Procedures :-
1) A asks a question, the rest will try to answer.
2) A must confirm which answer is correct.
3) Person (say B) with confirmed correct answer then asks the next question.
4) A cannot play again until B's turn is over (to prevent the thread turning into a 2 person spam party).
5) Repeat.
6) If person asking question doesn't login to confirm answers within 72 hrs of his question being posted, any one can ask a new question.
7) If no one can answer question within 72 hrs or can't get the right one, questioner can ask again.
8) NO Net book, or other resource searches.
9) If answer has been confirmed and the new questioner hasn't set a question in 72 hours, anyone can ask the new question.

First thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=102729)
Second thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=120301)
Third thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=156172)
Fourth thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=229120)
Fifth Thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=270464)
Sixth Thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=307940)

Well, I'll shoot.
Which European ruler used a crown fashioned to the likeness of a goat's head?

Skanderbeg of Albania, I believe.

Civking, not "preferably" no Net or book searches, none at all :)

Skanderbeg of Albania, I believe.
Correct, you are up.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/49/Skanderbeg_crown.JPG
Why such choice, I wonder? :hmm:
Civking, not "preferably" no Net or book searches, none at all :)
That would be civ_editor, I believe. ;)

Yes its editor not king

My apologies. The late hour is affecting my literary skills :P

Civking, not "preferably" no Net or book searches, none at all :)
WHAT ARE YOU ACCUSING ME OF??? :p
Correct, you are up.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/49/Skanderbeg_crown.JPG
Why such choice, I wonder? :hmm:

That would be civ_editor, I believe. ;)

That is one very big picture

I'll try to come up with a descent question. Meanwhile the floor is open.

Oooo! I have another question :D

I'll give it a shot.

What nation's air force once deliberately sank its own navy's flagship and why?

For some reason, I'm thinking Austria did that at the end of World War I to keep the Italians from capturing it.

My first thought was WWII in the south Pacific. I know that few capital ships were sunk directly by enemy action, most were scuttled afterward (usually by torpedo fire).

I'll give it a shot.

What nation's air force once deliberately sank its own navy's flagship and why?

airforce rules out WWI so Japan?

I think I have very vague image of it being USA in the pacific to block some strait. However it seems very unlikely, since Americans would then surely know this.

The French to stop the Germans getting it? Although I seem to remember that we did that.

No, no, no, no, and no.

Just a hint, nothing to do with WWI or WWII.

The French to stop the Germans getting it? Although I seem to remember that we did that.
The RN bombed and shelled a number of French shis (Mers-el-Kebir [sp?]), the French also scuttle a large part of the fleet on their own (Toulon), but that was done by the crews themselves.

Was it a flagship at the time of the sinking (i.e. it wasn't an old ship sunk in training)?

Was it a flagship at the time of the sinking (i.e. it wasn't an old ship sunk in training)?

It was the nation's then current flagship and its most powerful vessel. No scuttling or training exercise involved.

I'll give it a shot.

What nation's air force once deliberately sank its own navy's flagship and why?
sounds like something the Soviets would do

Nope. No Soviets.

Nope. No Soviets.

are they considered a major power within the last 50 years?

This is really strange, knowing that I have no chance i tried googling it, but that didn't help.

There are only two reasons I can think of for sinking a current major combat vessel:
a) scuttling a crippled ship
b) hostile forces seized it (i.e. a mutiny)

A block ship would almost certainly be an older and/or weaker vessel unless the situation was desperate, and outside of WWII I can't think of any time when that is likely.

Unless it is an poor navy with older ships, then maybe they wanted to dispose of it (i.e. they had an antiquated cruiser that was still more powerful then the rest of the fleet, but not worth running).

The Danes of WWII scuttled their entire navy to keep it away from the naxis

@Civ King - No, not a major power.

@say1988 - Yep, this question is Google-proof.
Your reasoning is generally sound, but it doesn't cover quite all contingencies. Scuttling, for whatever reason, was definitely not the motive behind the sinking.

@ civ editor11 - Not the Danes, either.

Did they think it was hostile?

This is really strange, knowing that I have no chance i tried googling it, but that didn't help.

There are only two reasons I can think of for sinking a current major combat vessel:
a) scuttling a crippled ship
b) hostile forces seized it (i.e. a mutiny)

A block ship would almost certainly be an older and/or weaker vessel unless the situation was desperate, and outside of WWII I can't think of any time when that is likely.

Unless it is an poor navy with older ships, then maybe they wanted to dispose of it (i.e. they had an antiquated cruiser that was still more powerful then the rest of the fleet, but not worth running).

It could also be a nation that lost its seacoast (hence my guess of Austria), which signed a naval limitations treaty or didn't want a hostile nation capturing it.

Was it during the Suez Crisis?

@Flying Pig - It was definitely an overtly hostile act, no mistaken identity.

@sydhe - That would still more or less be an act of scuttling.

@nonconformist - No, nothing to do with Suez.

Someone like Cuba during their revolution, perhaps?

@Flying Pig - It was definitely an overtly hostile act, no mistaken identity.
Hmm... did the ship's name begin with "Ko"?
Because that's what I found Googling :p - but that definitely was a case of mistaken identity? :confused:

@Arakhor - No, not Cuba, though you are kind of on the right track thinking revolution.

@Yeekim - No mistaken identity. The sinking was a very deliberate act.

Perhaps Spain during the civil war? The air forces and navy were on different sides perhaps?

NeoCon, go ask something in the general knowledge quiz in the forum games

No, not Spain, but this county's air force and navy were definitely not seeing eye-to-eye during this incident.

72 hour mark is almost up.

Anyone else care to give it a shot?

It's not usually enforced, at least if people keep guessing. Try to give hint instead.

I guess I could keep letting this roll on, but since I seem to have everybody stumped, here's the answer:

During the 1951 Manhattan Coup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Rebellion), Officers of the Royal Thai Navy seized Prime Minister Plaek Pibulsonggram (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaek_Pibulsonggram) (Pibun, for short) and held him hostage aboard their flagship, HTMS Si Ayutthaya. The Royal Thai Army and Royal Thai Police (actually as formidable as the Army, if not more so), totally disregarding their erstwhile PM's safety, proceeded to call upon the Royal Thai Air Force to bomb the Si Ayutthaya, which the Air Force duly did. Pibun survived; the ship didn't.

I asked this same question on the totalwar.org forums and nobody got it there either.

New question. This one should be a lot easier:

Who was the first explorer to survey enough of Antarctica to prove it a continent instead of merely a collection of islands?

New question. This one should be a lot easier:

Who was the first explorer to survey enough of Antarctica to prove it a continent instead of merely a collection of islands?

was thi a US navy guy by the name of Wilkes?

Yeah, that would be the man. Charles Wilkes, commander of the United States Exploring Expedition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Exploring_Expedition,_1838-1842).

Almost 3 days now civ_king you need to ask a question or it'll be open floor

I apologize
I meant to say open floor

Why is a stool (the chair) called a stool?

I had this a few years ago in school vey interesting answer

I take it the floor is now open, but I don't have a question.

Anyone?

Why did John Harrison set about to make a better watch?
...and why was that so important?

Wild guess, but for navigation at sea, to be able to reliable determine longitude.

Was it by any chance in order to win a money prize offered by the Crown? Which he ending up not receiving anyway, despite his success?

Civ-editor could also post the answer to his question. I'd like to know.

Camikaze gets it :)

say1988 is partially correct, but Harrison didn't set out to make a better watch to determine longitude at sea - he did it for the prize and accolades. Dava Sobel wrote a light little book about it, but it didn't go into nearly as much technical detail as I would have liked.

Okay.

What was the name of the organisation headed by Xavier Dorsch from 1942-1945?

Organisation Todt?

Correct.

Ill figure out question when at home (few hours).

Quick one: Poland had a special king on 14th century. King died at the ripe age of 25 or 26 after ruling a decade. What was the name of this king and what was the odd thing?

Was this king a woman? I think the name would be Jagwa or Jadwa or something polish.

Fast! Correct, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jadwiga_of_Poland

The Albigensian Crusade was a twenty year military campaign initiated by the Roman Catholic Church, and probably the most successful crusade in history. Where did this campaign take place, and followers of what sect were targeted?

Southern France, against Cathars.

Correct

What was the diggers-movement about?

What was the diggers-movement about?

Gold Diggers?:eek:
You mean those pre-commie eco-commies? of a Brit flavour?

What was the diggers-movement about?

Wasn't that a group of English farmers who lived on communes? I think it was in the early 1700's or 1800's?

Pardon me Civ King. I was on the previous page and didn't see that you had posted the same answer.

Yes that's right, I was kind of hoping for more detailed answer, but am too lazy at the moment. It was in the middle of 17th century though.

They settled wastelands, but it didn't stop other farmers and officials harassing them. I think it speaks volumes about human mind: it doesn't matter whether your actions take away something from the others, more important is that you think differently, and it's the biggest crime you can do.

Citedon gets it

Thank you civ king.

In April of 1775, shortly after Lexington and Concord the Continental Army surrounded the British in Boston. The Americans forced the British to leave Boston by placing cannon on Dorchester Heights. From this vantage point the cannon could fire on Boston, the surrounding area, and the British fleet. In order for the plan to succeed, the cannon had to be placed along Dorchester Heights under the cover of darkness with the task being completed in one night. This was accomplished by using ingeniously designed portable breastworks which required virtually no digging. What is the name of the young officer who designed these breastworks?
Two hints – He later became the first Surveyor General of the United States. And he had a more famous cousin who was a general in the Continental Army.

Famous cousin...Rufus Putnam?

Rufus Putnam it is. That was fast! I honestly thought that would be a tough question.

A reenactor friend of mine did a paper on the Ohio Company for a class and she couldn't stop talking about him a few weeks ago. :p It was a good question though.

I suck at making questions for this, so it's up for grabs.

What time period is leaded glass from?

Going to guess ~1500-2000 BC.

Guessing 500BC - 1AD

Going to guess ~1500-2000 BC.

Guessing 500BC - 1AD

both wrong, I misstated the question and meant Leaded Glass WINDOWS
like
http://www.maintainyourchurch.org.uk/Portals/0/Glossary5/imj999.jpg
any type of glass

1450BC-550BC

But say1988's answer was my first choice :sad:

both wrong, i misstated the question and meant leaded glass windows
like
http://www.maintainyourchurch.org.uk/portals/0/glossary5/imj999.jpg
any type of glass

0ad-1000ad

I'd say 12th Century, probably in France.

:bump:
civ_king??

I'm new to this thread and I'm not sure if I'm jumping the gun but its been well over 72 hours. So here is a question:

In 1803 Robert Emmet tried to ignite a rebellion against British rule in Ireland by taking Dublin Castle the administrative centre of British Rule. His plan was to sneak into the castle in carraiges after dark. He recruited men from the nearby countryside however they came too early and Emmet told them to disperse accross the city and come back closer to the attack. Most did not return, why?

They were drunk?

Yes, great guess. It could be argued that the men were unimpressed with the lack of guns, but the main reason is they had nothing better to do so just filled up the pubs in dublin.

I pass on creating the next question. Someone else go ahead.

All right, I'll take a shot.

What connects the following people:
Emperor Nero, Martin Luther, Peter the Great, Napoleon, Grigory Rasputin, Friderich Nietzsche, Ronald Reagan, Mikhail Gorbachev and John Paul II?

The list is not exhaustive.

All right, I'll take a shot.

What connects the following people:
Emperor Nero, Martin Luther, Peter the Great, Napoleon, Grigory Rasputin, Friderich Nietzsche, Ronald Reagan, Mikhail Gorbachev and John Paul II?

The list is not exhaustive.

All male? All of them knew how to write? None of them were ever on the internet? :D

Maybe you could be a leeetle more specific?

All male? All of them knew how to write? None of them were ever on the internet? :D

Maybe you could be a leeetle more specific?
I am not sure if Rasputin ever really learned to write.
And I am pretty sure Gorby knows what Internet is. :D

I can't be much more specific though - the question should not be too difficult as it is anyway. At least I think it isn't. I'll try to give clues if noone gets it within 24 hours.

They're all male, all famous and all except Gorbachev are dead.

You really need to give us a hint or something.

famous Antichrists?

They're all foreign.

I agree that this seems a bit too vague. I'd guess it's got something to do with mental illness but I don't think that covers all of them.

famous Antichrists?
Correct! :goodjob:
They've all been labelled to be the Antichrist.
I knew someone will get it before long. :)

Ronald Wilson Reagan: six letters in each name, therefore 666.
I wonder if Martin Luther had a middle name.

Fortunately for him, he didn't need a middle name, or any coincidences, to be an Antichrist.

I'm sure I said this somewhere recently, but 666 has nothing to do with the antichrist. It is the number of the Beast.

Yeah, but the number and/or the beast are commonly associated with the antichrist.

"commonly" isn't really all that important. There are thousands and thousands of things that are commonly assumed to be 'facts' from religious texts. But just because a 'fact' comes from a religious text doesn't mean it's a historical fact. For that matter, the whole idea of an 'antichrist' is just about as far removed historical fact as is The Labors of Hercules.

Talking matter-of-factly about something like 'the number of the beast' is better suited to a mythology forum, not a world history forum.

New business:
What trivial distinction do these places share?:
France, Catalonia, Sicily, England.

Normans?

The Saxons didn't see the Normans as a distinction! I wish these questions were less vague.

not Normans

They were all enemies of Felipe V...

not Normans
Meh, I took a guess that covered 3 of the 4. I know nothing about Catalonia, other than that there are a number of Catalonian nationalists here.

I'm sure I said this somewhere recently, but 666 has nothing to do with the antichrist. It is the number of the Beast.

Ronald Wilson Reagan was the Beast? Then George Walker Bush was the neighbor of the Beast.

"commonly" isn't really all that important. There are thousands and thousands of things that are commonly assumed to be 'facts' from religious texts. But just because a 'fact' comes from a religious text doesn't mean it's a historical fact. For that matter, the whole idea of an 'antichrist' is just about as far removed historical fact as is The Labors of Hercules.

Talking matter-of-factly about something like 'the number of the beast' is better suited to a mythology forum, not a world history forum.

Not at all. It's a historical fact that these things appear in texts and that people believed them. History is about beliefs as well as events. In this case it is a historical fact that, according to the book of Revelation, 666 is the number of the Beast; whether the author of Revelation was right to think this is an entirely different matter.

I'm sure I said this somewhere recently, but 666 has nothing to do with the antichrist. It is the number of the Beast.
Isn't Antichrist the Beast of the Sea? :confused:

No - in fact the word "antichrist" does not occur in Revelation at all.

No - in fact the word "antichrist" does not occur in Revelation at all.
Well, yes, but haven't the two (or three, actually) been quite mixed up historically? At least according to wiki (such as it is, I know...)
The Beast is a figure in the Book of Revelation, the last book of the New Testament. There are two beasts described in Revelation 13; the First Beast arises out of the sea, having seven heads and 10 horns. The Second (Lamb-like) Beast arises out of the earth, having the appearance of a lamb while speaking like a dragon. This Beast exercises authority on behalf of the first beast, causing the Earth-dwellers to make an image of the First Beast, and worship him. It is able to give life to this image so that it could speak and kill anyone who doesn't worship the First Beast. This Beast is later called “The False Prophet” (Rev. 16:13; Rev. 19:20; Rev. 20:10). In Christian eschatology the Beast together with the Dragon (Satan) and the First Beast (the Antichrist) forms the unholy trinity.
Irenaeus (2nd century AD - c. 202) held that Rome, the fourth prophetic kingdom, would end in a tenfold partition. The ten divisions of the empire are the "ten horns" of Daniel 7 and the "ten horns" in Revelation 17. A "little horn," which is to supplant three of Rome's ten divisions, is also the still future "eighth" in Revelation. [32][33]

He identified the Antichrist with Paul's Man of Sin, Daniel's Little Horn, and John's Beast of Revelation 13. He sought to apply other expressions to Antichrist, such as "the abomination of desolation," mentioned by Christ (Matt. 24:15) and the "king of a most fierce countenance," in Gabriel's explanation of the Little Horn of Daniel 8.[34][35]
Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170-c. 236) held that the Antichrist would come from the tribe of Dan and would rebuild the Jewish temple in order to reign from it. He identified the Antichrist with the Beast out of the Earth from the book of Revelation.

By the beast, then, coming up out of the earth, he means the kingdom of Antichrist; and by the two horns he means him and the false prophet after him. And in speaking of “the horns being like a lamb,” he means that he will make himself like the Son of God, and set himself forward as king. And the terms, “he spake like a dragon,” mean that he is a deceiver, and not truthful.[39]

Yes, but then you're talking about the antichrist/Beast/whatever as understood by Irenaeus/Hippolytus/whoever. If literary or mythological images, characters, or tropes appear differently in different authors, then you have to be careful about what you say about them. You can't say that the Beast simply is the antichrist when the texts in which both of those concepts first appear do not so identify them - at most you can say, as you indicated, that later authors identity them. It's like saying that the Joker is the man who killed Bruce Wayne's parents. He is in one version of the story, but not in others.

Ronald Wilson Reagan: six letters in each name, therefore 666.
I wonder if Martin Luther had a middle name.
Martin Luther didn't need a middle name to be evil
New business:
What trivial distinction do these places share?:
France, Catalonia, Sicily, England.

Catalonia<>Spain
Sicily<>Italy
England<>UK

or something to do with finances which I know Sicily and England share
or maybe they have been owned by each other? France<>England and Catalonia<>Sicily?

Martin luther was a douch.

Correct! :goodjob:
They've all been labelled to be the Antichrist.
I knew someone will get it before long. :)

Backing up a little: John Paul II as the Antichrist? WTF???? I'm no great fan of the Papacy and Catholicism in general, but labelling the Pope as the Antichrist? Isn't that sort of a contradiction in terms?

Yes, but then you're talking about the antichrist/Beast/whatever as understood by Irenaeus/Hippolytus/whoever. If literary or mythological images, characters, or tropes appear differently in different authors, then you have to be careful about what you say about them. You can't say that the Beast simply is the antichrist when the texts in which both of those concepts first appear do not so identify them - at most you can say, as you indicated, that later authors identity them. It's like saying that the Joker is the man who killed Bruce Wayne's parents. He is in one version of the story, but not in others.
Ok, that makes sense. I was just a bit confused by your original statement that 666 is the number of the Beast and, as such, has nothing to do with Antichrist. :)
Backing up a little: John Paul II as the Antichrist? WTF???? I'm no great fan of the Papacy and Catholicism in general, but labelling the Pope as the Antichrist? Isn't that sort of a contradiction in terms?
Actually, Popes (and the entire institution of papacy) have probably been labelled as Antichrists more often than anybody else throughout history. :lol:

Naskra, could you give some hints? "Trivial distinction" sounds quite vague.


I wonder if Martin Luther had a middle name.

Some years ago I read book called Archimedes' revenge, which had quite hilarious passage about these beasts. I probably remember it wrong, but here we go anyway:

During the reformation a German monk was convinced that Pope Leo X was the beast, and to prove this he chose every Roman numeral from pope's name: LEO DECIMVS. They add to MDCLVI=1656. Then this monk noticed that he must add Leo's ordinal number, X, and it becomes MDCLXVI=1666. Now considering that M must be omitted as Mystery, it's DCLXVI=666.

At the same time some other monk knew that Martin Luther was the beast. He thought that every letter of his name must be coded according to it's place in the alphabet: A=1, B=2,..., but after K=10 (there's no difference between I and J) they increase by 10: L=20, M=30,... and after T=100 by hundreds: U=V=200, W=300... Now Martin Luthera= 30+1+80+100+9+40+20+200+100+8+5+80+1=674, so this isn't quite right yet. However, the monk was not deceived by the devil this time either, since he noticed that instead of I=9, it should be I=1. And again you get neatly 666. (Had to google little bit for this)

The book told that the latter monk was almost killed due to these views, and had to flee. He begun calculating the exact date of doomsday, and gained some following, but when the day came and nothing special happened, he's disappointed pupils almost killed him. After escaping for the second time he decided to quit numerology.

These are probably little bit coloured stories, or perhaps even complete fabrication, but it doesn't bother me.

There's probably somewhere in the net a machine to which you can feed names, and it tells how the beast's number is gotten from it.

Hint:
Also Vienna, Paris,and Budapest
The answer is just the beginning.

Hint:
Also Vienna, Paris,and Budapest
The answer is just the beginning.

Treaties to Major Conflicts? or major cultural cities?

Conflict is a relevant word.

A lot of those get their names from tribes. Do they all?

Towns affected by the revolts 1848?

Towns affected by the revolts 1848?
"England"? Really?

Oops, missed the question because of that other discussion..

I know the Normans had some fun in England, France, and Sicily, but I don't think they were involved in Catalonia at all.

Well, it's nearly been six days, so Naskra has to provide the answer or someone else is entitled to jump in.

Well, it's nearly been six days, so Naskra has to provide the answer or someone else is entitled to jump in.
I'd appreciate the answer anyway...

They don't exist by treaty (or have no treaty proving their existance)?

They don't exist by treaty (or have no treaty proving their existance)?
France?

They all gave the names to airlines?

No and no.

No and no.

what is the ****ing answer???

why are the sides of a ship called port and starboard?

No idea if this is true or just apocryphal, but I have heard that Port is the side that was normally to the dock (port).

Is it something to do with Aragonese-Catalan flag?

what is the ****ing answer???

why are the sides of a ship called port and starboard?

In German the right side is 'Steuerbord' - I think starboard is derived from the same Germanic source. It literally means 'the side the ship is steered on', from the times when ships were steered by an oar affixed to the stern on one side. Since most people are right-handed, that was usually on the right.
Not sure about the exact derivation of 'port', but it's the side the ship docked on, since the steering oar was on the other side and in the way. So, since 'port' more-or-less equals 'harbor'....

Isn't port in German "backbord" or something?

Isn't port in German "backbord" or something?

Quite right ... I'm not sure of the derivation, though - the side w/o the steering oar in any case.

Edit: Just looked it up - seems no one else is sure how the word 'Backbord' is derived, either, so I don't have to feel stupid :-)

What does "back" mean in this context?

Naskra, you rascal, are you going to give us the answer? :hammer:

What does "back" mean in this context?

That's the part no one is really sure of!
It could refer to the back of the steersman - with the rudder on the right, his back would tend to face left. Then again, in German the back is referred to as 'Rücken', not 'back' ... but it could be re-imported from Old English or some such

That's the part no one is really sure of!
It could refer to the back of the steersman - with the rudder on the right, his back would tend to face left. Then again, in German the back is referred to as 'Rücken', not 'back' ... but it could be re-imported from Old English or some such
In Estonian, its "pakpoord" and "tüürpoord", respectively. "Tüür" means "rudder" or "steering oar" btw...

In Estonian, its "pakpoord" and "tüürpoord", respectively. "Tüür" means "rudder" or "steering oar" btw...

... and what does "pak" mean? That could be a clue to the German meaning..

Would "back" have something to do with loading (of cargo)? The older English term that was replaced by port, larboard, is derived from that. Of course it may be an obsolete term with little or no connection to modern ones.

Three days have also passed since CivKing's question. What's going on?

Three days have also passed since CivKing's question. What's going on?

I've been in transit

starboard comes from steorbord (steerboard), because of how the rudder was, they loaded from the opposite side so not to damage the rudder

port=portside, sarboard=steering side, and yes the English and German definition because this predates Old English when the languages were one

Naskra you have to give us the answer now

Sod him. He clearly can't be asked to give us the answer two weeks after he asked the question.

I have a question if no one else wants to go.

What was the real occasion of this fabricated quotation?

"Peccavi--"

To whom is it attributed, for what, and when?

Wasn't this supposedly on a telegram from the British commander in Sindh after he conquered that province?

Wasn't this supposedly on a telegram from the British commander in Sindh after he conquered that province?

Peccavi = I have sinned.

General Charles Napier in 1842 launched a controversial, but successful assault on the province of Sind to consolidate British control of India. His telegram announcing his successful annexation of the territory was the one word "Peccavi--"; a pun on the Latin "I have sinned".

Although very well-known, the 'peccavi' telegram story was apparently invented after the fact by a newspaper reporter.

:goodjob:

... and what does "pak" mean? That could be a clue to the German meaning..
I'd wager it's itself a loan from German, not the other way around.
Would "back" have something to do with loading (of cargo)? The older English term that was replaced by port, larboard, is derived from that. Of course it may be an obsolete term with little or no connection to modern ones.
...but "pakk" does mean a package or a parcel.

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m51/Grenadier_539/HistoryQuiz-1.png

I'm looking for a person.

The man to the upper left is Puyi, the last emperor of China and later emperor of Manchukuo. The second man in the lower row is a warlord who was head of Manchuria. I have no idea what this has to do with the Black Sea.

I don't get the geographic clues, but my guess is Sun Yat-Sen.

Chiang Kai-Shek

..."Peccavi--"; a pun on the Latin "I have sinned".

:confused: I don't understand the pun. Could someone explain?

"I have Sindh"

Bottom left looks like Yuan Shikai...I almost wanna say "Roman Fyodorovich Ungern von Sternberg" but I dunno what connection he's got to a coupla these things.

Oh my, I can't believe I missed the pun. :blush:

The man to the upper left is Puyi, the last emperor of China and later emperor of Manchukuo. The second man in the lower row is a warlord who was head of Manchuria. I have no idea what this has to do with the Black Sea.

Bottom left looks like Yuan Shikai...

They're right so far...

I don't get the geographic clues, but my guess is Sun Yat-Sen.

Chiang Kai-Shek

I almost wanna say "Roman Fyodorovich Ungern von Sternberg" but I dunno what connection he's got to a coupla these things.

None of these, though you're in the right historical period.

Bottom left looks like Yuan Shikai...I almost wanna say "Roman Fyodorovich Ungern von Sternberg" but I dunno what connection he's got to a coupla these things.
...and besides, it wasn't too long ago when I made a picture quiz about him :)

We also see Blue Sky & White Sun from the Taiwanese flag and Teutonic Cross (?)...

Maybe Kolchak? He used to command the Black Sea fleet...

.We also see Blue Sky & White Sun from the Taiwanese flag and Teutonic Cross (?)...

The Blue Sky and White Sun yes, although this is a Teutonic cross:

http://www.seiyaku.com/images/cross/teutonic.png

Maybe Kolchak? He used to command the Black Sea fleet...

Nope.

The Manchurian Warlord is Zhang Zhou Lin.

He was assassinated by the Japanese Army.

The clues are puzzling. Yuan Shi Kai was dead when Puyi was 6 and Zhang Zhou Lin wasn't in power yet.
Can you give us a little hint?

The Manchurian Warlord is Zhang Zhou Lin.

He was assassinated by the Japanese Army.

The clues are puzzling. Yuan Shi Kai was dead when Puyi was 6 and Zhang Zhou Lin wasn't in power yet.
Can you give us a little hint?

This person was involved with all of them during his lifetime.

I doubt whether he had personal contact with Yuan Shikai. However, Yuan Shikai is there more to represent an organization, of which Yuan was a leader and in which this person was part of.

The geographic clues are quite important.

This person was involved with all of them during his lifetime.

I doubt whether he had personal contact with Yuan Shikai. However, Yuan Shikai is there more to represent an organization, of which Yuan was a leader and in which this person was part of.

The geographic clues are quite important.

So...this guy is part of the Beiyang Army...
Does Inner Mongolia refer to some battle that this guy is involved with the Feng Tian Clique at Zhili?

Or the Zhili Clique found by Feng Guozhang?

Zhou Enlai?

Feng Yuxiang

Feng Yuxiang

Feng Yuxiang, also known as the Christian General, sided with and betrayed just about every participants in the Chinese Civil War (earning him his other alias, the Defector General). Originally a soldier in the Beiyang Army under Yuan Shikai, he became one of the major warlord figures of the 1920s. In 1924 his army seized Beijing and banished Emperor Puyi from Forbidden Palace. He subsequently became involved in a war with Zhang Zoulin. He sided with the Kuomintang during the Northern Expedition but subsequently betrayed it and fought the Central Plains War alongside Yan Xishan. For a while he led an anti-Japanese rebel army in Inner Mongolia, then sided again with the Kuomintang during the World War. He died in a fire while crossing the Black Sea in 1948, on the way back to China from the United States via the Soviet Union.

Your turn. :goodjob:

Ok, so keeping the picture theme here is another difficult one.

Is it Samuel Rockenbach, the father of the American Tank Corps?

Is it Samuel Rockenbach, the father of the American Tank Corps?

Nope, but that's an excellent guess.

Hmmm. Patton was at St. Mihiel. Ft-17s also fought at St. Mihiel, it was one of the first large-scale tank assaults.

My first instinct is the obvious guess of Blackjack Pershing, but I can't include all the pictures in it. Oregon is the tough one, and I don't know who is standing next to Ike.

Of course, we don't even know whether we're looking for a person, an event, or what! So which is it?

Is that Joe McArthy in the tank?

Hmmm. Patton was at St. Mihiel. Ft-17s also fought at St. Mihiel, it was one of the first large-scale tank assaults.

My first instinct is the obvious guess of Blackjack Pershing, but I can't include all the pictures in it. Oregon is the tough one, and I don't know who is standing next to Ike.

Of course, we don't even know whether we're looking for a person, an event, or what! So which is it?

Well it was certainly one of the first American large scale tank assaults. The Brits had used lots of tanks prior...

Got it.

It's Joe Angelo. He served at St Mihiel and won a DSC for saving George Patton's life. Douglas MacArthur and Dwight Eisenhower were in command when they quelled the veterans protest in DC in 1932.

How does Oregon fit in?

Hmm actually, that's a good point.

Wikipedia says Angelo was from NJ.... Guess it's not him then :D

The answer is indeed a person, but no it's not Joe Angelo (although Angelo is a darn good guess!).

And despite the similar haircut the person seated in the FT-17 isn't Joe McCarthy. The unknown men in the last two pictures are actually the same person (and the answer). Oh and the 2nd to last pic is post-ww1.

dwight D.? He was instrumental in bringing tanks into the army and some of those pictures have him in it

Nope not Eisenhower. This person is standing next to Ike in one of the photos though.

Cav Scout, your clue about the 2nd to last picture being between the wars helped me come up with the answer, but I wasn't completely sure about the guy's name and had to do some research to get it right so I am disqualified from answering. This is one great question.

A few more hints: This person was one of the first officers assigned to the new U.S. Army Tank Corp. He retired as a Brigadier General during WWII.

Procedures :-
1) A asks a question, the rest will try to answer.
2) A must confirm which answer is correct.
3) Person (say B) with confirmed correct answer then asks the next question.
4) A cannot play again until B's turn is over (to prevent the thread turning into a 2 person spam party).
5) Repeat.
6) If person asking question doesn't login to confirm answers within 72 hrs of his question being posted, any one can ask a new question.
7) If no one can answer question within 72 hrs or can't get the right one, questioner can ask again.
8) NO Net book, or other resource searches.
9) If answer has been confirmed and the new questioner hasn't set a question in 72 hours, anyone can ask the new question.

First thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=102729)
Second thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=120301)
Third thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=156172)
Fourth thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=229120)
Fifth Thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=270464)
Sixth Thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=307940)

I declare new question :smug:

The Answer is Brigadier General Serano Brett. He was born in Portland, Oregon and moved to Corvallis, Oregon where he graduated from Oregon State University and was commissioned as an infantry officer in the regular army. When the U.S. entered the First World War Brett was one of the first officers assigned to the newly formed United States Tank Corps. He served as one of Patton's battalion commanders during the Battle of St. Mihiel, leading his Ft-17 tanks on foot and earning the Distinquished Service Cross. When Patton was wounded he assumed command of the 1st Tank Brigade for the remainder of the war. After the war he served as an observer with Dwight Eisenhower for the 1919 Transcontinental Convoy. He retired as a Brigadier General in 1943.

A few interesting links:

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/an-unusual-journey-dwight-eisenhower%E2%80%99s-odyssey-across-rural-america.htm

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/sebrett.htm

You get to ask anoher question or I will

go for it.

I'm after an event:

http://chapters.nss.org/ok/quiz/jan1.jpghttp://chapters.nss.org/ok/quiz/jan2.jpg
http://chapters.nss.org/ok/quiz/jan3.gifhttp://chapters.nss.org/ok/quiz/jan4.png

One of them is John Breckenridge, yes?

One of them is John Breckenridge, yes?

Yes. (10 characters.)

"and may God forgive me for the order ..."

Naskra clearly knows the answer, but still has to state it.

Yes, but my quizzes are not popular. My approval rating on this forum is low enugh as it is.

Its the Battle of New Market. VMI cadets under Breckenridge beat up on Siegel during the Valley Campaigns in 1864.

Its the Battle of New Market. VMI cadets under Breckenridge beat up on Siegel during the Valley Campaigns in 1864.

Correct. The second picture is Franz Sigel (or Siegel; I see it both ways), one of the worst generals of the Civil War. This battle ended his military career. The shield is the emblem of the Virginia Military Institute. The map is the Shenandoah Valley, where New Market is located.

What are the three reasons Genghis Khan's armies went West?

Rape, money and rape?

1. To defeat a certain Kuchlug who made himself lord of Kharakhitai
2. On the excuse of murdered Mongol emissaries at Otrar by the Khwarezm Shah's governor, and
3. Um... not really in the same era, but would an alleged attempted assassination of Mongke Khan by the Hashshashin count?

1. To defeat a certain Kuchlug who made himself lord of Kharakhitai
Okay, four. I forgot about him.

2. On the excuse of murdered Mongol emissaries at Otrar by the Khwarezm Shah's governor,

That's two.

and
3. Um... not really in the same era, but would an alleged attempted assassination of Mongke Khan by the Hashshashin count?

Nope. These all directly involve Genghis Khan coming West for the first time.

So, two left.

It was easier than going South?

There was sea to the east, snow to the north and walls to the south?

The DM said so!

No, no, and no.

Could it have been that he was chasing the Merkits who escaped this way or smth along these lines?

EDIT2: Also, wasn't there a dream of "conquest to the Last Sea"? I am not sure how seriously this could be taken though...

He was definitely chasing someone, but whom? Both of the remaining motives have to do with this. Neither are the Merkits, however.

It having been more than 48 hours with no response, I am obliged to surrender the answer.

The four reasons for Genghis Khan coming West were:

1. To destroy the Karakhitai

2. Because the Kwarezmian Shah murdered a Mongolian carvavan, the emissaries that followed, and sent their shaved heads back to the Khan

3. said Shah fled during the invasion, and Genghis Khan was obliged to chase him, which led him into both Iran and India

4. being so far southwest, the opportunity to outflank their old foes the Kipchaks was too good to pass up, and the Mongols swung around the Caspian to come up from the Caucasus

I guess taillesskangaru can have it, since he got half the question right. Sorry for being so obscure, I feel like I have to challenge you guys every now and then. :)

I say the question was rather poorly worded.

Anyway, open floor.

Picture Round: who is this?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/North_Staffordshire_Regiment_Cap_Badge.jpg/180px-North_Staffordshire_Regiment_Cap_Badge.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/29/Military_Cross_%28UK%29_medal.jpg/150px-Military_Cross_%28UK%29_medal.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/Ster_Orde_van_het_Britse_Rijk.jpg/225px-Ster_Orde_van_het_Britse_Rijk.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3a/Pegasusflash.jpghttp://toriblog.blog.hu/media/image/maffia/Map_operation_husky_landing.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4d/Fallschirmsch%C3%BCtzenabzeichen_der_Luftwaffe.jpg/150px-Fallschirmsch%C3%BCtzenabzeichen_der_Luftwaffe.jpg

So a member of the Staffordshire Regiment, an airborne division (likely the 1st, in Sicily). Awarded the OBE and Military cross. And connected to the Fallschimjagers...

Not Bernard Montgomery, by any chance?

No, but that's the right time period

I would hope so, especially if we're talking about a war hero :D

I assume this person was associated with an airborne Army division, rather than the RAF? The only famous British pilot I know of is Douglas Bader.

Someone who fought in Husky
member of the Paras, possibly, 6th Ox and Bucks Light Infantry

"Windy" Gale?

member of the Paras, possibly, 6th Ox and Bucks Light Infantry



That's not what the badge is. Read it more carefully - but the flash is 1 Airborne Division

So a member of the Staffordshire Regiment, an airborne division (likely the 1st, in Sicily). Awarded the OBE and Military cross. And connected to the Fallschimjagers...

This is all correct.

I can know what's int eh pictures, but that doesn't do me any good, unfortunately.
Though the Fallschirmjager badge seems odd with the others.

I can know what's int eh pictures, but that doesn't do me any good, unfortunately.
Though the Fallschirmjager badge seems odd with the others.

MURDERERS!!! maybe that is a hint?

I think between you all you've got the story. Civ_king might even have the answer, but needs to say it

OK, so he got shot up by the Fallschirmjager. I really haven't the foggiest idea.
I don't know my British war heroes, except the most famous generals.

I think between you all you've got the story. Civ_king might even have the answer, but needs to say it

it was so interesting I looked it up, so I shall not say it

Fallschrimjagers were at Monte Cassino, right?

Major General George Frederick Hopkinson...

That's it:

One of the UK's great Airborne officers, Major-General Hopkinson commissioned into the North Staffordshire Regiment in 1915. For his actions during the Great War, in 1918, he was awarded the Military Cross. After leaving the army for a while to work in engineering, he rejoined following the outbreak of the second world war, serving as a staff officer during the Battle for France. For his work during this time he was made Officer of the Order of the British Empire. In 1940 he qualified as a paratrooper and joined the new Army Air Corps, pioneering new tactics such as glider insertion, and by 1943 had been promoted to Major-General and was officer commanding 1 Airborne Division. He lead his division from the front during Operation Husky, the allied campaign to liberate Sicily. During combat for the town of Castellena, he was commanding his men against their counterparts in the German parachute corps (the Fallsharmjaeger) when he was killed by enemy machine-gun fire, the only Airborne general officer to be killed during the war.

What role did Dracula play during World War II?

I suppose you refer to Operation Dracula, part of the British Burma campaign starting in 1944.

Correct. More specifically, it was the campaign to recover Rangoon.

This thread had sunk into abyss...

Anyway, since I probably won't get around to making the PM quiz in foreseeable future (:sad: yes, I am greatly ashamed), here is a little question.

The first book in this language was printed in 1512, in Venice.
The first bible was printed in 1666, in Amsterdam.
The first newspaper was published in 1794, in Madras.

What language?

Yiddish? (though Madras in 1794 seems unlikely)

Nope.

Persian?

Persian?
No...

So,

1. A language known in 1512 in Venice, well known enough to have a book printed in it...

That narrows it down...

http://imgur.com/FJqlu.png

Though it could be any European or Middle-Eastern language. India might be a bit of a stretch.

2. Significant enough to have a Bible printed in it in 1666 in Amsterdam. 1666 is a rather late date for it to be a major European language...

3. And presumably with enough speakers in Madras to have a newspaper published there in 1794. Let's see - major European merchant communities... English, French, Dutch, Portuguese... Spanish... German... Danish?... Catalan?... Greek? Armenian?...

I'll go with Armenian.

I'll go with Armenian.
We have a winner!:)

Don't have anything at the moment. Open floor.

There are three great Russian Emperors of the seventeenth century, each for modernizing/Westernizing a different aspect of Russia. Peter the Great, for borrowing Western technology; Catherine the Great, for borrowing Western ideas...who is the third, and what did they borrow from the West?

There are three great Russian Emperors of the seventeenth century, each for modernizing/Westernizing a different aspect of Russia. Peter the Great, for borrowing Western technology; Catherine the Great, for borrowing Western ideas...who is the third, and what did they borrow from the West?

Are you sure you mean 17th century not 1700s? IIRC Catherine reigned in the 1700s so...

Are you sure you mean 17th century not 1700s? IIRC Catherine reigned in the 1700s so...
Yeah, I thought of this too...if it is 1700-s, then after Peter I and Catherine II is out, we are left with a bunch of relatively insignificant people, none of whom can really be called "great".
An exception could be Elizaveta, who can be said to have "borrowed" Berlin. But I don't think this can be called modernizing?
So unless Cheezy wants us to say that Peter III borrowed capitalism, I really can't guess what the answer is.

Are you sure you mean 17th century not 1700s? IIRC Catherine reigned in the 1700s so...

Catherine reigned from the 1760s to the 1790s. In the 1700s she had not yet been born.

"1700s" means the first decade of the eighteenth century - not the whole century.

Yes I had a major brainfart. I obviously meant the 18th century, as you guys have figured out.

But I did not say this third person "modernized," I said they borrowed; westernized.

Catherine reigned from the 1760s to the 1790s. In the 1700s she had not yet been born.

"1700s" means the first decade of the eighteenth century - not the whole century.

In the US frequently when we say things like the 1700s we mean the entire 18th century :blush:

My textbook says Peter didn't want to westernize Russia

CHEEZY I TAKE ISSUE WITH YOUR VAGUE STATEMENTS
In the US frequently when we say things like the 1700s we mean the entire 18th century :blush:
No, only Catholics do that

My textbook says Peter didn't want to westernize Russia
Does your textbook provide any explanation to back up this claim, to which I originally wanted to respond only with "LOLWUT?"

In the US frequently when we say things like the 1700s we mean the entire 18th century :blush:

I know. But that's wrong, not to mention confusing (what do you call the first decade of the century then?).

We try to avoid it, and yes it can get confusing.

I like to say the Noughties :)

My textbook says Peter didn't want to westernize Russia

Then your textbook is stupid.

CHEEZY I TAKE ISSUE WITH YOUR VAGUE STATEMENTS


If it helps, Yeekim was right, the empress in question is Yelizaveta Petrovna.

I know. But that's wrong, not to mention confusing (what do you call the first decade of the century then?).

Call it whatever you want, just don't call it late for dinner. :3

CHEEZY I TAKE ISSUE WITH YOUR VAGUE STATEMENTS

No, only Catholics do that

All of my history teachers have done that and between them I've had Calvinists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Greek Orthodoxy and an Atheist and they have all done that so I resent your false statement

If it helps, Yeekim was right, the empress in question is Yelizaveta Petrovna.
She was also remarkable in that, allegedly, during her rule not a single convict was executed in Russia... could the answer thus be "humanism"?
EDIT: or possibly "fashion"? As most female rulers, she also had a gigantic wardrobe. Maybe she could be declared somewhat responsible for introducing Western-style clothing into Russian court?

(what do you call the first decade of the century then?).

The aughts, if you're old fashioned. Otherwise, either specific dates, early x century, other general vagueries, or just avoid it althogether :)

EDIT: or possibly "fashion"? As most female rulers, she also had a gigantic wardrobe. Maybe she could be declared somewhat responsible for introducing Western-style clothing into Russian court?

I thought Peter I was the first Russia Czar/Emperor to introduce Western-style garb to the Russian court, including female clothing.

I thought Peter I was the first Russia Czar/Emperor to introduce Western-style garb to the Russian court, including female clothing.
Indeed. That's why I said "somewhat". I imagine Elizaveta was a deal more obsessed about it, but it's a stab in half-dark.

She was also remarkable in that, allegedly, during her rule not a single convict was executed in Russia... could the answer thus be "humanism"?

This was indeed quite a remarkable thing!

EDIT: or possibly "fashion"? As most female rulers, she also had a gigantic wardrobe. Maybe she could be declared somewhat responsible for introducing Western-style clothing into Russian court?

The answer was Western fashion and manners, so I'll give it to you.

Yes, Peter did introduce Western dress, but I think it was Elizabeth who made the gentry really "into" it. I don't know, its just what Riasanovsky said.

Quéstion?

Quéstion?
Can't think of anthing right now, so it's open :)

Stumbled upon a nice question:
How does one recognize a French friar when in Sicily?

That sounds like a joke...

Thumb up for bumping the thread! :goodjob:

Tell 'em to say a Sicilian word that the Frenchies can't wrap their tongues around. Can't remember what the word was, though.

Tell 'em to say a Sicilian word that the Frenchies can't wrap their tongues around. Can't remember what the word was, though.
That was fast! And here I was worried the question was too vague... :clap:

To the sound of the bells messengers ran through the city calling on the men of Palermo to rise against the oppressor. At once the streets were filled with angry armed men, crying "Death to the French" ('Moranu li Franchiski' in the Sicilian language). Every Frenchman they met was struck down. They poured into the inns frequented by the French and the houses where they dwelt, sparing neither man, woman nor child. Sicilian girls who had married Frenchmen perished with their husbands. The rioters broke into the Dominican and Franciscan convents; and all the foreign friars were dragged out and told to pronounce the word 'ciciri', whose sound the French tongue could never accurately reproduce. Anyone who failed the test was slain....By the next morning some two thousand French men and women lay dead; and the rebels were in complete control of the city.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Vespers

Oh Shiboleths. The Japanese used Babebobi and Gagegogi.