History questions not worth their own thread III

[Linkman226]

What do you call that hat I see so often on Mughal leaders? Does it have a name?

Spoiler :

 

[xchen08]

Just because a ritual was created by a human wouldn't mean it isn't in some way transcendental . . .

Sure, if you accept that human to be divinely inspired, a prophet. And it would make sense if neopagans either believe their faiths to be actual continuations of ancient faiths or founded by a modern prophet. I don't get the feeling that's true though (mainly because I can't imagine anyone thinking Gerald Gardner's a divinely inspired prophet).

 

[spryllino]

Sure, if you accept that human to be divinely inspired, a prophet. And it would make sense if neopagans either believe their faiths to be actual continuations of ancient faiths or founded by a modern prophet. I don't get the feeling that's true though (mainly because I can't imagine anyone thinking Gerald Gardner's a divinely inspired prophet).

It's quite possible to religiously believe in something that isn't divine.

 

[aronnax]

What do you call that hat I see so often on Mughal leaders? Does it have a name?

Spoiler :

Looks like a smash between a Taqiyah and a Karakul.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyah_(cap)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karakul_(hat)

Perhaps, there's not really a name for it. 'Turban' maybe.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Did the rapid and sudden succession of Chancellor Bruning, von Papen and von Schleicher affect Hitler's rise to power in a significant way?

 

[ParkCungHee]

You mean other then the fact that they were all attempts to break the same parliamentary deadlock?

 

[aronnax]

You mean other then the fact that they were all attempts to break the same parliamentary deadlock?

I though von Papen and Scheilcher tried to rule without the reichstag?

And yes, aside from that.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I though von Papen and Scheilcher tried to rule without the reichstag?

They did so because it was impossible to find a palatable coalition with the rise of the NSDAP. No one wanted Hitler in government, and the KPD and the SPD weren't speaking to each other. Even if they were they'd have to pull in the Zentrum and at least one other party. All the far right parties together made 41%. Even the dreaded "coalition of the extremes" a combination of the NSDAP and the KPD would have a bare minimum to form a government. With the inability of the reichstag to form a coalition, von Papen and Schleicher both attempted to rule in the interim, and tried to keep that interim as long as possible, because the alternative would have to let either the NSDAP or the KPD into government. Eventually Hitler put together a coalition, which made their position untenable.

And yes, aside from that.

There was some backroom dealings with Schleicher, von Papen and Hitler, I'll try to look up the details, as they were quite byzantine.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Sure, if you accept that human to be divinely inspired, a prophet. And it would make sense if neopagans either believe their faiths to be actual continuations of ancient faiths or founded by a modern prophet. I don't get the feeling that's true though (mainly because I can't imagine anyone thinking Gerald Gardner's a divinely inspired prophet).

It's quite possible to religiously believe in something that isn't divine.

Exactly. Sure, within my religious paradigm a ritual has to be divinely inspired to be true/valid, but I don't see why they can't believe that a human basically figured out, on his own, a ritual that allows other humans greater access to the divine. I don't believe this, but I could.

 

[Cutlass]

How does that work anyway? Isn't a core part of religion the access to some transcendental truth? That conducting the appropriate rituals and following the laws serve some purpose? If you admit that all that or most of that is made up by some random guy, aren't you just playing an elaborate game of make-believe?

If you were a cynic, not even an atheist, but just cynical, then you could reduce every religion to that. Ultimately someone, whether guenuinely devinely inspired or not, came up with everything.

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

How does that work anyway? Isn't a core part of religion the access to some transcendental truth? That conducting the appropriate rituals and following the laws serve some purpose? If you admit that all that or most of that is made up by some random guy, aren't you just playing an elaborate game of make-believe?

Marxists think Marx discovered the 'scientific laws' for the overall (economic, political, and social) development of human societies. If he turned out to be sponging off capitalists and wrong in many historical specifics, that doesn't necessarily make his analysis nonsense. It either works or it doesn't.

Similarly, if Gardner discovered the 'laws' for interaction with the numinous, then the fact that he turned out to be wrong on historical specifics and to have a deep interest in scourging naked women doesn't necessarily make his religion nonsense. It either works or it doesn't.

In any case, things sometimes work for reasons we don't yet understand: Greek fire in ancient times, gunpowder in early modern times, and perhaps gravity now (I certainly don't understand it!).

Of course, their behavioural quirks and poor historiography might undermine one's confidence in their respective systems. I certainly think anything descended from Gardner is well down the plausibility scale.

 

[Dachs]

I though von Papen and Scheilcher tried to rule without the reichstag?

And yes, aside from that.

That's like asking if the Democratic primaries in 2008 had an impact on John McCain's electability.

Brüning also notably ruled by decree as well in order to force through his austerity program in 1930. All of which was aided and abetted by Hindenburg, who was the guy actually making the decrees.

Anyway. Brüning's regime - ahem, Brüning's government - helped finalize the fracture of the Mittelstand that characterized the later Stresemann years. Various policy failures, namely the inability to agree on a revalorization plan (something that should've been done almost immediately after the new mark was established), the Young Plan, the austerity program, and such basically destroyed the ideological solidarity of the almost mythological "typical middle-class German" who voted for one of the "nice" parties like the SPD or Zentrum. It wasn't just the extremists like the KPD and NSDAP that benefited from that, mind - other fringe parties, ranging from sane ones like the Wirtschaftspartei (lit. the "Economics Party") to decidedly less sane ones like the immortal Alfred Hugenberg's assorted DNVP splinter groups, benefited electorally as well.

This electoral fragmentation was showing up as early as the Young Plan referendum, but was pretty much finalized by Brüning's serious 1930 tactical error in dissolving the government - the new elections brought the consequences home. Or, at least, they ought to have.

The failure of Brüning's government in 1932 actually arose over the Nazi problem. Hindenburg had only put up with him in 1930; by late 1931, the relationship had degenerated to something akin to mutual loathing. But Hindenburg and the prospect of rule by decree was the only chance for political survival (and, to be charitable, political stability) that Brüning realistically had. So in 1932, when Hindenburg's term was up, he tried to convince the Nazis to back a second term for Hindenburg without going through an election, which failed. So he convinced Hindenburg to stand again (Hindenburg hated this even more, because he was standing against nationalists of various stripes), resulting in a historically tumultuous and violent election campaign that Hindenburg won fairly easily but which left considerable resentment on all sides and helped condition the various political actors to even more semi-legal and dubiously constitutional tricks.

So Brüning was still in charge, more or less, but the 1932 presidential election campaign had more or less crippled his support. The President hated him, and he had pretty much lost the confidence of the various conservative groups by failing to crush the Nazis. Wilhelm Groener, probably the second-most important man in the army (despite having retired to hold cabinet office), still supported him as the best of a bad lot, but Groener's erstwhile protege Schleicher disliked him, especially his alliance with the SPD in the Reichstag. So when Groener (who was interior minister) finally convinced Brüning and Hindenburg to ban the SA and SS, Schleicher used the opportunity to start a whispering campaign that changed Hindenburg's mind, forcing Brüning to resign.

It was Schleicher's idea to appoint the nonentity Franz von Papen as Chancellor. (By nonentity, I mean that literally; his sole claim to fame before the thirties was his service as military attache in the US during the First World War, when he organized various acts of sabotage and supported Indian nationalist movements based in America. He was forced to leave the country in...1917, I think.) Papen's main virtue, according to Schleicher, was that he was in the Zentrum, and so could call on the Catholics for support, but he was a key figure in the party's ultraconservative wing, and so was acceptable to Schleicher's camarilla. Schleicher planned to control the government from behind the scenes, and had a hand in the appointment of most of the ministers - this was precisely what Groener had done earlier with Brüning's government. It was Papen, though, who arranged for the Nazis - who, after 1930, commanded 107 seats in the Reichstag - to "tolerate" his government in exchange for the end of the ban on the SA.

This brings us to the summer of 1932, when the Nazis started a serious crisis in Prussia. Otto Braun's SPD state government had pretty much run the place since 1919, but came under serious violent attack as soon as the SA ban was lifted. The rioting helped ensure a Nazi victory at the polls for state government elections, as Papen not had a proper pretext to dissolve the government for failing to keep public order. This effectively gave the inmates the keys to the asylum, of course, but Papen considered the SPD to be a significantly more irksome enemy. Then he had to hold Reichstag elections in July, which gave the Nazis 230 seats, about a third of the total. Hitler reversed his pledge to "tolerate" the Papen government, which forced the chancellor to dissolve the Reichstag again. The subsequent November elections decreased the NSDAP's representation, but only by 34 seats, and, like PCH said earlier, they remained sufficiently strong to prevent any attempt to democratically govern without them, given the other parties' antipathy to coalition at this point.

The November elections weren't enough of a victory to keep Papen in office, so the chancellor tried to push an outrageous scheme to rewrite the constitution and make Germany a corporatist state in the Italian mold. Schleicher decided that this last absurdity was too much and forced him out, taking power in December. He devoted pretty much all of December 1932 and January 1933 to trying to figure out how to keep the Nazis out of power, or, failing that, how to include the Nazis in government while retaining control himself. Of his various maneuvers, the most notable one was his attempt to link up with the Strasserite "left wing" of the NSDAP, which ended up an abysmal failure and compromised any independence the Strasserites had left. Schleicher's last maneuver was to simply ask for a ban on the NSDAP and KPD, which fell through (Hindenburg refused to support it). Papen reemerged to try to use Hitler to return to power in the same way that Schleicher was doing, but failed to see, as Schleicher had, that attempting to "control" Hitler himself was pure nonsense. Hindenburg switched his affections to Papen, who made his famous ill-fated alliance, and, well, you know the rest.

 

[aronnax]

That's like asking if the Democratic primaries in 2008 had an impact on John McCain's electability.

Brüning also notably ruled by decree ....
Hindenburg switched his affections to Papen, who made his famous ill-fated alliance, and, well, you know the rest.

Thanks for the reply Dachs and ParkCunghee.

So basically, if anything, Hitler's appointment as Chancellor was inevitable when Muller stepped down and Brunning wrecked what was left of the economy and Papen and Schleicher just made everything worse.

 

[Dachs]

Thanks for the reply Dachs and ParkCunghee.

So basically, if anything, Hitler's appointment as Chancellor was inevitable when Muller stepped down and Brunning wrecked what was left of the economy and Papen and Schleicher just made everything worse.

Not inevitable, but increasingly likely as the various conservative authorities in Germany progressively exhausted their options while rating the Nazis as a lesser threat than either the Communists or the SPD.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Not inevitable, but it would have taken radical action to prevent it. The von Papen and Schleicher era was marked by hoping someone else if given time, would take that radical action.

 

[J. pride]

Can anybody provide estimated population for medieval Anatolia, Italy and France?

 

[spryllino]

Why is Haile Selassie of Ethiopia often referred to as Haile Selassie I, despite the fact that there has never been a Haile Selassie II?

 

[sydhe]

Why is Haile Selassie of Ethiopia often referred to as Haile Selassie I, despite the fact that there has never been a Haile Selassie II?

I see that for some other rulers; Franz Joseph I of Austria-Hungary, and Karl I of Austria (he was Charles IV of Hungary), I've even seen Louis Philippe I. On the other hand, I've never seen Victoria referred to as Victoria I or Elizabeth of Russia as Elizabeth I. Maybe writers are expecting the Ethiopian monarchy to make a comeback.

 

[Virote_Considon]

Was there a King or Emperor called either Haile or Selassie before? That could be why maybe.

 

[Arakhor]

I think that's mainly because some people simply don't know how to write regnal numerals. Under usual circumstances, if they're the first of their name, they don't have a numeral. It should be that simple.

 

[say1988]

Some countries regularly referred to a monarch as "the first" even if there wasn't a second. Others do both sometimes. Still other individuals are sometimes referred to as such and sometimes not.

Mary I of England, for example, is commonly referred to as that even though there was no Mary II.

There just is no consistency. And it isn't just after the fact, Francis I of France used the name Francis I officially.