Humanities desk
< March 11	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 13 >

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

March 12[edit]

Between Queen Victoria and the Parliament in the XIX century[edit]

I'm watching a series of videos titled Victoria. It is a PBS production, the UK edition, and is available at the Prime Video channel at Amazon.com. It is a gorgeous, high quality cinematography. I want to know if most of the scenes are authentic or some of them are fictional. So, the scene I want to describe is a touchstone for me. Lord Melbourne is Victoria's prime minister. He wants to resign but she tries to convince him to stay. The commons want him to go also. He is a Whig but the Commons' dominated by the Tories. He tells her that he is under pressure, but he also mentions a loophole. If you have four ministers, he says, who are Whigs, but their wives are Tories, then it would be OK for the Commons. I wonder if such a conversation really happen or at least could have happened. Of course some events in the movie are clearly historical but I am not sure others are. I don't really want to watch fiction. AboutFace 22 (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like the Bedchamber Crisis. DuncanHill (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As with many of this type of production, it's a mixture of historical facts with fiction. See Victoria (British TV series)#Historical accuracy. Rojomoke (talk) 05:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's called dramatization (which is a disambiguation page; I'm rather surprised that we don't have an article.)--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mystical experiences without drug use[edit]

I was curious if it is possible to have mystical experiences without the usage of drugs or other mind-altering substances. I've checked the articles about mysticism, but it didn't provide guides on how to achieve such mystical experiences, just a cultural and historical overview. I'm searching for practical guides and advice.--85.4.148.47 (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not answering the question

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Define "mystical". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open for different kinds of mystical experiences. My specific interest is in having supernatural experiences. I want to see if such stuff is real. Consider me a truthseeker.--85.4.148.47 (talk) 01:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as the supernatural. That should narrow your search a tad. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if you believe in the supernatural or not. I'm curious in seeking it out for myself.--85.4.148.47 (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First seek out whether the world is flat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wanna sound rude, but I don't care about your personal opinions, Bugs. Wikipedia isn't your private website and I'm not here to debate you.--85.4.148.47 (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is the Science deck. The science does not deal with the supernatural. You are in the wrong forum. Your post must be removed.AboutFace 22 (talk) 02:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the humanities desk, isn't it? History, politics, literature, religion, philosophy, law, finance, economics, art, and society? It seems to me that both history and philosophy are connected to mysticism, as well as some religions (although there are religions which don't have mystical traditions and some outright reject the mere idea).--85.4.148.47 (talk) 02:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to need to be more specific. Mysticism is a word with a lot of different meanings, most of which tie in to profound religious understandings (see religious experience), sometimes involving initiation into sacred mysteries. I guess some may involve drugs, but that's really not a key part of it at all in most cases. You might be thinking of psychedelic experiences, which are often brought about my drugs, but there's nothing supernatural about them. I suspect you might find our article on the God helmet of interest. Matt Deres (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Matt! Let me be more specific! What I try to accomplish are basically drug-like states without using drugs. I'm sorry if my wording was confusing. Psychedelic experiences might be a good way of describing what I mean!--85.4.148.47 (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you watched the "trip" portion of 2001: A Space Odyssey? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to some authors, breathing techniques and meditation can help to reach a mystical state.^[1][2][3] --Lambiam 07:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Off the top of my head, exercising to exhaustion (such as by dancing), fasting for extended periods, (deliberate) dehydration, listening to drum beats or other rhythmical music for extended periods, sensory deprivation (such as lying still in in an unlit cave), sleep deprivation, and of course various permutations of these may bring about states of mind that could be interpreted as 'mystical': I myself have experienced the effects of some of these. You might find something of interest in the article Shamanism. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.125.75.168 (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some people report minor psychedelic effects from isolation tanks, see [4] or [5] --Jayron 32 13:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating! I didn't know that biblical meditation was even a thing! It's true, we're never stopping to learn new things! Thank you for the highy useful links and information! A friend of mine did use a sensory deprivation tank, even though he described the experience as horrifying, he apparently saw strange stuff and had weird future visions.--85.4.148.47 (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does seeing ghosts or demons count as a mystical experience? Because that can happen without taking drugs, just due to the brain doing weird things while waking up or falling asleep: see Hypnagogia, Hypnopompic, and Sleep_paralysis. Iapetus (talk) 10:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sleep paralysis must be horrifying from what I've heard. Is it connected to lucid dreaming?--85.4.148.47 (talk) 12:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it most certainly is possible. I have had 'naturally-occurring' mystical experiences, without any prompting, since the age of around 12, and many more after age 18 until I was 25 when I was introduced to magic mushrooms and the books of Carlos Castaneda. I have never needed to resort to the extreme forms of behaviour alluded to above. Brain chemistry has lot to do with it, whether all your synapses are firing on all cylinders or not. Bipolar or depressive types are prone to this sort of thing. Hypothyroidism (under-productive thyroid gland) can be a factor. A poetical approach to life helps. The trouble is that mystical experiences are not much use in themselves: in fact they can be really quite destabilising. You tend to end up thinking about questions which have no answers, which is waste of time unless you are a professional philosopher. >MinorProphet (talk) 05:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kaiser Wilhelm II and German foreign policy in the run-up to World War I[edit]

Were the behaviors and policy views of Emperor William/Wilhelm II responsible for Germany's weak geopolitical position and diplomatic isolation immediately prior to the First World War, namely the dismissal of Otto von Bismarck and the decision to abandon the alliance with Russia in 1890? Or were the German elites and the general public also supportive of those actions? StellarHalo (talk) 09:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Germany's weak geopolitical position and diplomatic isolation were largely caused by not existing until less than 50 years before World War I. Most of the great powers in Europe had built their economic and political capital through colonization, and Germany had centuries of lag time to catch up. To be fair, they did a fantastic job of catching up, especially after the Berlin Conference, and their colonial administration is frequently cited as among the most advanced among the great powers, but there's something to be said for experience, and Britain, France, and Russia (if you consider their Asian territory as "colonial") each had a huge lead in that regard, with years of lead time developing colonial infrastructure and building their economic and political power upon it. It's not too much of an exaggeration to say that European political power was built on colonization, and the other great powers just had more of it for longer. --Jayron 32 12:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was certainly a part of it, but another part of it was the permanent alienation of France by taking Alsace-Lorraine from France back in 1871 at the end of the Franco-Prussian War. Once France got Alsace-Lorraine back in 1918, France's anger towards Germany in large part disappeared–but of course was replaced by fear due to French fears of German revanchism, as ultimately indeed ended up being the case under Adolf Hitler. Futurist110 (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that Wilhelm II was directly involved in which had very serious repercussions for Germany's diplomatic position, was going on a battleship-building binge in the last few years of the nineteenth century, and the twentieth century leading up to WW2 (see High Seas Fleet, Tirpitz Plan, Fleet Acts etc). Since for Germany its navy and overseas colonies were mostly a symbolic show-the-flag international prestige type of thing, while Britain was dependent on shipments of food from overseas to eat (i.e. not self-sufficient in basic food production), this soured British-German relations, and pushed Britain to enter into the Entente Cordiale with France in 1904, while the British became grimly determined to do whatever it took to match and exceed Germany in the naval arms race, regardless of cost, as a vital life-and-death matter. When WW1 came, the German surface navy didn't seriously challenge British sea power outside the North Sea, and didn't really give Germany any great military advantage in the North Sea. If Germany's fleet ended up at the bottom of Scapa Flow without giving Germany any big victories, but caused the UK to side with France in WW1, then Germany arguably ended up paying a very high price for entering into a fleet-building program based on vague jingoistic sentiments and/or Kaiser Wilhelm II's semi-childlike glee at shiny new military hardware and gold braid on his shoulders. A wiser monarch might have considered such factors before starting the arms race... AnonMoos (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent call. This analysis, and more, can be found at the Wikipedia article titled Anglo-German naval arms race. --Jayron 32 14:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July Crisis has more on German thinking immediately prior to the war. Alansplodge (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to see how he helped. Wilhelm II was widely viewed as unstable by the people serving him. There's a quote in G. J. Meyer's A World Undone from a top German minister to the effect of "the Kaiser is like a kite; if not tethered, he goes hither and yon, to where no one knows." He almost singlehandedly started a European war years prior to the outbreak of WWI in the First Moroccan Crisis, by basically going to Morocco, then under French influence, parading around, and daring France to do something about it. His diplomats had to scramble around to tamp things down before they spiraled out of control. Also the Daily Telegraph affair, where his rants about everyone being against him got published in England; afterwards, the government took steps to isolate him from influencing policy. This is a recent article with some more stuff. It's worth remembering that Wilhelm was never supposed to take the throne when he did. His father died just months into his reign from cancer as a result of smoking. Wilhelm also was maimed by a breech birth, which his family viewed as horrific for a prospective future Emperor, and he basically spent his whole life trying to "prove himself". Now with that said, as previously noted, Germany's naval binge, which Britain understandably saw as an existential threat, was broadly popular. It wasn't something Wilhelm singlemindely pursued. Many in the German public saw the military buildup as necessary to grasp their "place in the sun" and be seen as an equal to the other European empires, and never quite understood why it inspired fear in the other powers and drove them into each others' arms as allies against them. --47.152.93.24 (talk) 08:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm wasn't solely personal responsible for Germany's battleship-building binge, but he helped it become a reality with his enthusiastic support (which seemed to be based on something other than sober strategic geopolitical thinking which took into account all important relevant factors). AnonMoos (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin's Bulldog[edit]

Tom Huxley is often nicknamed Darwin's Bulldog. Our article says "Huxley said "I am Darwin's bulldog"" but this claim is unsourced. I am looking for citations for a) Huxley's use of the term, if he ever did, and b) other early uses of it about him. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hm? --Jayron 32 14:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick! Thanks, looks pretty conclusive. The article is a mess frankly, loads of ref errors. DuncanHill (talk) 15:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, he is today widely known as Darwin's bulldog, so we wouldn't want to leave it out entirely, but something to the effect of "Widely known after his death as "Darwin's bulldog" (a sobriquet unknown in his lifetime)..." or something like that, referenced to that article. --Jayron 32 15:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But this goes too far the other way! Assuming that this writer has the facts right, it should say something like "According to Henry Fairfield Osborn, Huxley once told him, 'I have always been Darwin's bull-dog', and that soubriquet for Huxley became widely used after his death." --142.112.149.107 (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Henry II's English Residence[edit]

Hello! I've been doing some research on Henry II of England but I can't seem to figure out where his primary residence was when he was in England. I saw that he "invested heavily in" Clarendon Palace and that he "converted it into a royal residence and palace," but the neither his biography nor the Clarendon Palace article specifiy that it was his primary residence where he spent most of his time when living in England. Would anyone be able to confirm that Clarendon was in fact his primary residence, or was there another palace where he lived? Thank you, Jith12 (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jith12, does it make sense to talk about the "primary residence" of an English monarch at that time? My impression is that the court was very much peripatetic. --ColinFine (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Henry II also built extensively at Windsor Castle, according to our article. DuncanHill (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would concur with ColinFine that it is unlikely Henry had a single residence in England; indeed I'm pretty sure he spent as more of his reign outside of England as in it; he had a large empire to manage, the Angevin Empire, and he actually controlled more of France than he did of England (or indeed than the nominal King of France did!). AFAICT, his primary residence, if there was one, was Château de Chinon in Touraine, France insofar as it seems to be his preferred place to go; he would retire there to die as well. Clarendon seems to have been a favorite residence, which was the site of the writing of the Constitutions of Clarendon and the Assize of Clarendon, so there was significant governing work done there and is as good as any place that is likely to be Henry's seat in England, but it certainly wasn't his only residence. Besides Windsor noted above, we also have evidence that Henry heavily renovated Old Sarum Castle as well, and also spent some time at Wallingford Castle and Winchester Castle. --Jayron 32 17:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"His masterpiece was unquestionably Dover which he transformed into one of the mightiest fortresses in Europe. At the centre of this was his own residence, the Great Tower, a magnificent and spacious royal residence on two floors... At the same time that military architecture flowered Henry had an eye to luxury and comfort in his domestic residences. During his reign a lesser chamber was added to the complex at Westminster Palace providing for greater comfort, and Clarendon and Woodstock were both embellished and extended. At Woodstock, in the 1170s, he commissioned a luxurious retreat at a distance from the main house for his mistress, Rosamund Clifford. Everswell, as it became known, was planned round a spring and three interconnecting pools. Clarendon and Woodstock were his favourite houses both sited in the middle of great hunting grounds". Simon Thurley at www.royalpalaces.com. Alansplodge (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good find! --Jayron 32 18:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all very useful information! Thank you for your help Alansplodge, ColinFine, Jayron32 and DuncanHill! All the best, Jith12 (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He also demolished at least twenty castles. --ColinFine (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jith12 I'm pretty sure that the answer is Palace_of_Westminster#Old_Palace. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also ([6]) --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Neither of those links say anything about Henry II living at the old Palace of Westminster. --Viennese Waltz 13:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not specific enough. Is this any better? Granted, it's more specific about Henry III. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Dweller! Both the Palace of Westminster article and the websites that you linked highlight that Westminster was the "primary residence" and "main royal residence," which was exactly the type of confirmation that I was looking for! That was very helpful, I greatly appreciate it! Regards, Jith12 (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

German Pacific Commerce raiders[edit]

I am researching German commerce raiders in WW2 for example the Penguin,Atlantis and Kormorant. Is there any good sources for these ships and their voyages in the pacific ocean? Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

German Capital Ships and Raiders in World War II: Volume I has a lengthy Google Books preview.

As does Hitler's Secret Pirate Fleet: The Deadliest Ships of World War II.

Also an article in Naval War College Review (p. 78 onwards).

Route of the German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran – nautical chart.

Alansplodge (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GERMAN SURFACE NAVY AT WAR - Capital Ships, Cruisers, Destroyers, Torpedo Boats & Commerce Raiders - 1939-45 (if you us e the site's search function, there are several other references scattered around).

German Commerce Raider vs British Cruiser: The Atlantic & The Pacific 1941 (brief preview but useful WWI background).

False Flags: Disguised German raiders of World War II.

Kriegsmarine Auxiliary Cruisers

Alansplodge (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]