They didn't, which was why the call for Jihad was pretty well rubbished throughout the Empire.The fighting against communism is an aspect I never thought of properly, as it was one of the few occasions in history when different religions didn't fight against each other, but a had common target.
Call for Jihad counts quite well.I wonder how they justified being allied with the Germans...
History questions not worth their own thread II
- Thread starter Plotinus
- Start date
- Status
That isn't really uncommon. Muslims and Christians fought together in WWI, Protestans and Catholics fought together in both wars.
The East India Company's army and the latter British Indian Army had large Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, and Christian (including both Protestant and Catholic) components.
A third of the British Army in the Peninsuar war was Irish (mostly Catholic) and served alongside the Spanish and Portuguese.
Christian and Muslim groups regularily fought together in Spain. Later in Rome, Christians and Romans regularly fought together.
Convenience and politics quite often trumps any religious disagreements when it comes to war.
The fighting against communism is an aspect I never thought of properly, as it was one of the few occasions in history when different religions didn't fight against each other, but a had common target.
Call for Jihad counts quite well.
Actually it was kind of the Germans who put them up to it. It was fueled by the German propaganda machine with the hope that it might cause rebellions amongst the Muslims in allied colonies.
Well, that's going a bit far. In Turkey itself it meant a great deal.
Turkey, yes. Pretty much everywhere else in the Empire? No. At least, I never heard of anyone really giving a damn about it.
That's rather broad. All I can tell you is to avoid nationalist historians, and imperialist historians. Both tend to have agenda's. Though some imperialist historians are fairly good though they tend to make some rather blanket statement about the "Hindoo and Muhammadan races" so maybe not.
Well, I don't know who either the nationalist or imperialist historians are without having a background in Indian history, which I already lack. 
I'd prefer something written in the last twenty years or so, obviously, perhaps about the fall of the Guptas, if that's narrower.
I'd prefer something written in the last twenty years or so, obviously, perhaps about the fall of the Guptas, if that's narrower.
sophie
Break My Heart
Only book I've read is Thapar's History of India, which I read for my Indian history class. It's a good 30 years old, so I don't know how valid it still is. Also it's pretty broad so 
Also still have my course reader which has some excerpts in it, so I'll see if I can pull that up.
Also still have my course reader which has some excerpts in it, so I'll see if I can pull that up.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
I just had an argument with someone who claimed Sport History is not real history. Since I'm thinking of focusing on this as a research area, I was wondering how many people actually would agree with that?
Also, does sport history go here or in Arts and Entertainment?
Also, does sport history go here or in Arts and Entertainment?
Samez
Emperor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2005
- Messages
- 1,643
I would say sport history is quite a valid research area if you stay out of the modern (post WWI) age. If you are able to connect the sports to social and political history it's even better. E.G. What sporting activities were banished by church during the medieval age and which were not (for what reason and whether the banishment worked or not...)
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Sports are a part of social history. I'd argue the more you connect it to broader social consequences or broad periods of time, the better. If you're simply chronicling the events of a specific team in a specific period, that's still real history, but I'd argue it has less social value to most people.
Maybe people still living in the thirties. Sport has been studied by historians for quite some time now. A long time ago
cry, I got to read a study of sport in Rome for my first year at university, to illustrate how historiography could cover basically any activity related to Man.Of course sport history is real history. It belongs either here or in the Sports forum, depending on what exactly you're discussing. But things like the Ancient Greek sporting events, the rise of mass spectator sports in both Rome and the modern world, the effects of segregation on sport in the US and South Africa, etc., most definitely are subjects worthy of epic tomes.
GinandTonic
Saphire w/ Schweps + Lime
- Joined
- May 25, 2005
- Messages
- 8,898
Points of social-historical interest in sports history off the cuff -
Deliberate use by the British (and Im sure you could find similar uses by others) of sport as a tool of imperial unification/ identity construction. All those public schoolboys bred to rule, and "play-up play-up and play the game" and the princlings from across the empire sent to school with them. Im told there is a whole debate amoung the post-colonial theory types about the point of it being to allow contest and occasional victory over the Brits in a controled manner. EG sport both as a unifier of Empire (against those who dont "play the game" and as a warfare surrogate between nations within the Empire. The International Cricket Council is after all a backronym renaming of the Imperial Cricket Conference.
The conscious attempt to create the illusion that Baseball was invented in America for nationalist reasons could be an interesting topic of social history.
The fascist use of sport is interesting, the Nazi's from Jessie Owen to the death match and Franco's use of Real Madrid. Franco's decree banning the use of English in football clubs names (many clubs having been formed by Brit sailors or other ex-pats) created the interesting position where simply refering to Athletic Bilbao, rather than Athletico was a form of resistance. Just to round it all off the arch rivals of Franco's Real Madrid are Barcalona - the default good-guys of the apparent narrative - who instead of having a shirt sponsor pay UNICEF 1.5 million euro's a year for the privilidge of wearing their logo. Thats 0.7% of their income, the UN international aid target.
EDIT- crosspost
Race in sport is a good call too. IIRC the first black officer in the British Army had previously been a football (?) star before the first world war broke out.
Deliberate use by the British (and Im sure you could find similar uses by others) of sport as a tool of imperial unification/ identity construction. All those public schoolboys bred to rule, and "play-up play-up and play the game" and the princlings from across the empire sent to school with them. Im told there is a whole debate amoung the post-colonial theory types about the point of it being to allow contest and occasional victory over the Brits in a controled manner. EG sport both as a unifier of Empire (against those who dont "play the game" and as a warfare surrogate between nations within the Empire. The International Cricket Council is after all a backronym renaming of the Imperial Cricket Conference.
Spoiler :
The conscious attempt to create the illusion that Baseball was invented in America for nationalist reasons could be an interesting topic of social history.
The fascist use of sport is interesting, the Nazi's from Jessie Owen to the death match and Franco's use of Real Madrid. Franco's decree banning the use of English in football clubs names (many clubs having been formed by Brit sailors or other ex-pats) created the interesting position where simply refering to Athletic Bilbao, rather than Athletico was a form of resistance. Just to round it all off the arch rivals of Franco's Real Madrid are Barcalona - the default good-guys of the apparent narrative - who instead of having a shirt sponsor pay UNICEF 1.5 million euro's a year for the privilidge of wearing their logo. Thats 0.7% of their income, the UN international aid target.
EDIT- crosspost
Race in sport is a good call too. IIRC the first black officer in the British Army had previously been a football (?) star before the first world war broke out.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
At what point did Leftenants start being called Lieutenants, and why?
Whenver the term was coined, because that is closer to the French pronunciation.
Historically they were used interchangeably.
"Leftenant" likely came from an old French spelling of the word, IIRC, which was still pronounced more like lieutenant.
Historically they were used interchangeably.
"Leftenant" likely came from an old French spelling of the word, IIRC, which was still pronounced more like lieutenant.
GinandTonic
Saphire w/ Schweps + Lime
- Joined
- May 25, 2005
- Messages
- 8,898
wiki said:Etymology
The word lieutenant derives from French; the lieu meaning "in place" as in a position (cf. in lieu of); and tenant meaning "holding" as in "holding a position"; thus a "lieutenant" is somebody who holds a position in the absence of his or her superior (compare the Latin locum tenens). Similar words in other languages include the Arabic mulāzim (Arabic: ملازم
In the nineteenth century, British writers who either considered this word an imposition on the English language, or difficult for common soldiers and sailors, argued for it to be replaced by the calque "steadholder." However, their efforts failed, and the French word is still used, along with its many variations, (e.g. Lieutenant Colonel, Lieutenant General, Lieutenant Commander, Flight Lieutenant, Second Lieutenant and many non-English-language examples), in both the Old and the New World.
[edit] Pronunciation
Pronunciation of lieutenant is generally split between the forms lef-tenant (/lɛfˈtɛnənt/) and loo-tenant (/ljuːˈtɛnənt/ or /luːˈtɛnənt/ ( listen)), with the former generally associated with the United Kingdom, Ireland and Commonwealth countries, and the latter generally associated with the United States.[1] The earlier history of the pronunciation is unclear; Middle English spellings suggest that the /l(j)uː-/ and /lɛf-/ pronunciations existed even then.[2] The rare Old French variant spelling luef for Modern French lieu ('place') supports the suggestion that a final [w] of the Old French word was in certain environments perceived as an [f].[2]
In Royal Naval tradition and other English-speaking navies outside the United States the intermediate pronunciation /ləˈtɛnənt/ was preserved. This is not recognized as current by the OED, however, and by 1954 the Royal Canadian Navy, at least, regarded it as "obsolescent" even while regarding "the army's 'LEF-tenant'" to be "a corruption of the worst sort".[3]
It would seem there have been both pronunciations since middle english.
- Status
Similar threads
