Humanities desk
< September 5	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 7 >

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.

September 6[edit]

Popular sport in Western Europe in the late 1700s[edit]

So, this is totally not my homework, but what sort of popular sporting contests would have been given serious consideration in England and France in the late 1700's? For example, reported on the street or in newspapers? Clearly it's too late for jousting, except as a curiosity. Chess is always valid, but would the media, or even the crowds, have cared about that? Hawking? Fencing? Equestrianism? What sort of equestrianism? More importantly, how would a newspaper even report such things? Which would be their "front page" sport? Or... since such things wouldn't go on their front page... a sport they would have reported properly at all? Do any examples survive, even as copies of the words? It wasn't so long until newspapers did genuinely report British football games of the early to mid 19th century, but what records do we have of sports in the late 18th? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mob football was probably played in England in the 1700s. --Daniel 03:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rounders has been played in England since the 1600s, so that was probably known, as was forms of Cricket. Bare-knuckle boxing was popular throughout the 1700s. Golf was well known in the 1700s. The Dutch played a version in the winter called IJscolf (ice golf) which may or may not have influenced Ice Hockey. --Jayron32 04:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis, or more likely Real tennis, although that wasn't really "popular", except for aristocrats. Probably also lots of blood sports with various animals (I see that page has a big list of different kinds of blood sports, but I suppose "hyena-baiting" wasn't very popular in England). Adam Bishop (talk) 05:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Animal baiting remained popular until the mid 19th century—very "popular." The connection between popularity, as in currency with the large numbers of poor people, and newspaper reportage when newspapers were aimed at an elite, ought to indicate that 18th century newspapers would not carry much news about popular sports, except where there was a common interest between the people and admixture of middle class and high bourgeois-aristocratic tastes. Human blood sports, such as boxing, are a good example of the shared interests. Horse racing would be another. You'll have to resolve the confusions about "popular" "newspaper" and "sports" to continue. Sports as such tend to be associated with organised sports, ie: coming out of the Public Schools system. Popular pass times tend to be radically opposed to such sports. The other question is when does riot as amusement become sport? When does cards, dice or other gaming become sport? Thankfully there's been a great deal of social history done in the last 50 years. Crego, Robert, "British Isles" In Sports and games of the 18th and 19th centuries Westport CT: Greenwood, 2003, 43ff. It lacks footnotes, the scholarship is poor and doesn't meet my criteria for proper historiography, and it is a dictionary of games. But it does have a bibliography after each game.Fifelfoo (talk) 05:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cock throwing is an excellent article to examine. Does throwing sticks at a rooster count as sport. It was certainly popular: apprentices rioted when their right to abuse cocks was removed from them. In the 18th century class became an issue: the rich attempted to stamp out the poor's violence towards cocks, as the vulgarity of the practice was seen to be unacceptable in a society where the rich should rule unmolested. Many "popular" sports like this are going to have similar historical trajectories, being eliminated around the time of the final enclosure wave, the proletarianisation of the country side and forced industrialisation. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bear baiting, bowls, cock fighting, street races. These would have all attracted the general public.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bare-knuckle boxing was big in the UK. Alansplodge (talk) 08:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As others say, "sports" did not take place in an organised or independently monitored way until much later. What you had were occasional fairs, which would have been reported in general terms locally. This site gives you a general idea of what went on there, as does this book. There was also cricket, on which we have several historical articles such as History of cricket, and Hambledon Club. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also more information in this book. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except for perhaps announcements that an event would be occurring (duly paid for by the organisers of the event), it is unlikely that the newspapers would be reporting any kind of sport. Sports results was simply not considered newsworthy in the 18th century. In England a very popular sport followed by all classes would have been horse racing, specifically the Newmarket race, but this interest would not spread to the continent until the 19th century. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To echo some of the above comments, cricket was very popular in parts of the UK at that time, and attracted very large wagers. John Major (yes that one) has written an excellent, very readable book about the early history of cricket. --Dweller (talk) 09:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some sports were fairly widely reported, in the UK at least, in the late 1700s - cricket in particular. Surviving information is collated in 1726 to 1775 in sports and the subsequent articles for each year. Warofdreams talk 11:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Sporting Magazine dates to 1790. An 1807 issue on Google Books has articles on the Newmarket horse races; a 24-hour, two-man footrace; pigeon shooting; boxing; and hunting, as well as some bad jokes and other non-sports-related stuff. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sports reporting did begin at the very end of the 18th century, but did not become widespread (in England and everywhere else, remember the question was also about France) from the 19th century onwards. --Saddhiyama (talk) 07:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert on French newspapers, but the French article fr:XVIIIe siècle en sport doesn't list any publications devoted to sport. A reasonable way to determine what was reported is to see what information survives; in the aforementioned article, details relating to sport in France appear restricted to jeu de paume and boat racing. Warofdreams talk 10:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least one cricket match was reported in the London Chronicle in 1776. Makes modern football hooligans seem rather tame. Alansplodge (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Justifiable killing v. innocent bystander[edit]

Suppose you are running at me with a raised ax, screaming that you are going to chop my head off in quite a credible fashion, and I have no means of retreat. In any state in the US, if I then draw a handgun and shoot you in the heart, killing you, I will not normally be charged with any crime, because of the concept of justifiable homicide, or whatever it happens to be called in the state I'm standing in.

My question: What if I miss, and shoot innocent bystander John Smith in the head, killing him? I think manslaughter is the most likely crime I'd be charged with, if I was charged at all — but I wonder what the courts (or even the law) have said about negligence when the negligence occurs under a time of extreme stress when I'm dead in a few seconds if I don't act. Do prosecutors regularly excuse this type of manslaughter? Do juries?

I'd be interested in any cases in any jurisdiction worldwide if anyone can refer me to actual cases. Comet Tuttle (talk) 04:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that the laws regulating this kind of scenario are going to vary from nation to nation, and from US state to US state. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, though I expect that between the US states, the treatment will be pretty uniform. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are some other issues in the scenario you gave, notably that with some states' Castle doctrine, you have a duty to retreat if the attack takes place outside of your home or business. ^Avic _ennasis @ 04:50, 7 Elul 5771 / 04:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For simplicity, my scenario says there's no means of retreat. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then you could run into the crowd of bystanders and let the axe-wielder take them out instead. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely as the possessor of a gun you automatically have the upper hand so it's a bit absurd to imagine someone would dare attack you with an axe. A bullet is considerably faster.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It happens. See this description of just such an event (well, knife vs. fully automatic Ruger AC556: "Fuck you and your high powered rifle! I'm gonna kill you motherfuckers!"". -- 27.55.89.65 (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you never watched Fargo (film) eh Jeanne Boleyn?

To the op, maybe this and this would be helpful, and the links from these pages. Public awareness (talk) 07:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...not really my type of film.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You do know Fargo's not really a true story? --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do, but still I have a friend who's a cop, and he says at under 15 feet distance someone can pull out a knife and stab faster than most cops can react, pull a gun, take the safety off, aim and fire. And fair point there Pais. Public awareness (talk) 10:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you miss the ax-wielder and hit an innocent bystander instead, presumably the next thing that happens is that the ax-wielder chops your head off, thus relieving you of any danger of prosecution for the manslaughter of the bystander. Pais (talk) 09:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question could be reformulated as: what happens if you kill someone by accident when you were legally trying to defend yourself? Not every accident is negligence, BTW. So, maybey you won't get charged. Quest09 (talk) 12:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course part of this depends on the zealousness of the prosecutor, and the degree to which they judge you to have made a reckless or reasonable decision. But Murder_(United_States_law)#Degrees_of_murder_in_the_United_States looks to me like your most likely "good intentioned" scenario would be involuntary manslaughter. If you had been the one to, say, goad the axe wielder into attacking, you might end up with second degree murder. But I am not a lawyer. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To shoot at someone who is attacking you doesn't look 'criminally negligent' to me.Quest09 (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but missing the person attacking you might be. A lot would depend on local and state laws, but I could see a prosecutor arguing that, as a gun owner, you have a duty to be proficient enough with your firearm that you actually hit what you are shooting at... and the fact that you were not (ie you missed) rises to the level of "criminal negligence". Not sure if that argument would fly with a jury, however. Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that sounds like something realistic, depending on how incompetent the shooter was. Quest09 (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or not shoot at all. Depending on the circumstances, the smarter option might have been to just threaten to shoot, for example. Does this constitute a lot of second-guessing after the fact, by people who were not there? Indeed it does. But that's what I meant about the zealousness of the prosecutor. If they had it out for you for whatever reason, it's easy to come up with legally damning after the fact analysis. It's easy to point out every little decision someone made that didn't lead to a happy outcome. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I remember one particular case of this sort, with the extra factor that the person trying to shoot the attacker was a policeman -- he missed and killed one of his colleagues instead. What happened in that case was that the attacker was charged with first degree murder -- in Arizona, at least, murder comprises death that occurs as a direct result of the commission of a felony. The policeman did not face any legal consequences. I think that is likely to be what happens pretty broadly. Looie496 (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The majority rule is that when self-defense is established, there is no crime committed. In a minority of states, the jury will look to whether the defender acted recklessly or negligently in defending one's self. This also applies to those cases where self-defense is imperfect, such as in cases of mistake of fact, unreasonable fear for one's life, or some sort of diminished capacity. In most states, the jury will only look to see if using deadly force against the attacker was justified regardless of what happens to bystanders. For some case examples, here is one from Pennsylvania which is a very good example of shooting a gun into a crowd of 200 people against an aggressor[1]. Pennsylvania decided not to apply negligence or recklessness tests. This is notable because the majority rule is a continuation of the Common Law and Pennsylvania has abandoned the Common Law in favor of the Model Penal Code. In other words, this facet of self-defense at common law has made its way to some MPC states like PA. Other states looking into this topic include CA[2], and MA[3]. You can try searching for other examples. The key words to use are "tansferred intent" + self-defense + bystander + recklessly OR reckless OR recklessness. Also search with replacing recklessness terms with the term "imperfect self-defense." I can only imagine that there would be only a handful of states where a prosecution would be possible. It would take the legal system of that state to diminish the right of self-defense in favor of a modern policy against the use of deadly force. This would be rare, but you might imagine a few states which might venture to diminish self-defense rights and check their case law to see if they have changed their rules to hold defenders liable for acts of recklessness or imperfect self-defense. This topic would be a good candidate for a criminal justice or criminal law research paper. Familiarize yourself with the law of transferred intent and the history of the Model Penal Code if a paper is your route. Professor Paul H. Robinson of UPenn law has written extensively on the Model Penal Code and may have some policy insight into the handling of the doctrine of transferred intent and the modern view of self-defense. Your library may help you in picking up one of his treatises for a more extensive handling of the subject. Gx872op (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The USA seems to be more generous to the shooter than UK justice would be, though there are calls here to move towards American generosity. Dbfirs 18:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Felony murder rule -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 19:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In movies, when someone is shot he generally falls down, dying. In the Philippine–American War, US forces found that 38 caliber revolvers, while able to kill attackers, lacked "knockdown" capability, so the attacker though mortally wounded could often reach the soldier and stab him with a knife or hack him with a machete. In that war they switched to the earlier 45 revolver, but the US Army soon after adopted a 45 automatic to be able to drop an attacker. Edison (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite: in the movies you fall back when shot. Quest09 (talk) 23:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not involuntary manslaughter (at least, not in Ohio) unless you're trying to commit a crime when you accidentally kill the guy. Looking over the law code as a non-lawyer, it seems doubtful you'd be prosecuted as long as you weren't reckless, but you could get sued by the family of the innocent bystander. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One can create a scenario (Guy with axe has you trapped and makes credible threat he is going to chop off your head) where firing a pistol seems like the action of a "reasonable man." On another occasion, a guy in a bar brandishes a beer bottle at you because you insulted his favorite football team, and, remembering the guy getting away with shooting Axe Man, you pull out your 9 mm automatic and fire 8 shots, one of which hits the guy who threatened you, and 7 of which hit innocent bystanders, in the belief that the situations are similar. Society wishes to avoid the second scenario, so courts and prosecutors may view even the first with suspicion: Were there reliable witnesses to the threat by Axe Man? Could it be he was merely chopping firewood, and you had long-standing antipathy toward him, such that you assassinated him on a pretext of self defense? Or was he just brandishing the ax and saying "Why, if you take one step toward me I'll hit you with this," in his own self defense from your threats. Someone having an axe, a tire iron, a beer bottle or other potential weapon in his hand during a dispute does not give you free license to kill him. If, by contrast, he brandished any of the above (or even held his wallet, celphone or padlock in his or her hand) and nervous, trigger-happy police felt threatened, they might kill him with a fusillade of gunshots, and receive no punishment, because they thought the victim had a gun. This man was shot 80 or so times, along with his dog, for brandishing a flipflop shoe. If I shot the guy, and claimed he held the phone, padlock, phone or shoe like a gun, I fear dire consequences at my trial, without credible independent witnesses or video. Edison (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gx872op, I award you one (1) Internet for a great, thorough answer with relevant cited cases. (I couldn't read the first case, though.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Art type and buy-in amount[edit]

Is there a list somewhere of the buy-in needed to produce every type of art? For example, 1. architecture, 2. orchestra director, 3. ..., n. drawings. Quest09 (talk) 23:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's a "buy-in" in this context? I assume an "orchestra director" refers to a conductor? In any case that's a type of person and not a type of art in a way that a drawing is. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the amount of training? Or how much it costs to purchase/hire them? --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant in the economical sense: buy in like the entrance fee in a tournament of poker. I meant being music director, which is the same as conductor. The latter is the common term in the UK, the former in the US. I was curious about non-artistic aspects of every art: things that might hinder an artist of producing or performing his art. Quest09 (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]