Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 August 17

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.

August 17

Banknote

I recently got this banknote and dont know where its from. Can some help me.Bewareofdog 00:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking at this image I'd hazard a guess that it's from Belarus. Looks like a three ruble note. -Eron ^Talk 00:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It does indeed say "Three Roubles" on it. Do you have an image of the other side? It may have further text or imagery which could help identify it. DuncanHill 00:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a Belarus 3 rouble note from the 1992 series, [1] DuncanHill 00:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

And sure enough, there it is on the other side -- "Belarus". -- Anon, August 17, 2007, 01:45 (UTC).

Thanks ! Bewareofdog 00:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Extispicy

Have there ever been any documented cases of extispicy performed with a human corpse? Atropos 03:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Extispicy. This is not an answer, just a link so people can learn what extispicy is. A.Z. 04:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's an article on anthropomancy, googling splanchomancy might yield some results too, (and so would reading about blood libel). ---Sluzzelin talk 04:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Mrdeath5493 06:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's its own form of divination. Thanks. Atropos 07:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you any idea where that bizarre suggestion about the nocturnal practices of the Emperor Julian comes from, Sluzzelin? It's not something I have ever come across before. One small observation: the blood libel has nothing to do with extispicy. Clio the Muse 07:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have absolutely no clue, Clio. You are, of course, right: blood libel is not directly linked to extispicy. However, our fascination with the gruesome practices Atropos asked about, and our readiness to attribute them to groups we know little about seemed psychologically related. I guess I was being unnecessarily didactic. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, then; if it's the gruesome for the sake of the gruesome, what about this little beauty! I am in blood steeped in so far that, should I wade no more, returning were as tedious as go o'er. Clio the Muse 07:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You need look no further than the present day and your home island. Smile, though your heart is aching... --Sluzzelin talk 08:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, here's a literary case of human extispicy, cf the article on Roger Zelazny's Creatures of Light and Darkness: "In one scene, a "scrier" (or augur) tries to read the future by disemboweling and examining the entrails of a professional rival. He misses an important detail, and his victim screams "They are my innards! I will not have them misread by a poseur!" " John Z 09:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I seem to remember that words like augur and auspicious have their roots in the Latin avis (bird), due to extispicy and also the scrier looking at (-spic-) the flight patterns of birds. --Sean 14:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Clio, The Donning International Encyclopedic Psychic Dictionary, ed. June G. Bletzer PhD (Donning Company, Norfolk, Virgina, 1986) has this: "anthropomancy ...It is reported that in his magical operations, Julian the Apostate caused a large number of children to be killed, so that he might consult their entrails..." - but no source is given. The editor is described as 'a self-professed proponent of parapsychology' and also writes about reincarnation and karma. Xn4 14:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for that information, Xn4. Julian was an admirer of Greek pagan culture and, as such, would have despised any form of human sacrifice. As far as I am concerned the suggestion that he was responsible for the ritual murder of children is little better than a grotesque fabrication, quite possibly of recent provenance, which seems to have made its way into Wikipedia without any form of credible support. Clio the Muse 00:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Pleasant. Atropos 19:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

All this grue reminds me of a funny blurb in this month's Harper's Magazine by Daniil Kharms, a mid-century writer later executed for writing allegedly anti-Soviet children's literature. Here's a lesser translation: [2] --Sean 14:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

And all this time I thouught "extispicy" was one of the varieties of fried chicken! Edison 15:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

and I thought it was the suburban disco drug that makes Paris Hilton look like that. --Wetman 23:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Parliament and the Tudors

How important a part did parliament play in the government of Tudor England?Hope and Glory 11:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Do your own homework. The reference desk won't give you answers for your homework, although we will try to help you out if there's a specific part of your homework you don't understand. Make an effort to show that you've tried solving it first. Lanfear's Bane

You'll get a bit (not much) of help from reading this: Parliament_of_England#King.2C_Lords_and_Commons:_1485-1603_.28including_the_annexation_of_Wales.29 and following the links. --Dweller 13:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

NO BITEE NEWBEE !!!! Rhinoracer 17:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, Hope and Glory, you should be mindful of the fact that parliament, though important, was an infrequent feature of Tudor politics. In the period between the acession of Henry VIII in 1509 and the death of Elizabeth I in 1603 there were 43 years when there was no parliament at all, 26 of these during the reign of Elizabeth. Even when they did meet they were of short duration. In total all of Elizabeth's parliaments were only in session for 126 weeks. Compared to the Medieval period the institution would appear to have been in decline, providing some support for notions of Tudor absolutism. It certainly played a vital part during the reign of Henry, passing all of the acts which were such an essential part of the English Reformation, though thereafter its significance decreased. For Elizabeth its importance seemed minimal at best: governance was hers, and hers alone. More often than not she was happy to rule between parliamentary sessions solely by proclamation. When parliament did meet the debates were pragmatic and directed, often concerned with technical proceedures and matters of local significance, rather than grand political and constitutional causes. It is perfectly true, and without too much romanticism, that the Elizabethan age was not one of the great ages of parliament; but it was, nonethless, a period of significant domestic calm; of a high degree of consensus between the rulers and the ruled, united in the face of external threat. The real debates, the real tensions, and the rise of parliamentray assertivness, belongs to the age of Stuarts, not that of the Tudors. Clio the Muse 03:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Clio. Could you please look at my new question posted below.Hope and Glory 12:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Attila

I grew up with the image of Attila as a rampaging, brutal barbarian. The more I read, though, the more I sense that he was a far more complex character. For example, he seemed to be a very effective user of diplomacy and law, made complex alliances (with the Romans, among others!) Is there anything to be said in Attila's favor? History, after all, is written by the victors.

On the other hand, his foe Aetius, the "Last Roman", strikes me as being less a hero than an opportunistic, manipulating creep.

BTW, Nero also stikes me as getting excessive bad press. True? Rhinoracer 11:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave others to treat Attila. Nero does get a bad press from Roman sources and it's difficult to pick apart whether he was quite the bad guy he's made out. If you want a Roman emperor deserving of bad press, try Caligula. --Dweller 11:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

i to held the same beliefs, and have started to change them after some reading. On the subject of Nero the BBC (British TV co) ran a seris of docu-ramas on the emperors of rome, and Nero (to begin with) was potrayed as all right, he didn't fiddle while rome burned but rather opened his private gardens to allow the citizens somewhere to sheleter during the great fire. Then he rebuilt rome, but to raise the finance he had a list of the richest citizens drawn up, had them forcably change their wills to benefit the rebuilding of rome and then oredered them to commit suicide and he also killed his wife in a fit of anger (but felt really bad about it and had a male slave castrated so that he could take her place). As for Attila she should be along soon with a full account of their lives, once she has finished playing with her new sports car (ooh you'll burn for that one perry) :pPerry-mankster 12:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Vroom... Clio the Muse 02:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Nero follows the pattern, somewhat, of Caligula: pretty much alright at first, then weird, then weirder, then too weird for toleration. However, he was also put into position by murder and double dealing, and quite a few felt that Claudius allowed a vicious woman to put her half-wit son on the throne. Since blood was the interest of early historians, a bad/undeserving mother means, automatically, an illegitimate rule. Therefore, he was going to get a bad accounting in history, even if he had been a bland emperor. He wasn't bland, though. Whether he was corrupted by power (the old view), venereal disease (a less old view), or lead poisoning (a less old view), he did get increasingly arbitrary and irrational. "What an artist the world is losing," he is supposed to have said with his last breath. For Romans, this would have been tantamount to, "Yes, you were right: I've never been a proper leader."

Attila operated by the codes of his own nomadic peoples. This was, indeed, barbarous to urban nations accustomed to written laws and agriculture. Because he wasn't a cannibal, don't think he was a lovable lug. He was an aggressive, somewhat arbitrary, and brutal guy -- sort of comes with the job description. He didn't eat babies, but that doesn't mean he was a friend of mothers and babies the world over.

If you want some interesting perspectives, you should see how he ends up being fictionalized in "Viking" literature. He is a standard hero/figure in some of the Icelandic sagas. Geogre 12:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Attila is also etzel in the Nibelungenlied in which he plays a secondary role. In the case of "history being written by the victors" in this case 'history was written by those who could write!' ie the romans - who were enemies of attila - hence the bad press. Have a look at attila it mentions a Byzantine historian admiring attila's "humility and simplicity". Most of our (english speaking peoples) negative view of characters such as attila is based upon the foundation of western civilization on greek and roman legends and historical perspective. The romans come across as having nothing good to say about any non-roman people - everyone else was barbarians. We simply don't have any accounts that would tell the other side of the story.87.102.14.51 14:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

As a thought experiment, if the Axis had won World War 2, how would books and movies depict Churchill, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, "Bomber" Harris, and MacArthur, to pick a few examples? Not in terms of totally making things up, but in terms of accentuating the negative and minimizing the positive? Edison 15:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Your assuming that we'd still have books.87.102.14.51 17:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, Rhinoracer, let's explore each of of these individuals in turn, in just the order that you have identified them.

ATTILA. There is little doubt that Attila was skilled, both as a soldier and more generally as the ruler of a great Hun confederation. The image you grew up with is, however, quite right: he was rampaging and brutal, though given the nature of his rule, and the peoples he ruled over, he had little alternative. Despite justifiable Roman fears of the Hun threat, not all of the contemporary assessments of Attila are perhaps as negative as you might assume. Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus, a Roman historian, describes him thus;

Of middle height, he was manly in apperance and well made, neither too frail nor too heavy; he was quick of wit and agile of limb, a very practiced horseman and a skilful archer; he was indefatigable with a spear. A born warrior; he was renowned for the arts of peace, without avarice and little swayed by desire, endowed with gifts of the mind, not swerving from his purpose for any kind of evil instigation. He bore wrongs with utmost patience and loved labour. Undaunted by danger, he was excelled by none in the endurance of hunger, thirst and vigil.

Others who knew him remarked that he was not himself greedy for plunder. When he was visited by a Roman diplomatic mission it was noted that he drank from a simple wooden bowl, as might be used by the lowest of his followers. What he did have a taste for, though, was power; and he was utterly ruthless in maintaining his position at the head of a great barbarian alliance, that included not only his own Huns but also Ostrogoths, Gepids, Franks, Rugians, Sciri, Burgundians and Thuringians. And the only way that he could maintain his hold, and ensure their loyalty, was by finding fresh opportunities for plunder and yet more plunder. His empire, in other words, was an alliance for robbery and destruction. It was also an 'Empire of the Will', so to say, for reasons that should become a little clearer as I proceed.

So, in his quest for plunder, Attila was drawn over the borders of the Roman Empire, first in the east, where he raided in 440, 442 and again in 447. The object was not to conquer but to draw out all of the sources of wealth, so much so that by 450 the Empire was close to econmic exhaustion. The whole destructive, and it might be said, self-destructive campaign, continued, first in Gaul and then in Italy, where the waves were broken. Of this John Julius Norwich has written;

Had the Hunnish army not been halted in these two successive campaigns, had its leader toppled Valentinian from his throne and set up his own capital in Ravenna or Rome, there is little doubt that both Gaul and Italy would have been reduced to spiritual and cultural deserts, just as surely and just as completely as the Balkan peninsula was reduced by the Ottoman Turks a thousand years later. (Byzantium. The Early Centuries, 1988, p. 157)

In the end this great threat came to nothing for one simple reason: Attila was a man caught between two worlds; that of the barbarian nomads, and that of the settled urban world of the Romans. He needed war simply to survive, though old fashioned mounted archery was no longer enough. To take the great cities of the empire he needed siege equipment; he needed to keep their populations under control; to build an administration; to make laws. He did none of these things, and never rose to the real challenge of imperial rule, unlike, say, Genghis Khan, with whom otherwise he mighty stand comparison. In the end the vast Hunnish empire simply imploded on Attila's death in 453, leaving little more than a savage memory. The true victors are those who create history: Attila was just passing through.

AETIUS. I am not quite sure what Flavius Aetius had done to earn you disrespect, or why you feel that it is right to dismiss him as, in your words, a 'manipulating creep'. He was both a politician and a soldier, and as such was no more opportunist and manipulative than any other. He was also placed in a very difficult situation, trying to shore up collapsing Roman power in the west, while facing the internal threat of the Visigoths and the external threat of the Huns, with wholly inadequate resources. If he was quite as 'creepy', and as manipulative as you suggest, it would have been well within his means to replace the incompetent Valentinian III and Aelia Galla Placidia, his scheming mother, and assume the purple himself. He did not. Rather, he effectively saved-at least for a time-the whole of the western empire, by balancing one group of barbarians against another; this is the true and best reading of the outcome of his great victory at the Battle of Chalons. Winning over Theodoric and the Visigoths, his former enemies in Gaul, in an alliance against Attila, was an astute move: it ensured victory. But his actions afterwards showed his true skills as a politician; he allowed the Huns to withdrawn from Chalons unmolested, because a total defeat would have unduly magnified the power of his Visigoth allies. Threat and potential threat were balanced, one against the other, in the unique politics of the late empire. The tragedy was that his success at Chalons only contributed to his downfall: it made the spineless Valentinian all the more jealous, encouraged in his resentment by such 'creepy' courtiers as Petronius Maximus and Heraclius, the imperial chamberlain, who combined to murder him in September 454. After Aetius' death the western empire now entered its final phase of crisis and decline.

NERO. He probably has, in both Tacitus and Suetonius, a better 'press' than he deserves. Suetonius, although he clearly despises Nero, balances the good with the bad, and Tacitus points out just how commendable at least some of his actions were during the Great Fire of Rome. His reign did not begin badly, especially during the period when he was being advised and guided by Seneca. Nero was no 'half-wit' (I know of no source that makes such a suggestion); but the defects in his character were eventually to expose the true weakness of the whole apparatus put in place by Augustus, both tyrannical and contradictory; imperial and republican. The final crisis begins when he starts to lose all restraint in his exercise of pure and egomaniacal forms of power. The Pisonian conspiracy contributed to this, but the real rot comes, as Perry has indicated above, with the building projects he conceived after the Great Fire, so grand that he was on the verge of taxing Rome-and some Romans-quite literally to death. He died an enemy of the state who was in time to become, for the Christians he scapegoated and persecuted, a version of the Anti-Christ. And such is the verdict of history.

My apologies for such a lengthy discourse. Clio the Muse 02:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Clio, never apologise for your wonderful and generous contributions. Thank you very much.

I would also like to compliment you on an excellent, clear and vigorous prose style.

Long may you contribute here! Huzzah! Rhinoracer 08:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I like you! Clio the Muse 23:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thelema Mini-Forum

Don't delete this due to strict wikipolicies, just please help me out.

I am a new Thelemite and also researching it for other purposes, including a broad interest in the occult. If you will allow me to do this here, I wish to keep posting questions I have for you to answer. Yes, I know there is an article, but I want real-time explanations and plus soe of the stuff isn't written well there.

It would also be nice if you could explain stuff I don't ask about, but the questions are there for you to answer.Don;t violate neutrality and opinion wikipolicies please, just answer the best you can.

If any of you practice this (Thelema), please put your input in would be nice.

• 1st one- Is Thelema in any way based on Christianity, as some seems like it may draw those roots, or is it strictly an anti-Christian occult practice. (Also, is it truly dark or is it somewhat goody-goody)?

"(Also, is it truly dark or is it somewhat goody-goody)?" I'm afraid you will have to elaborate on this one, it is too vague to answer. As for policies, they do need to be enforced, on all questions - we can't simply make "one exception". Though, reading the top header helps prevent questions being deleted like this.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 14:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

In addition, I wouldn't expect too many detailed responses here, over and above what you can get from reading Thelema and its related articles. We RD volunteers are a varied bunch, but I wouldn't mind betting there aren't too many practising Thelemites who are regular posters here. Mind you, I've been wrong before. Love is the law, love under will, Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There are forums on this topic on the Internet. Thelema has its own website and forum, for example, here [3]. This might be both more knowledgeable and also more "real time", and thus better suit your purposes, than this Ref Desk. Bielle 15:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Answer what thou wilt shall be the whole of the ref desk. Friday (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The whole concept of Thelema was appropriated from Rabelais in Pantagruel, then wilfully distorted. Thelema was meant to represent the birthing humanism of the Renaissance and the liberation of the individual; there was no occult claptrap whatsoever associated with it. Rhinoracer 17:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Bohemian, Czech, Slovak folklore

I'm interested in learning more about Slovak folklore, specifically it's heros. Anything, anyone, any monster from the late 11th century up to the early 13th century would be preferable. I recently was turned on to King Wenceslaus and that's exactly the kind of person I'm trying to get info on... just more within the timeline I specified.

Thanks!

Beekone 18:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Beekone. You should find one or two leads in the page on Slavic mythology and that on Lech, Czech and Rus, the three brothers who in legend founded the Slavic states of Poland, Bohemia and Ruthenia (Russia). I read lots of central European folklore as a child, most of which I have now forgotten; though I do remember stories about Jecminek, the Moravian king who sleeps under a mountain, chiefly because he reminded me so much of King Arthur. Anyway, have a look for Czech, Moravian and Slovak Folktales by Parker Filmore, and Favourite Fairy Tales Told in Czechoslovakia by Virginia Haviland and Anca Hariton. But the one book I would specifically recommend, though it casts the net more widely, is Myths and Folk-Tales of the Russians, Western Slavs and Magyars by Jeremiah Curtin. Clio the Muse 23:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

bank of america credit card

What's that BoA credit card that rounds up to the dollar every purchase you make and takes that money, puts it in savings for you, and matches it? I can't find it. Thanks.

It's called Keep the Change, and to make use of it you need a Bank of America checking account, check card, and savings account. Link here [4] DuncanHill 19:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

They match it? Oh wow, that makes so much more sense now. The lady at BoA didn't do a very good job of explaining that to me. Plasticup ^T/C 03:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the matching is an introductory thing. —Tamfang 03:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Breast Cancer Patient Anonymity

Hello. Why would a breast cancer patient prefer not telling that s/he has breast cancer to family members? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare 19:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There could be many reasons: a desire for privacy in one's medical condition, a desire to not attract pity, a desire to not unduly upset people when treatment might be successful, a desire to keep a mastectomy out of common knowledge, a desire to be treated normally in the time remaining (in the case of terminal disease), a desire to be left the Hell alone, etc. Disease is deeply personal, breasts are deeply personal, and death is deeply personal, so people will react in deeply personal ways. --Sean 20:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

As this is not an ideal world, it is often the case that family members are at odds with one another, don't trust one another, dislike one another. I can think of some family members I would tell only after I had placed an announcement in the (New York) and (London) Times. Bielle 21:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Sean and Bielle gave great answers to this question. A.Z. 02:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

My mother declined to tell me (for a significant period of time) because I lived a long away away and was under a lot of stress at the time due to work and other personal issues. She decided against adding to that stress, as she knew there was little I could do to help her. Another reason people sometimes don't tell family member is due to genetic privacy. If one discovers one has a genetic disease, then by revealing that to a sibling or child, you immediately give them information about their likelihood of suffering from that disease. This is one of the challenges of genetic testing - information we find out about ourselves has implications for others. Who "owns" that information? Rockpocket 03:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I've always wondered...

How much wood could a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood?

Beekone 20:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Approximately 2.9 kilograms over one two-hour session, rest periods not included. The figure is somewhat higher for the European Marmot. Rhinoracer 20:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this a joke? --Mayfare 20:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Cecil Adams handled this, also. --LarryMac | Talk 20:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

And Google Answers. --LarryMac | Talk 20:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

So long as he didn't locate Peter Piper's missing peck of pickled peppers. Geogre 21:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I got an answer to this from the Internet Oracle: A woodchuck cannot chuck wood, so "none". --Carnildo 23:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, no. The question is "if a wood chuck could chuck wood" [even though you say it can't]. One of the sententiae of Publilius Syrus says "Not every question deserves an answer", and Robert Hauptman continued this: "Not every question has an answer. The unraveling of the non-question seems to be beyond many patrons and librarians." Xn4 13:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe a very similar question was deleted recently.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 22:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? An African or European woodchuck? --Sean 19:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind what I said earlier. A woodchuck would chuck all the wood that a woodchuck could if a woodchuck could chuck wood. If you are interested in more tongue-twisting answers to your question, please see Groundhog#Popular_culture. --Mayfare 01:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Co-ordinates

I've seen coordinates on the top of many Wikipedia articles, and was wondering how one can work these out from a UK postcode. MHDIV ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d(Suggestion?|wanna chat?) 20:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

www.streetmap.co.uk has this facility, enter the postcode, obtain the map, beneath will be an option to convert. DuncanHill 22:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This will of course only be an approximation, especially in sparsely populated districts.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Islamic Emirate of Albania

Any Historians knocking about - I can find no evidence that Islamic Emirate of Albania existed? did it? --Fredrick day 22:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems that it has something to do with the revolt against Essad Pasha. The Mufti of Tirana, Musa Qazim, was involved in the revolt, althoug Google books says nothing about an Emirate and calls the group he was involved with the "Union of Krujë". Haxhi Qamili was definitely another member of the Union and the author of the Emirate piece uploaded an image of him to Image:Haxhiqamil.jpg. Not a hoax, just rather confused I think. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have posted the same query on the Albania page (the actual albania wikiproject is inactive), hopefully somebody knows more about it! --Fredrick day 23:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Frederick, I am really puzzled by this. I have never heard of this alleged Emirate, though I admit that I have no detailed acquaintance with the full complexity of Albanian politics between 1914 and 1920. Essad Pasha Toptani, a soldier and originally a supporter of the Young Turks, set up a provisional government in Tirana in the summer of 1913. When the European powers decided to establish the Kingdom of Albania, Essad accepted this, giving way to William of Wied, the new king. William came and went just as quickly. Essad then took charge again, with the support of the Serbs and Italians, until he was driven out by the invasion of the Central Powers in 1915. I personally would hold the 'Emirate' at arms length, until such time as convincing proof of its existence comes forward. Clio the Muse 23:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Albanian delegates attended the London Balkan Peace Conference in 1912, and their arguments for an independent Albania were strongly supported by Aubrey Herbert (1880–1923), a Conservative member of parliament who was a notable traveller and also a close friend of Asquith. (John Buchan is said to have based his character Sandy Arbuthnot on Herbert.) Following the First Balkan War, the Treaty of Bucharest (1913) recognized a neutral Principality of Albania which was to be under the protection of the European Great Powers (the UK, Austria-Hungary, France, Italy, and the German and Russian Empires). The Treaty of Bucharest (1913) established Albania's borders. Serbia had been occupying northern Albania and did not withdraw until it faced an ultimatum from Austria-Hungary, Germany, and Italy. The Great Powers then established an International Control Commission, which had to overcome a provisional government in Vlorë and a rival government led by Essad Pasha Toptani, who had a small army. To do this, the Commission set about creating an Albanian National Assembly. The Assembly offered the throne of Albania to Herbert, but he declined, and it then agreed to the Great Powers' choice of Prince William of Wied, who took up the reins as sovereign prince in February 1914. Things became stormy, not least because the Albanians hadn't chosen William and didn't take to him. The Ottomans called the new principality a puppet of the Christian powers and appealed to Albanian Muslims to reject it. Soon after the beginning of the Great War, Civil war broke out in Albania, with the Anti-William forces led by Essad Pasha, one of William's ministers who had fallen out with him and been charged with high treason. William lost the civil war and fled in September, 1914. The International Commission established a Regency government in Vlorë. Essad, supported by Serbia, took Tirana and the port of Durrës and established a provisional government, sometimes calling himself President of Albania - this was essentially a Muslim mini-state, and relates to the Wikipedia article Principality of Albania - Durres. In any event, Essad's government had to co-exist with the Regency government in Vlorë. There was considerable confusion in Albania at this time, and it seems entirely possible that someone somewhere (such as the Ottomans) called for an Islamic Emirate of Albania, but if so it was never recognized by any other power. In the autumn of 1915, Albania became one of the many battlefields of the Great War when Austria-Hungary invaded and drove Essad out - he fled to Greece. However, the Regency in Vlorë lasted until its territory was occupied by Italy in November 1916. The French took Korçë in November 1916 and occupied parts of southern Albania. In December, they established a local government with legislative powers. On 23 June 1917, Italy proclaimed the creation of a 'Republic of Albania' under Italian protection. Meanwhile, there were Albanian guerrilla forces about... but I am going beyond the period which Fredrick has asked about. Xn4 07:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

so what should we do with that article? Merge it with Principality of Albania - Durres? --Fredrick day 09:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't see anything in it worth keeping. This is in the period in which an independent Albania was formed, after centuries of Ottoman rule, but the main article on Albania has just four sentences headed Effects of the Balkan Wars to cover the years between 1912 and 1925. Principality of Albania is more or less okay, so far as it goes. As the Principality had international recognition, I should have thought that might be the place for any material about the civil war, rebel groups, etc. Xn4 11:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

OK I'll PROD the article and go from there.. --Fredrick day 11:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

This question is begging a retelling of the anecdote about C. B. Fry, invited to become King of Albania while attending the League of Nations conference after the War as Ranji's speechwriter: "Do not accept the crown of Albania", advised Hilaire Belloc, "be content with a cellar of wine and the society of those who love you."[5] -- !! ?? 14:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that story is very exaggerated. I don't believe he was ever offered the throne. --Counter-revolutionary 14:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The claim that Fry was offered the Albanian throne appears in several books about cricket, but it seems to be based on his own story and not on any recorded decision of the Great Powers or the multiplicity of Albanian governments. Here is what the Dictionary of National Biography's article Fry, Charles Burgess (1872–1956), sportsman and journalist, by Clive Ellis says... Xn4 18:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

“ Fry was also politically active between the wars. He was persuaded by Ranjitsinhji to work as his assistant when he represented the Indian princes at the League of Nations, and it was also in Geneva in 1920, so Fry claimed, that he was offered the chance of becoming king of Albania. ”

Oh, I doubt there was ever any kind of formal offer: the way it is usually recounted is that the suggestion was made informally by some Albanian representatives, but Fry was unable to take it up because his income was insufficient. As our article on anecdote says:

“ An anecdote is always based on real life, an incident involving actual persons, whether famous or not, in real places. However, over time, modification in reuse may convert a particular anecdote to a fictional piece, one that is retold but is "too good to be true". ”

Fry was certainly in Geneva at the time, as were some Albanian representatives, and it is possible that an offer of some kind could have been made to him; so it is certainly a good anecdote, whether it happened or not. -- !! ?? 19:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)