimerswaal was fought over the custody of Holland in 1263. However when one clicks on this hot link it tells of a battle that took place in 1574 during the Eighty Years War. Can someone correct?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 12:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've DAB'd it to a redlink for now. Good catch. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is DAB?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - shorthand for disambiguation, and discussed at WP:NCDAB. In this case, I've changed the link to Battle of Reimerswaal (1263) which, since there is no article, is a red-link. I think this is the normal minimal action to take in the case of a link which points to an unintended article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FX Question

My friend and I went on a trip to Brazil about 6 months back. She's from France and I'm from the US. We both made charges to our credit cards on the trip and so the charges we instantly converted to our home currencies (USD and EUR respectively) but now we're trying to settle the bill equally. The problem is the rates have changed quite a bit in that time and we are debating whether it's fairer to tally things using the historical or current rates. Any suggestions on how to do this in a fair manner so neither of us lose money to the other? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 13:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can only tell you what I have done in the past. We have settled at the exchange rate on the date the bill should have been paid by whomever paid it. By 'paid" I mean the date on the credit card statement as the last date before interest began to accrue. That's when the person is officially "out-of-pocket" but not incurring penalties the other party cannot control. If you are not talking about thousands of dollars, however, and value the friendship, don't sweat a few dollars/euros one way or the other. You could also decide to calculate the net win/loss on the currency exchanges, and split that amount. Bielle (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was foreseeable that this could happen, and you should have settled up as soon as you received the bills; but you were both negligent, so maybe the best approach is to settle up as though you hadn't been negligent about this, and pretend that it's 5 months ago (or whenever you received the bills). Then again, my opinion is worth as much as any other random person on the Internet. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My own method with friends and loved ones is to split the bills proportionally to our wealth ratio for those who are less wealthy than me, and 50/50 for those who are more wealthy than me. So if I make 200K per year, and my teacher friend makes 20K, I try to pick up 9 out of 10 of our bar tabs. If my programmer friend makes 200K or above, I'd try to pick up 5 out of 10 tabs. I know this system is disadvantageous to me, but I like it because I don't have to worry that poorer friends are burdened by going to more expensive places, and I don't force my value system on wealthier friends. --Sean 22:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you want to settle in your home currency, the key is how much of that currency each of you spent. Today's exchange rate isn't important; what is important is the rate you were charged. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EU President

I am an EU citizen but I cannot vote for the new upcoming President of the EU. This seems to be very unfair and very undemocratic - why cannot I vote for him/her and can this be changed? --AlexSuricata (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

President of the European Council notes The president is not granted any formal power, but he or she would "chair and drive forward [the work of the European Council]" and take part in the representation of the common foreign policy of the EU on the world stage. That, on the face of it, makes the President really a minor functionary, entirely unlike the President of the United States, for example. The article goes on to say It is unclear what practical relationship the post would have with other major posts. Some analysts[who?] have deemed that the influence and role of the new post would largely be shaped by the persona of the inaugural president. So in practice the Treaty of Lisbon grants this person no real power; in practice it seems it'll be something of a bully pulpit at best. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have not been able to vote for any of the presidents of European Union institutions from their inception in 1958. There are limits to representative democracy; in this case, matters are arranged so that it is some of our representatives who decide who becomes the President. I'm guessing you are thinking in terms of the election of the POTUS ... but Europe is not trying to create a presidential system a la the US of A. So no, it is neither unfair nor undemocratic. Can it be changed? Very doubtful, since (I guess) it'll be a piece of business that will require unanimity amongst member states, something increasingly unlikely - vide the time it has taken to steer towards the Lisbon Treaty. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, there is an argument that a republic is "undemocratic", as you say; in any republic you don't get to vote for most of the laws that are passed, or for most of the people staffing the government; they are voted on by the people you voted for. (Or are voted on by the people voted for by the people you voted for...) The claim that a republic is "undemocratic" is a fringe argument because a true direct democracy would be such an impractical burden (ed: on a nationwide scale); your complaint is much more reasonable. List of countries by system of government is interesting; I didn't know there were so many republics in the world. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In practice, "republic" just means "not a monarchy" and even that isn't absolute - there are some nominal republics that are de facto monarchies (eg. North Korea). --Tango (talk) 18:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide usage, perhaps, but in the US it's common to use it to refer specifically to elected representation. From Republic: "In the United States Founding Fathers like James Madison defined republic in terms of representative democracy as opposed to only having direct democracy." See also Republic#United_States.-- 128.104.112.149 (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but far more countries have elections than I would describe as democracies. Even North Korea has elections: Elections in North Korea. --Tango (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many political systems don't allow you to vote directly for a hread of state or head of government. If you live in Britain you can't vote directly for the Prime Minister (unless you happen to live in his constituency). In the US you technically can't vote directly for the president either. All these systems have their advantages and disadvantages. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed: Ordinary German citizens can't vote for the President of Germany - he's elected by the members of the Bundesversammlung; similarly Vaclav Klaus, whose signature finally validated the Lisbon Treaty, was not elected by the Czech people, but by the deputies and senators in the Czech parliament. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 01:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's time to bring back our old friend:

The democracy/republic chart

	Republics	Monarchies
Democratic	Italy, USA	Canada, Netherlands
Not democratic	Cuba, Turkmenistan	Saudi Arabia, Brunei

Mwalcoff (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that chart is that democracy is really a spectrum. There is no obvious cutoff between a democracy and a non-democratic state - you need to judge how free and fair the elections are, how corrupt the leaders are, etc. --Tango (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously it's a bit of a simplification -- residents of the District of Columbia would argue as to how democratic the U.S. is, for example -- but the point is to show that a country can be a democracy, a republic, both or neither. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]