History questions not worth their own thread III

[Dachs]

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

Yeah, there was. Queen regnant and everything. She was just married to some Dutch guy.

 

[say1988]

That was increadibly stupid. But aside from that my point stands.

 

[_random_]

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?

Restoration of the Ethiopian Monarchy is a pretty big aspect of the Rasta movement, so it could be out of hope that there will be more Haile Selassies to come.

 

[Masada]

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.

Ehhhhhhh it isn't that simple: regnal titles, ranks and numerals often had sacral or political significance. So much so that par nouveau monarchs weren't above outright invention to grant them legitimacy.

 

[Plotinus]

I thought it was an American thing to add "the first" to monarchs who don't have any successors of the same name. Perhaps I'm wrong though.

 

[Camikaze]

An interesting related quirk about the Australian monarchy is that we still refer to 'Queen Elizabeth II of Australia', even though there has never been a 'Queen Elizabeth I of Australia'.

 

[Arakhor]

It's probably the same reason that the Queen is still referred to as Elizabeth II in Scotland, where the highest regnal numeral in each case takes precedence.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Well, there was a lawsuit in the Scottish case.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Paul (Pavel) of Russia liked to call himself Paul the First. When asked why does he do it, he replied that he is the first Czar to be named Paul. So the historical anecdote goes, at least. He's still often called Paul the First in Russia, despite the fact that there was no Second.

 

[Dachs]

Ehhhhhhh it isn't that simple: regnal titles, ranks and numerals often had sacral or political significance. So much so that par nouveau monarchs weren't above outright invention to grant them legitimacy.

The Swedes did the exact same thing.

 

[Ajidica]

How accurate is Henry Kissinger's analysis of pre and post WWI European foreign policy in his book Diplomacy?

 

[Dachs]

Never read it. Am highly suspicious because of Kissinger's reputation as a "realist".

 

[Lord Baal]

Never read it. Am highly suspicious because of Kissinger's reputation as a "realist".

And you're right to be so. Kissinger's analysis is pedestrian and typical of the Realist analysis at the time. Considering the fact that almost all modern day Neo-Realists (including myself) consider all but a handful of Realists at that time to be sad, pathetic dinosaurs, that's not a good thing. Fun fact about Henry Kissinger: there are no footnotes at all in any of his books prior to becoming the National Security Adviser, including his thesis. Always a good sign.

 

[Ajidica]

So am I wasting my time/recieving bad or outdated information by reading Diplomacy?

 

[Dachs]

I don't know. How well does it match up with everything else you've read about the relevant period?

 

[LightSpectra]

So am I wasting my time/recieving bad or outdated information by reading Diplomacy?

Uh, not at all, since at least it's useful information for Kissinger's personal decisions in the Nixon-Ford administrations. It's like saying we shouldn't read Herodotus because a lot of the things he wrote were discredited.

 

[Dachs]

There are presumably better direct sources and less biased indirect sources for that, though, LS, and it's not like Ajidica's a would-be historian specializing in that stuff anyway.

But to continue on your analogy, I wouldn't recommend Herodotos to a non-classicist who just wants to know What We Actually Know about Egyptian, Iranian, and Greek history to the 470s BC, either. It's not an introductory text.

 

[LightSpectra]

You're right, I should've qualified what I said, because it depends on what you're trying to learn. Kissinger is pretty important for the development of 20th century foreign policy, though obviously this isn't necessarily because he was right about everything.

 

[Lord Baal]

So am I wasting my time/recieving bad or outdated information by reading Diplomacy?

The latter is true, but the former isn't. Diplomacy is required reading for most International Relations courses around the world - though oddly, not at my university, meaning I only read it for the first time earlier this year - and it's very useful in understanding how other people think about foreign relations, even though it won't help you understand foreign relations yourself.

 

[madviking]

What is Fernand Braudel's reputation within the history community?