Humanities desk
< February 20	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 22 >

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.

February 21[edit]

Northwestern tribal art[edit]

I debated putting this on the Language Desk but thought here might be appropriate as well.

Artwork such as the logo of the Seattle Seahawks often has a common look to it. Birds heads with curves and some points. The Seahawks article calls it Northwestern tribal art but isn't any more specific. I've also seen this style in other works related to Seattle, e.g. the council patch for the Chief Seattle Council of the BSA which I believe is supposed to be patterned off of orcas. Is there a more precise term for this type of artwork? Do we have an article on it? †dismas†|^(talk) 03:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know, but I've also seen it on totem poles. StuRat (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Coast art. Some have made parallels with early ancient Chinese art styles... AnonMoos (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the link in the Seahawks article. Matt Deres (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I added a link from the totem pole article, which even uses the same pic. StuRat (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all! †dismas†|^(talk) 17:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Liberal democratic political parties in Italy[edit]

Does Italy have any political parties with a similar platform to the British Liberal Democrats; socially liberal, economically centrist, in favour of globalisation and the EU but also the welfare state? --129.67.116.115 (talk) 10:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of political parties in Italy would be a good place for you to start your research. --Jayron 32 11:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the European Parliament the UK Lib Dems are part of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Group - that article lists the parties in each country which are, or have been, part of that group. They may not be identical to the Lib Dems - but they will be close enough to be seen as partners and allies. Wymspen (talk) 11:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that ALDE is a quite broad group, since it includes both centre-left social liberals (like the Lib Dems) and centre-right classical liberals (like Germany's Free Democratic Party). As Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM says below, the Democratic Party (PD) is probably the most Lib-Dem of the four Italian liberal parties (just as the Lib Dems were formed through the merger of the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party, the PD was formed through the merger of the liberal Democracy is Freedom – The Daisy and the social democratic Democrats of the Left), but there's one big difference - the PD draws on the traditions of the Liberal Catholicism, while the Lib Dems are more heavily based on the philosophy of secular thinkers like John Stuart Mill (whose On Liberty is essentially the LD party bible). Smurrayinchester 11:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about Civic Choice? Our article describes them as "centrist and liberal". --Viennese Waltz 12:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Civic Choice is really just the party of Mario Monti - most of its left-wing members have now gone over to PD. I don't think it has an ideology to speak of outside Monti's program. Smurrayinchester 12:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Party (Italy) may be a likely option. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eisenhower Contributions to WWII[edit]

I am researching Eisenhower's effect on WWII, but I am unable to find anything that goes very in depth on what he did. I have been researching for around forty five minutes, but I can only find information on his presidency and variations of that he was a five-star general in the army. I need enough to write an entire paper on him, but I haven't found any remarkable content so far. I know that he must have done something, considering he was promoted in rank, but for some reason I cannot find it.

I do not expect anyone to write this paper for me, but I would appreciate a push in the right direction by providing me with a summary of what he did, or some more information and some reliable websites that I can use to write this.

Thank you so much,

EncycloShoe (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's article on Dwight D. Eisenhower (which should not be a direct source for your paper!) does contain a lot of good information on his role in the war. It is extensively referenced, which means that if you follow the footnotes, you can find the original sources for the Wikipedia article (which are sources you SHOULD probably use for your paper). In general, it looks like Stephen Ambrose's two volume biography on Eisenhower is particularly authoritative; the first volume deals extensively with his military career. In the "Further Reading" Section of the Wikipedia article on Eisenhower, there are also another half dozen books on the subject. A nearby library should probably have Ambrose's biography at a minimum, and probably several others of those as well. --Jayron 32 17:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! EncycloShoe (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One suggestion is to look for books like "Generals of WW2", rather than specifically on Ike, as the later can be expected to focus mainly on his Presidency. An exception would be if you could find a book written on him before his Presidency. (Ike also had a significant role is disbanding the Bonus Army, but it sounds like you want to skip that, too.) StuRat (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he must have done something – exceptional strategist?:

Following his arrival in London, Major General Dwight D. Eisenhower takes command of U.S. forces in Europe. Although Eisenhower had never seen combat during his 27 years as an army officer, his knowledge of military strategy and talent for organization were such that Army Chief of Staff General George C. Marshall chose him over nearly 400 senior officers to lead U.S. forces in the war against Germany. After proving himself on the battlefields of North Africa and Italy in 1942 and 1943, Eisenhower was appointed supreme commander of Operation Overlord–the Allied invasion of northwestern Europe.[1]

Now that would take organisation of a very high order and have its effect Manytexts (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all of the answers. The information/ideas you suggested have been really helpful so far.I was also wondering if you'd consider Eisenhower's best accomplishment as a general getting the Germans to surrender. If not, what did he accomplish as general? My goal is to write about what made him effective as a general, but in order to determine that, I want to look more into his greatest accomplishment, because I am sure his qualities as a general would be displayed there. EncycloShoe (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think Hitler's suicide just prior to the Russians storming Hitler's bunker is what made the German's surrender. Without Hitler, there was little reason left to fight. As supreme commander, Ike's biggest accomplishment may have been in getting all the allies to work together. StuRat (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unconditional surrender unlike Japan which was a conditional surrender.
Sleigh (talk) 04:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Field Marshall Alan Brooke had nothing good to say about Eisenhower in his War Diaries, in fact he was very critical. Labelling him a "chateau general" Brooke wrote that "He literally knows nothing of the requirements of a commander in action", and had "...a very, very limited brain from a strategic point of view". [2] Brooke was especially critical of Eisenhower's "broad front" strategy in the Northwest Europe Campaign of 1944-45. In Brooke's view, Eisemhower's talent lay in persuading people to work together (which perhaps was what was required at the time). Alansplodge (talk) 09:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't underestimate the value of getting allies to cooperate. That was critical for victory. StuRat (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Amateurs study tactics. Professionals study logistics." The Supreme commander in Europe had to design and implement a successful invasion of the continent. This was much more about logistics and politics than it was about military strategy. You might wish to concentrate on the buildup required to permit operation Overlord to succeed. -Arch dude (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Name for weakest part of a castle?[edit]

Years ago I loaned a book on castle architecture to a friend and... it never came back. It was a small cream colored paperback and the friend's gone too. I've tried q&a via google. Nothing. What's bugging me is, what is the name of the smallest door for going in or going out, unseen. It did say the aperture was also the weakest point in the fort because if anyone from outside was tipped off, they could sneak in to attack the castle from inside. Anyone? thanks in advance, Manytexts (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS it wasn't "wicket", "man way" or "entry way" because it was quite secret.

Postern? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Postern or sally port. Posterns are more usually in an obvious place alongside a main gateway, sally ports often hidden. It's hard to hide a sally port in a medieval curtain wall castle, as a besieging army can usually see all of it fairly well. With later forts in the era of artillery though (see Vauban et al.) a sally port could be concealed in a hidden portion of a bastion, where it couldn't be seen from outside without standing in an obvious line of fire, but which allowed defending troops to mass in the fossé (the ditch outside the inner curtain) unseen.

Neither of these are really weak points though. Some castles were attacked (or inhabitants assassinated) by sneaking a small number of attackers in through a garderobe (toilet) chute, also various drainage channels (although those don't have a specific name).

There are also barbicans, which are semi-isolated gatehouse outworks forming a barrier on the main entrance. They form a first line of defence and even if taken, this doesn't weaken the remaining defences of the castle. Some barbicans were strong from outside, but the towers were open-backed so that if occupied by attackers they were still susceptible to counter-attack from within the castle. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on this so far. I recall that the "door" was discreet, certainly not a full height door but low, and it was the weakest point because it wasn't locked (unless at night). It was secret so that the castle was vulnerable if anyone on the "inside" revealed its existence to an enemy. It might be something like the "chink" or tiniest gap in someone's armour; definitely an Achilles' heel.Manytexts (talk) 07:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a "sally port" as Andy linked for you above. "A sally port, on the other hand, is little known by most people. In medieval times, it was an opening or door within a castle perimeter wall which could allow defending troops to quickly exit the castle and mount a surprise attack on those laying siege outside". [3] The pictures in the Wikipedia article are of later artillery forts, but here are the sally ports at Upnor Castle, Sandel Castle, Pontefract Castle and Knaresborough Castle. Alansplodge (talk) 09:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone - this is a great help since it was bugging me so much. Sally port it is. Manytexts (talk) 08:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]