Since I have nothing better to do... :)

The old thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34013&perpage=20&display=&pagenumber=1)

Last Question

Who was the founder of Brazil's first capital and when?
~test_specimen~

Attempted Answer

Salvador (Bahia) was the Brazil's first capital, 1549-1763,
when Brazil was a portuguese colony.
The first portuguese establishment on the site of Bahia
was founded by Cabral, when he discovered Brazil in 1500.
~carniflex~

Reply

This does not answer the question. Vespucci was the first to sail to the Baya de Todos os Santos (1501) and to name it. Indeed Cabral discovered Brazil a year before that, however he did not found Salvador.
~test_specimen~

Let's continue...

I dont know the man who named Salvador (indeed, maybe later, as you said, test_specimen) though I read its origin was in 1500.
"Since you have nothing better to do", Knight Dragon, what about helping us to find the answer ?

Thanks for starting Quiz 2:goodjob:

Originally posted by carniflex
"Since you have nothing better to do", Knight Dragon, what about helping us to find the answer ? I don't know about you guys but I don't research answers fr books/Internet etc for this quiz. Makes it too easy. Either you know it or you don't. I don't. ;)

At least, I put up a new thread for it... :)

i will give the answer, even if no one replied correctly yet, because i will go skiing tomorrow and don't know if i have internet for some days.

in 1501 amerigo vespucci sailed into the bay and named it "Baya de Todos os Santos", because he arrived on all saints day. in 1549 Tomé de Sousa arrived with 400 soldiers and 400 settlers, priests and prostitutes and an order to found Brazil's first capital. he was Salvadors founder. a year later the city and the surrounding walls had been erected. salvador is placed in a strategic position overlooking the entrance to the bay and the atlantic.

carniflex: cabral landed where porto seguro is now. this is way south of salvador, though still in bahia. bahia is a huge province.

i have no idea, but heres an easy one

the last name of queen Victoria?

Well just a guess... Hanover? I know she was a part of the Hanoverian dynasty.

The people ruling in Hanover were the 'Welfen',but I think she already belonged to dynasty of Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha.

G-Man is correct, her family name is indeed Hanover.

yup, 80% of the history teachers at my high school dont know!
in matter of fact english teachers know it more!

I'm quite busy right now and I don't know when I'll be able to connect again, so someone else can post a question.

OK, an easy question.

What was the full name of Victoria's husband?

Albert Franz Albrecht August Karl Emanuel Prince of Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha

ok heres another easy one, what was the name of the two largest piramids in the aztec capital?

Well, today it's called "Templo Mayor", but that's hardly the Nahuatl name. Huey Teocalli will be it.

hey guys,it's my turn as my answer was correct (I think)

Who laid a siege on Jerusalem in 701 BC and why didn't the siege was succesful (most likely)?

well Nahuixtelotzin i was jsut looking for a simple answer:
the piramid of the sun adn teh piramid of the moon, the largest ones

well is before crist so no way it was teh crusades, perhaps the romans?, failed because...........mmmh.....lack of siege weapons?

Originally posted by stalin006
well Nahuixtelotzin i was jsut looking for a simple answer:
the piramid of the sun adn teh piramid of the moon, the largest ones

No thats wrong they are in Teotihuacan, the Aztec capital was Tenochtitlan. Believe me i have been there some years ago.

"Who laid a siege on Jerusalem in 701 BC ?"

Sennacherib, king of the assyrians.

"and why didn't the siege was succesful (most likely)?"

Maybe because Ezechias, king of Juda, had fortified Jerusalem and tunnelled throw the Sion hill, so as to get water even during a siege ?

The pyramids of Sun and Moon are at Teotihuacán, a pre-aztec metropolis of the 1st millenium AD.

Kenelly: Senacherib, but I don't know why it failed.

Originally posted by Nahuixtelotzin
The pyramids of Sun and Moon are at Teotihuacán, a pre-aztec metropolis of the 1st millenium AD.

Kenelly: Senacherib, but I don't know why it failed.

That was what i just said mister.

OH YEAH! I REMEMBER, OPPS i got my cities switched, i guess is from too much civ3

About the siege of Jerusalem - the biblical reason is because the Assyrian king sent an emissary who talked to the peopel of Jerusalem and in his speech he spoken with great dishonor at the jewish god.
Historically, I believe the most common belief is that there was a plague in the Assyirian camp. The bible, which is one of the sources about this seige, says that there was fire in the Assyrian camp. It's mostly believed it refered to the fever the Assyrian soldiers had. Another thing that supports it is the fact rats are mentioned.

G-Man is right.

there was this tunnel carniflex mentioned and it certainly helped King Hiskia holding out under siege,but most modern historians believe in a disease which struck the Assyrian army and therefore forced Sanherib to stop the siege of Jerusalem.
Most likely there were some other reasons for the stop,but the disease was the main one.

Your turn G-Man

Yoda: Looks weird because of the time lap, but still it was a cross-post. Sometimes I have up to 15 windows open at the same time.

In what year did the British outlaw African slave trade?

Originally posted by G-Man
In what year did the British outlaw African slave trade?

1825? if not i think it was 1824

i thought it was much earlier then that. i think it was 1807 im not quite sure.

The usual confusion arises because the British government did two separate things at two separate times.

In 1807 they passed legislation which made it an offence to carry on a trade in slaves - any captain of a British ship caught carrying slaves was fined £100 per slave. The Royal Navy was tasked (among its other jobs at the time, which included minor matters like blockading Napoleon) with enforcing this.

In 1833 legislation was passed which made the very concept of slavery illegal within the British empire. This was far more effective, since it removed a number of the markets and sources for the trade.

I'm sorry I didn't answer before, my connection didn't work. I hate when that happens. Although Illustrious provided a very detailed answer, Ancient Grudge got it right first, and so he's responsible for the next question.

Wo had the honour of capturing the first french eagle during the Peninsular war and what regiment did they belong to?

Wellington ?
the regiment of Junot ?

what you misunderstand me the people who captured the eagle and what regiment did they come from.

so in answer to your guesses no and no

I think it's the battle of Barrosa (1811), when an eagle was captured by Sgt Masterman of the 87th Foot (later the Royal Irish Fusiliers).

nice one Illustrious you are correct. Ensign Keogh helped the Sgt but was shot and bayoneted. Your turn

OK. To stick with redcoats:

What is the floral connection between the following British regiments:
The Royal Anglian Regiment,
The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers,
The Royal Welch Fusiliers,
The King's Own Scottish Borderers,
The Royal Hampshire Regiment, and
The Light infantry...?

A full answer will include a date.

Originally posted by Illustrious
OK. To stick with redcoats:

What is the floral connection between the following British regiments:
The Royal Anglian Regiment,
The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers,
The Royal Welch Fusiliers,
The King's Own Scottish Borderers,
The Royal Hampshire Regiment, and
The Light infantry...?

A full answer will include a date.

Thw connection bewtween the above regiments in that they all fought in the BAttle of Minden on Aug. 1 1759. The six took heavy losses while fighting French Cavarly. To siginfiy thid battle thay wear roses in their caps.

Well done Constantine. I should point out that these 6 infantry battalions not only fought, but actually attacked and defeated the French cavalry....

For those of a pedantic nature, the names given in the question are the present-day names of the units, which in 1759 were the 12th, 20th, 23rd, 25th, 37th and 51st of Foot. Regimental legend has it that they plucked roses from the bushes and wore them in their hats as they advanced, hence the modern custom.

Your question, sir.

Here is a Canadian question for you all

What Year did Newfoundland join Canada?

(This should be easy for any Canadians)

If I recall it was quite recently. 1949.

correct thats pretty good

OK something a little different.

On 7 May 1954, what went badly wrong for whom? And where? And for whom had it gone right?

Wild guess: the battle of Dien Bien Phu in the battle to free French Indochina from the indignity of French rule went badly - for the French - and went well for General Giap?

I knew that one was too easy.

Yes. Vo Nguyen Giap's assault on the French firebase at Dien Bien Phu ended in total victory on 7 May when Christian de la Croix de Castries surrendered.

Over to you, Sire.

Here's a b*tch of a question, and a personal obsession of mine.

Historical plagiarist and otherwise contemptibly arrogant author John Clavell wrote a bestseller called "Shogun," telling a ridiculous tale about an English pilot (named Blackthorne) on a Dutch ship . The ship is wrecked on the coast of Japan during Japan's wars of unification at the turn of the 17th Century, forcing the pilot to learn Japanese, become a samurai, build ships for the Japanese, hang out with the Shogun-to-be and sleep with or marry hot Japanese women by the bucketful.

In fact, the bulk of the story actually happened, but the despicable Clavell does not mention this in his text, leading readers to beleive it was all just his brilliant imagination.

The REAL English pilot remains a fascination with the Japanese. There is even a permanent monument and an annual festival in his memory. What was the real name of this intrepid yet forgotten explorer?

All I can do is to name the invented pilot - John Blackthorne I guess, but the name of his prototype.... Hmm.. that's hard

Aah. That would be William Adams.

Giles Milton (of Nathaniel's Nutmeg fame) has written a splendid book about him.

Originally posted by Illustrious
Aah. That would be William Adams.

Giles Milton (of Nathaniel's Nutmeg fame) has written a splendid book about him.

Well done, sir :thumbsup:

You seem to have the helm once again...

R.III

Originally posted by Richard III
You seem to have the helm once again...
Funny you should say that, because my next question has a nautical flavour....

Jean Bart
Surcouf
Duguay-Trouin.

Three famous names among French warships. Spot the eponymous odd-one-out, and locate the reason.

Surcouf is a submarine
The other two are surface vessels

there is a picture of Surcouf at this link

http://groups.msn.com/Surcouf

not 2 b rude, but im still waiting 4 the next question.

Originally posted by Kamilian1
not 2 b rude, but im still waiting 4 the next question.

There isn't a next question, because Dr. Dr. Doktor hasn't answered the last one correctly. To remind you, the question is "spot the eponymous odd-one-out and locate the reason."

What Dr^3 has said is true*, but it doesn't answer the question.
Keep trying, chaps.

*although not uniquely true - there have been surface vessels named Surcouf in the French fleet.

(furiously looking up word "eponymous")

Originally posted by napoleon526
(furiously looking up word "eponymous")

:goodjob: A very sensible thing to do. It's the most important word in the question.


NB if no-one has come up with an answer within the next couple of hours (ie 24 hours after original posting of question), I'll add clues.

After looking up meaning of eponymous and perusing many French websites despite the fact that I do not speak French, here is the best I can come up with.

Jean Bart was the name of a French corsair who fought in Louis XIV's navy. Robert-Charles Surcouf was a French Corsair who fought during the French Revolutionary wars. René Duguay-Trouin was another French sailor in the service of Louis XIV. Therefore, my answer is Surcouf, since he fought France's enemies at sea during a different time period than the others.

OK, Napoleon526: you're close enough.

For the benefit of the uninitiated: "eponymous" relates to someone who gives his/her name to something. So, as napoleon correctly spotted but Dr Dr Doktor failed to appreciate, the question doesn't actually want to know about the ships, but rather about the three men whose names they bear.

As napoleon identified, all three were corsair captains fighting for France. The distinction I was looking for was actually a geographical one (hence my use of the phrase "locate the reason") - Surcouf and Duguay-Trouin famously operated out of St-Malo, while Bart operated out of Dunkerque.

However, since he has "located in time" a valid difference between them (Surcouf born 1773 as opposed to Duguay born in 1673 and Bart born 1650), it would be churlish of me to object.

Over to you, mon empereur!

Wow, that one was incredibly hard. Mine's a little easier.

During the American Civil War, who was the only Union soldier to be awarded the Medal of Honor twice?

Originally posted by napoleon526
Wow, that one was incredibly hard. Mine's a little easier.

During the American Civil War, who was the only Union soldier to be awarded the Medal of Honor twice?

Yes, this one is much easier. The obscure kid brother..... ;)

But I won't grab this one (can't think of a new question), so I'll leave it to someone else to take.

Thomas something Custer IIRC

Originally posted by G-Man
Thomas something Custer IIRC
Thomas Custer is correct. He recieved his medals for capturing two Confederate battle flags in two separate actions, each a week apart. Unfortunately for Tom, he was still overshadowed by his older brother, George A. Custer. Thomas Custer shared his brother's fate at Little Big Horn.

G-man's turn.

Alright, and easy one: Who burnt the reichstag and blamed his political opponents for it, and what law did he pass using this accusation?

Hitler ordered to burn Reichstag and accused Georgi Dimitrov in that. - One of the most well - known pages of communist history

Ohh... noticed you've said something about the law - perhaps it was some law that forbidded communist party in Germany

Bifrost - You've answered most of the question right, and since I'm in a good mood (had a good jam session today) I'll give you the next question. The law, roughly translated from hebrew was called "the law for defending the public from the dangerous communist violence"

Bifrost - You've answered most of the question right, and since I'm in a good mood (had a good jam session today) I'll give you the next question. The law, roughly translated from hebrew was called "the law for defending the public from the dangerous communist violence"

Oh, Thankyou !!! http://www.britboard.ru/html/emoticons/pray.gif G-Man

Here's my question...
(there's too much XX century history in this thread, too much)
.... mmm looked for some curious questions in my head from ancient and middleage history, but I've already asked some antiquity questions in another thread, and middleage history seems to be well-known by forumers here, so I'll return back to XX century.
It's Rather simple.

What main reason did Stalin have to avoid taking part in WWII ? What plan did he have?
If you give some information about what Stalin was going to do with Germany, well... i think it will be enough.

my thinking is that around that time around 95% of his officers had been slaughtered and there was only one admiral left. He felt his army was to to weak.
He wanted to avoid war firstyly he didnt no wether he was strong enough or not and he wanted to use germany as a kind of colony i think.

edit": proberly totally wrong

mmm.... no. I didn't ask about this.
Well, actually, even if Soviet Union had been well-prepared for the war, Stalin would have tried to use any possibility to avoid war actions (because of his plans I'm asking about)

Originally posted by G-Man
Alright, and easy one: Who burnt the reichstag and blamed his political opponents for it, and what law did he pass using this accusation?

Uhh,sorry but Bifrost was INCORRECT.

On February 27th 1933 a fire broke out in the Reichstag.Hours later the Dutch Marinus van Lubbe was arrested and on February 28th the Resolution "Zum Schutz von Volk und Staat" (for the protection of peoples and state) was passed by the government,allowing for arrests of communists and other
opponents of the regime.But according to almost all modern historians,van Lubbe did this all by himself and the Nazis were totally surprised by the fire.Of course the fire gave them a good reason for further action till the "Ermächtigungsgesetz" of March,but the Nazis DID NOT order to burn the Reichstag.I know,this is a common myth,but it's not true.

Nevertheless,answering Bifrosts question:I don't fully understand the question.As far as I know Stalin would have attacked Germany sooner or later to "carry the Red Flag to Berlin".

Well, consider me completely confused. :(
To make the question clearer. I asked what was the strategy Stalin followed? He described it in details on one of the Politburo meetings before the WWII started.

for Kamilian1
see post #65 and #69

wait a minute, so who's turn is it to make a question and if the person already posted their question, what is the question?

Hmm... All the stories I heard were talking about the nazis doing it... Anyway I'll take the blame for posting a question with an unclear answer and since Bifrost already posted his question I think we should continue with him.

I agree,Bifrost's question should be answered.
As the Reichstag fire fits so well into the scheme of the Nazis not doubting to burn a historical building to have a reason for fighting communists and destroying civil rights,it's very popular.Hitler is responsible for many things,but not for the Reichstag fire.

errrr..........because stalin was hoping to invade europe himself in 43 or so?
signed a non aggresion pact cuz he wasnt ready?

oh and maybe perhaps because hitler had tricked stalin into eliminating most of the military commanders of the red army?

The correct answer can be found logically, it's too easy by the way, but I would like you to type here some exact steps of his main strategy.

errrr............waiting until germany had overexpanded in europe and many countries had declared war on hitler (maybe the US)

or he was thinking of taking care of japan first?

dont ask me, i dunno

Stalin wanted to wait until Germany and the Western Allies had exhausted each other in total war, before marching into Central Europe?

He had no qualms about fighting other nations - Soviet armor under Zhukov had just thumped the Japanese in 1936 in Mongolia, purge or no purge.

Stalin wanted to wait until Germany and the Western Allies had exhausted each other in total war, before marching into Central Europe?

Well, I don't know why this question required so much time to be answered, it was too easy. Your turn, Knight-Dragon.

But firstly, let me type here what exactly Stalin was planning. I won't quote him, just don't wish to translate the documents I have downloaded from net (I think, you can easily find them yourselves if you wish).
Well, the essence was: USSR won't take part in ww2, to wait until Fascists and Allies (exc. USSR) exhaust each other. Then if :
1. Fascists win, Communist party makes a revolution in France ( there was a strong proletariat movement), then - revolution in England.
2. Allies win, USSR forces enter Berlin and declare new communist republic (forgot the name Stalin wanted it to call)

Then - it will be easy to make the world communist revolution - the Stalin's crystal dream.

Alright, something fr the Far East, rather easy : -

Name the major dynasties of China, in the correct succession, fr the first archaeologically supported one to the last one before the Republic. :)

Ahh one for me.

The first archaeologically supported is:
the Shang
the Zhou
the Qin
the Han
do you want Wang Mang?
if so then Han again
the Sui
the Tang
the Yuan (it was really mongol)
the Ming
the Qing

now i just hope i did not forget anyone.

You miss one important one betw the Tang and the Yuan - the Song. :)

Nevertheless, it's now your call, Yoda Power. ;)

Damn i knew i forgot one, it always happen when i list the dynasties of China.

Anyway this time i´ll go Medival Russia.

Q: What year did the state of Novgorod become independent and what year was it defeated by the Moscovy and conquert?

Refused to obey Kyev's princes in 1102
1477(1478) - the end.

1478 is correct, but the first is wrong. When did it become fully independent?

1014?

No. I´ll help you a little, it was after 1102.

1136?

1109?

Originally posted by Kira
1136?

Correct!:)

Kira gets the next one.

Kira's question (she's my sis):

What important invention did Roland Garros make?

Roland Garros invented deflector plates, that were placed on WWI aircraft's propellers. They diverted any shots that hit the blades and therefore enabled machine guns to be fired through the propellers by the pilot. Thus, a machine cannon could be placed on the aircraft pointing forward and through the blade. This changed the WWI dogfights completely, since it had previously been necessary for the pilots to fire with pistols and rifles from their seats.

exactly! your turn!

Roland Garros shot down a lot of aircraft on the testing day, the Germans didn't know what the hell happened. The Allied couldn't enjoy this technological advantage for long though: Fokker was able to recreate deflector plates by examinating a crashed allied plane.

Insurgent: Your Turn to ask a question.

Sorry, everybody... I actually forgot about the thread... :( I apologise.

Now, the name of which Florentian political theorist (name, birth, and death) has become synonymous with the ruthless and cynical conduct of government, and what family came to seal his fate after their takeover of Florence (year)? What was the form of government before this family took over?

The first thing isn't too difficult, but I think it becomes a challenge when you have to supply all the additional info...

That was about time.

BOT, i think i know who he is but i dont remmeber his name, birth etc. I´ll come back tomorrow with the right answer.

The political theorist in question is of course Nicolo Machiavelli, who lived from 1469-1527. Florece had been ruled since 1434 by the powerful Medici family, but in 1494 they were ousted and a reform government was instituted, of which Machiavelli was a member. In 1512 the Medicis returned to power with the help of Spanish troops, and Machivelli was tortured and imprisoned. He eventually regained favor with the Medici family, and wrote his famous work, The Prince.

I like La Arta de Guerra

@napoleon: You're next! :goodjob:

Name all three of Napoleon's marshals who died in the year 1815 and the way each met his end.

Well, I found four:

Louis-Alexandre Berthier- sickness?
Joachim Murat- Neapolitan firing squad
Michel Ney- After Waterloo, Louis XVIII had him shot.
Guillaume-Marie-Anne Brune- Murdered

it really was a shame about Marshal Ney although i did here a happy story that he escaped and lived in brazil till the end of his days an unlikely story but i like it :)

lol, yea. Don't they say the same thing about Hitler? Or was that Argentina?

Originally posted by Plexus
Well, I found four:

Louis-Alexandre Berthier- sickness?
Joachim Murat- Neapolitan firing squad
Michel Ney- After Waterloo, Louis XVIII had him shot.
Guillaume-Marie-Anne Brune- Murdered
Plexus has it right. I forgot about marshal Brune. Berthier didn't die from sickness but a fall from the window of a very tall building. Some people think suicide, others say murder.

Your turn, Plexus.

In Roman times, what three provinces made up the Iberian Peninsula and what were their capital cities?

Betica
Lusitania
Tarragona

There were also two later provinces, Cartagena and Galicia.

Couldn't find out any of the capitals though. :eek:

Lusitania----Emerita Augusta
Baetica----Corduba
Tarraconensis----Tarraco

Note, the names on provinces and cities have their Roman names, not their modern.

Exactly right, Yoda Power. You're up.

Q: What was the name of the maritime empire that had its capital on Java and existet from about 1045-1223?

I think it had something to do with the city of Kediri, so I'll bet that "Kediri" was also the name of the empire.

G-Man your next.

Saddam recently said the Americans are the new mongols trying to take over Baghdad. In what year the original mongols took over and sacked the city?

1258 me thinks!

Very fast answer... And a correct one as well! You're next.

Very fast reply...OK: Which Scottish soldier of fortune when in the Polish army helped defeat the Cossacks of the Ukraine and the Muscovites at the battle of Czudno (the Polish general was actually Field Marshal Lubomirski), then entered the service of the Russians, saved Peter the Great from revolution and became the latter's General-in-Chief?

Patrick Gordon

Yes :goodjob:, your turn Jimjam Jones.

Okay, this one shouldn't be too hard if you know your stuff ;)

After the Roman Empire crumbled, a small town growing in importance called Paris (at that time Parisia) was captured by the Franks. In what year was it captured, and roughly when did Clovis (Frankish leader) make Paris his capital?

I think it was captured in 486. Im not sure if you can say that Clovis had a real capital so my guess would be that he "made" it his capital in 486. It could also be in 507 after he captured Aquitiane.

You're halfway there Yoda, it was made capital in around 507/508.

However the city was captured slightly later than 486...

490? Im just guessing

508, I think.

507? But Paris does not become the permanent capital of Frankia.

I'll give this one to Yoda Power, as he is closest.

493 it was captured.
507/508 was when it was made capital.

You're up next Yoda

Thank you.

Q: Who was king of Masaesyli in 201.BC?

Originally posted by Yoda Power
Thank you.

Q: Who was king of Masaesyli in 201.BC?

I am not sure, if Syphax was still king after the 2. Punic war (218-201), since Masaesyli was allied with Carthage.

If Syphax was removed, my guess is Masinissa.

Well, i would have countet Syphax as the correct answer so test_specimen is next.

Which Philosopher and Mathematician founded a sect, whose first three rules were:

1. abstain the beans
2. don't pick up, what fell to the floor
3. don't touch any white roosters

Where did he live, when?

BONUS Question: Where does this obsession with beans come from? (I am not very sure about the answer myself.)

Pythagoras, "Abstain the Beans" mearly meant "Stay away from politics".

Apparently the voting system of ancient Athens worked in the dropping of different coloured beans. Therefore, "abstain from beans" means "don't vote"...

I am pretty sure you are referring to the Pythagoreans, but I don't believe Pythagoras himself made these proverbs (rather than rules). They had symbolic meanings some of them, but some historians think they are just dietary tips. I always thought it was symbolic, in the light of the meaning of "abstain from beans".

Darned, too late. I had to get the facts straight, so as not to make stupid mistakes. I must learn to speed up my posting... :)

Plexus is right it was Pythagoras. He lived around 532 BC on Samos and later in Kroton (southern Italy).

Thank you for your explanation of the beans, it seems true. Russell wrote, that Pythagoras sect was based on reincarnation, and that, according to his belief, only non-reincarnated sinners would long for beans and would sooner or later rebell.

Plexus, you're next.

Ok, from Ancient Isreali times, name all of the "judges", in order.

Joshua ?
Otheniel
Ehud
Shamgar
Deborah and Barak
Gideon
Abimelech
Tola
Jair
Jepthah
Ibzan
Elon
Abdon
Samson
Samuel?

Good enough, you're up, Calagus!

he knew that by heart??

What was the name of the Spartan commander who seized control of the Kadmeia in 382?

I assume you mean 382 B.C., correct?

Originally posted by napoleon526
I assume you mean 382 B.C., correct?

Correct.

Originally posted by calgacus
What was the name of the Spartan commander who seized control of the Kadmeia in 382?
During Spartan domination in Greece and yet another Spartan campaign in 382BC, this time in northern Greece, an army commanded by Phoibidas not only "helped" pro-Spartan cities in that region but also acted on a help envoy by groups located in the city of Thebes itself. Unknown to the Spartan king at home Phoibidas simply marched into Thebes, capturing the acropolis of the city, the Kadmeia.

This led to unrest in Thebes and Athens, even some Spartans were uneasy with this move as well. Phoibidas was punished, yet similar events, where commanders acted on their own, followed.

This finally led to Athens forming the Second Athenian League of city states, including Thebes, in 378 and the city states finally rid themselves of Spartan control in the following war.
:D

Phoibidas/Phoebidas is correct :goodjob:. The Theban leader who invited him to do so was Leontiades, ICAI. Your turn Lucky.

Hmm, it´s a question you want, right? :mischief:

Well...
Who discovered the Vacuum and subsequently the air pressure, too?
Explain his famous experiment to prove the existance to ordinary people!
And lastly, where did he live and what was his occupation there?

He was also active on many other fields of science, sociology and philosophy.
Most importantly, he was the first to discover the electrostatic field.
BONUS: Describe his experiment for that discovery!
:D

Evangelista Torricelli?

edit: I had to look up his experiment, as I could not remember it off the top of my head. Oh, the shame!

The experiment consisted in filling a glass tube two braccia (around 115 cm) in height, open at one end with mercury; the tube was then turned upside-down , keeping the open end closed by means of a finger. It was placed in a vertical position with the open end inside a bowl full of mercury. When the finger was removed from the opening of the tube, it was observed that the mercury column descended, stopping at a height of 1 1/4 braccia (around 70 cm). This phenomenon provided evidence of the resistance to descent of the column of mercury due to atmospheric pressure on the surface of the mercury in the bowl. Torricelli observed that the height of the column of mercury varied with variations in temperature. He also supposed that a vacuum remained in the end of the tube after the descent of the mercury. This claim opened a long and heated dispute between those who proclaimed the existence of the void and those who followed traditional Aristotelian teaching which denied the possibility of the vacuum.

Nope! Not the man I am looking for. :mischief:

Toricelli was the first to make hypothetical speculations and postulate theories about air pressure and the vacuum. In fact, he was more interested in air pressure than vacuum. He was the first to build a barometer. But he never realized that experiment you are talking of. Only a few years after his death in 1647, another Italian actually undertook the experiments proposed by Toricelli.

The first to actually prove the existance was someone else, with another experiment.
:D

P.S.: Also I hope you know that looking up answers (or part of the answer in this case) is not allowed. This is a quiz of knowledge.

If it isn't Torricelli, then I guess you must be thinking of Otto von Gueryck (sp?). As I recall, he manufactured two brass hemispheres, which he fitted together and pumped out the air. Two teams of horses then tried to pull the hemispheres apart and failed.

The experiment was at Magdeburg (hence the apparatus being called the "Magdeburg hemispheres"), so I assume he lived there. I haven't a clue what his occupation was.

He also built the first practical vacuum pump, which was named after him.

PS. no looking up whatever - I remember this from school physics classes 25 years ago.

Originally posted by Lucky
He was the first to build a barometer. But he never realized that experiment you are talking of.

I must confess to being puzzled by your comments on Torricelli. How precisely do you think he managed to build a barometer if he didn't do what napoleon described - since that is exactly how a mercury (aka Torricellian) barometer is made.....?

Otto von Guericke is correct. :yeah:
http://www.deutsches-museum-bonn.de/ausstellungen/meisterwerke/halbkugeln/halbkugel.gif
Army engineer, inventor, philosophist, astronomist, historian, physicist and more were only a few of his occupations. But at that time his "job" was as mayor of Magdeburg.
Due to his fascinations with fire pumps, he thought up his experiment with the 2 hemispheres which 16 horses could not pull apart. One of his first public demonstration was before the German emperor in Vienna.
http://www.deutsches-museum-bonn.de/ausstellungen/meisterwerke/halbkugeln/guerickestich.gif
That was the most famous in many public and private experiments undertaken by Guericke.
Von Guericke's experiments did not just open up a new outlook on the world, but also paved the way to modern science and technology. He is considered one of the founders of experimental physics. His scientific results soon bore fruit. In 1690 Papin built a machine that used a vacuum to do work, the forerunner of Newcomen's and Watt's steam engines. Newton's laws of motion were also based partly on Guericke's findings.
Concerning Torricelli...
Originally posted by Illustrious
I must confess to being puzzled by your comments on Torricelli. How precisely do you think he managed to build a barometer if he didn't do what napoleon described - since that is exactly how a mercury (aka Torricellian) barometer is made.....? Sorry, my choice of words was not too good. It should be more like he designed the barometer. As said, he never really undertook any of the experiments he invented, at least not in recorded events. He only began his work on this area in the early 1640s but already died in 1647. Blaise Pascal was the one to use these findings to calculate things like the density of air. But the first really accepted proof were the Magdeburg Hemispheres. :mischief:

And yes, he did build the first air-pump in history, that was the initiation of the described experiment.


Since you did not try the bonus, here is the short answer.

Guericke was the first to discover the electrostatic field. Using a large, rotating sphere of sulfur he was the first to document the electrostatic force created by that sphere. Although he could not explain the fundamental laws behind these discoveries.

You turn illustrious.
:D

OK a quickie.

What exactly was the "Birkenhead drill"? Why might it be described as a "tough bullet to chew"? And by whom?

"Birkenhead drill" means "women and children first". It might be "a tough bullet to chew" for all men trying to get into the lifeboats, because officers should defend the "women and children first"-rule with a gun.

Partway there, test_specimen. But you haven't identified the origin of the phrase "a tough bullet to chew" - the thing you say about officers enforcing the rule with a gun is so way off-beam in the circumstances....

A full answer should give: some basic details of why the term arose, and mention of who came up with the phrase.

"Birkenhead Drill": The Birkenhead was a British troop ship and sank in 1852 when approaching South Afrika with troops, women and children on board. It ran into a rock and sank.

"a tough bullet to chew": Is from a poem by Rudyard Kipling.

http://www.everypoet.com/archive/poetry/Rudyard_Kipling/kipling_soldier_an_sailor_too.htm

"SOLDIER AN' SAILOR TOO"
"To stand and be still
to the Birken’ead Drill
is a damn tough bullet to chew"

Could the "chewing on bullets" reference have something to do with the fact that they used to give people bullets to bite on if they were having a limb amputated?

@test_specimen: Right. Although you have still only given the barest minimum, I'll adjudge you the winner.

The full significance of the incident is that, when the Birkenhead struck a rock, it was discovered that there were insufficient lifeboats for everyone on board. The troops, soldiers of the 43rd and 91st regiments of foot, were told by their officers that, if they panicked, they would swamp the boats and be a danger to the women and children (these had already got on the boats - the simple concept of "women and children first" was already a well-established one).

Accordingly, the troops stood to attention on deck until the ship broke up beneath them. Only then did they attempt to swim (almost two miles) to shore through the shark-infested waters. Very few made it.

The "Birkenhead drill", therefore, refers to extreme discipline and devotion to duty in the face of imminent death.

Kipling immortalised it in his poem "Soldier And Sailor Too", where he generalised it from the specific act of these soldiers to the habitual behaviour of the Royal Marines, who had a long tradition of going down with their ships.

The phrase "a damn' tough bullet to chew" is meant to refer to a harsh and painful part of ones duty - to load a rifle in the early 1850s involved biting the end off the cartridge before placing it in the muzzle of the rifle (incidentally, a major casus belli of the Indian sepoy mutiny).

BTW: the fact that you quote a URL suggests you did some research for this one. As lucky pointed out for the last question, that is naughty.

@napoleon526: almost certainly not - see above. Chewing bullets was what a fully healthy soldier did every day!

The well-known idea of biting on a bullet during surgery is by no means established as factual. Many historians (both military and medical) have pointed out that there is no clear evidence to show that this was ever the practice outside Hollywood.

Normal surgical practice was to give patients a leather strap to bite - this was also effective in keeping the tongue safe from being bitten through (in fact, using a bullet would have been far less effective).

The few "bitten bullets" displayed in museums are most likely to have been spent bullets grazed by cattle!

Hollywood, however, especially in cowboy movies, has popularised the more "romantic" notion of biting a bullet. What makes this more comical than historic is that the bullet used is generally a brass-cartridged percussion round, which would have stood a fair chance of exploding in the patient's mouth if bitten hard!

Over to you, test_specimen!

Ok, ok. Mea culpa. I did look up the "biting the bullet" thing to find Kiplings poem, and your solution contained much more than what I knew about this.

It makes me feel kind of guilty, so I will punish myself by not playing civ for a day and actually sitting down to learn for exams. And I will pose an easy question.

Describe shortly the "cursus honorum".

The cursus honorum was the career a roman official made during the republic.It began with Quaestor (responsible for finances),continued with Aedil (Public Affairs),Praetor (Justice) and then Consul (Government).Out of the cursus honorum were the Censors,responsible for calculating peoples wealth and making people senators (at least in theory).

Of course there is many more to say (like the different ages you could enter a certain position,difference between city and rural praetors,etc.),but for a short description it's enough (I hope).

correct answer.

you're next, kenelly!

Whose death caused the Mongols to turn back to the East after the (victorious) battle of Liegnitz in 1241? (too easy,I know...)

Genghis Khan

Originally posted by Kennelly
Whose death caused the Mongols to turn back to the East after the (victorious) battle of Liegnitz in 1241? (too easy,I know...)
Genghis's son, Odagai Khan. All Mongols had to return to the Qaraqorum to elect a new leader when the Khan died.

napoleon is correct!It was indeed the death of Odagai,the third (and always drunken ;) ) son of Genghis Khan.

Which famous group of Mexican rebels takes their name from an early 20th century guerilla leader (or bandit, depending on your POV)? Give both the name of the group and the man it's named after.

The group are the zapatists (Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional) in honnor of Emiliano Zapata.

Originally posted by MCdread
The group are the zapatists (Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional) in honnor of Emiliano Zapata.
Si, amigo! Your turn!

Originally posted by napoleon526

Si, amigo! Your turn!

:hmm: In what language was that suposed to be?

My question:

In the end of the XVII century, a princess of the french court proposed a literary contest between the two most proeminent french tragedians of the time. Both tragedies had to be about a real episode of the life of a roman emperor related in Suetonius' work. Who were the two competitors, who won and what was the subject of the work?

I can only imagine that this must be the 1670 collision between Bérénice by Jean Racine and Tite et Bérénice by Pierre Corneille.

I hadn't known that this was a literary contest as such. My edition of Racine notes that Bérénice was "inspirée, dit-on, par Madame (Henriette d'Angleterre)" which suggests that the editor (Estang) thought it might just be a myth.

The two plays opened a week apart (Racine's play was first performed on 21 November, Corneille's on 28 November), and the popular vote went in favour of Racine:

"l'oeuvre de Racine l'emporte, dans la faveur du public, sur Tite et Bérénice de Corneille."

The subject of the plays was the love between the emperor Titus and Berenice, queen of Palestine; despite their love, he is obliged to send her away from Rome for political reasons.

I have always adored the tragic dignity of her final speech:

"Je vivrai, je suivrai vos ordres absolus.
Adieu, seigneur, régnez: je ne vous verrai plus."


EDITED some crappy formatting...

Originally posted by MCdread
:hmm: In what language was that suposed to be?

Spanish, as that is what they speak in Mexico.

Originally posted by napoleon526

Spanish, as that is what they speak in Mexico.

Ok then. I'm just geting irritated at the number of times people want to look smart speaking half a dozen portuguese words and speak spanish instead. Sorry about that. ;)

Originally posted by Illustrious

I can only imagine that this must be the 1670 collision between Bérénice by Jean Racine and Tite et Bérénice by Pierre Corneille.

I hadn't known that this was a literary contest as such. My edition of Racine notes that Bérénice was "inspirée, dit-on, par Madame (Henriette d'Angleterre)" which suggests that the editor (Estang) thought it might just be a myth.

The two plays opened a week apart (Racine's play was first performed on 21 November, Corneille's on 28 November), and the popular vote went in favour of Racine:

"l'oeuvre de Racine l'emporte, dans la faveur du public, sur Tite et Bérénice de Corneille."

The subject of the plays was the love between the emperor Titus and Berenice, queen of Palestine; despite their love, he is obliged to send her away from Rome for political reasons.

I have always adored the tragic dignity of her final speech:

"Je vivrai, je suivrai vos ordres absolus.
Adieu, seigneur, régnez: je ne vous verrai plus."


Great job! :goodjob: Go ahead.

Right, a naval question.

What event (especially embarrassing for the Royal Navy) took place off the coast of Tripoli on 22 June 1893?

And what was the name of the 1949 film which included a brief parody of this event as one of its scenes?

Collision between the Victoria (flagship of the British Mediterranean Fleet) and the Camperdown.

The Loss of the Victoria
Alas! Now o'er Britannia there hangs a gloom,
Because over 400 British Tars have met with a watery tomb;
Who served aboard the " Victoria," the biggest ship in the navy,
And one of the finest battleships that ever sailed the sea.

And commanded by Sir George Tyron, a noble hero bold,
And his name on his tombstone should be written in letters of gold;
For he was skilful in naval tactics, few men could with him cope,
And he was considered to be the nation's hope.

'Twas on Thursday, the twenty-second of June,
And off the coast of Syria, and in the afternoon,
And in the year of our Lord eighteen ninety-three,
That the ill-fated "Victoria" sank to the bottom of the sea.

The "Victoria" sank in fifteen minutes after she was rammed,
In eighty fathoms of water, which was smoothly calmed;
The monster war vessel capsized bottom uppermost,
And, alas, lies buried in the sea totally lost.

The "Victoria" was the flagship of the Mediterranean Fleet,
And was struck by the "Camperdown" when too close they did meet,
While practising the naval and useful art of war,
How to wheel and discharge their shot at the enemy afar.

Oh, Heaven ! Methinks I see some men lying in their beds,
And some skylarking, no doubt, and not a soul dreads
The coming avalanche that was to seal their doom,
Until down came the mighty fabric of the engine room.

Then death leaped on them from all quarters in a moment,
And there were explosions of magazines and boilers rent;
And the fire and steam and water beat out all life,
But I hope the drowned ones are in the better world free from strife.

Sir George Tyron was on the bridge at the moment of the accident
With folded arms, seemingly quite content;
And seeing the vessel couldn't be saved he remained till the last,
And went down with the "Victoria" when all succour was past.

Methinks I see him on the bridge like a hero brave,
And the ship slowly sinking into the briny wave;
And when the men cried, "Save yourselves without delay,"
He told them to save themselves, he felt no dismay.

'Twas only those that leaped from the vessel at the first alarm,
Luckily so, that were saved from any harm
By leaping into the boats o'er the vessel's side,
Thanking God they had escaped as o'er the smooth water they did glide.

At Whitehall, London, mothers and fathers did call,
And the pitiful scene did the spectators' hearts appal;
But the most painful case was the mother of J. P. Scarlet,
Who cried, "Oh, Heaven, the loss of my son I'll never forget."

Oh, Heaven! Befriend the bereaved ones, hard is their fate,
Which I am sorry at heart to relate;
But I hope God in His goodness will provide for them,
Especially the widows, for the loss of their men.

Alas! Britannia now will mourn the loss of her naval commander,
Who was as brave as the great Alexander;
And to his honour be it fearlessly told,
Few men would excel this hero bold.

Alas! 'Tis sad to be buried in eighty fathoms of Syrian sea,
Which will hide the secret of the "Victoria" to all eternity;
Which causes Britannia's sorrow to be profound
For the brave British Tars that have been drowned.


Not sure on the film name.

Correct on the ships, and thanx for the McGonagall.

Re the film: I'll give you a clue: an aristocratic mass-murderer has no need to deal with one potential victim because of a shipwreck which is an obvious parody of Victoria/Camperdown.

Originally posted by Illustrious
Correct on the ships, and thanx for the McGonagall.

Re the film: I'll give you a clue: an aristocratic mass-murderer has no need to deal with one potential victim because of a shipwreck which is an obvious parody of Victoria/Camperdown.

'Tis a right bonny poem.

I'll still pass on the film. Can't recall too many films from '49.

Well, since you got the naval history part of the question, which was the important bit (AND provided some g*d-awful doggerel :D as well), I'm inclined to give you the laurel wreath.

As to the film, I am filled with chagrin that one of the classic comedy films of all time should not be at the tip of everyone's tongue :) . It was, of course, Kind Hearts And Coronets, the Ealing comedy starring Dennis Price, Alec Guinness, Alec Guinness, Alec Guinness, Alec Guinness, Alec Guinness, Alec Guinness, Alec Guinness and Alec Guinness (yes, Alec played eight parts - even more than Sellers in Strangelove).

One of Guinness' parts is Admiral Lord Horatio D'Ascoyne, who manages to sink his flagship by ordering it to turn in the wrong direction and ram another ship - in the film version, the only fatality is the Admiral, who chooses to go down with his ship. Not quite as disastrous as Admiral Tryon, but a clear reference to the Victoria/Camperdown fiasco.

Anyone who has never seen this film, should do so. Guinness is much funnier than when he played Obi "Wanker" Nobi.

Anyway, yours is now the honour......

Why thankyou kind sir,

Which US President appointed the first female cabinet member?
What was her name?

Originally posted by ozscott75
Why thankyou kind sir,

Which US President appointed the first female cabinet member?
What was her name?
FDR. I think her name was Kennedy.

Originally posted by napoleon526

FDR. I think her name was Kennedy.

One part correct, one incorrect. A valiant attempt though.

No, wait! Her name was Lincoln! I knew it was the name of one of those assassinated presdients.

Nope, not Lincoln either.

Frances Perkins? Secretary of Labor, 1933?

Indeed, you may now assume the title of Questioner.

There was once a German emperor who ruled outside Germany, wrote a pioneering book on ornithology and went on Crusade.

1) What was his name and the name of his house?
2) What was the Latin title of the book?
3) What was the Latin phrase used to describe him by contemporaries?

1) Frederick, ???
2) ???
3) Barbarossa?

No, Frederick was the only correct part. You need to be way closer to a full answer to get the biscuit.

Frederick was a Staufer.

He may have been, but I need a full answer.

Ok, I found it in my own personal library... :-)

1. Frederick II from the house Hohenstauffen
2. The book on ornithology is: De Arte venandi cum avibus (I always thought is was a book exclusively about hawking, but I think you meant this one, don't you?)
3. He received a lot of nicknames from his contemporaries. He was thougt to be the antichrist, others called him stupor mundi (wonder of humankind/world). He called himself lord of the world.

Fascinating guy really. Always struggled with the pope, great politician, loved arabian culture... Very interesting.

Originally posted by Siggy
Ok, I found it in my own personal library... :-)

1. Frederick II from the house Hohenstauffen
2. The book on ornithology is: De Arte venandi cum avibus (I always thought is was a book exclusively about hawking, but I think you meant this one, don't you?)
3. He received a lot of nicknames from his contemporaries. He was thougt to be the antichrist, others called him stupor mundi (wonder of humankind/world). He called himself lord of the world.

Fascinating guy really. Always struggled with the pope, great politician, loved arabian culture... Very interesting.

Absolutely brilliant Siggy. De Arte Venandi cum Avibus (the Art of Falconry) and Stupor Mundi. :goodjob:

Your turn.

aaah, it was the Frederick who was very unpopular with the Palestinian christians? Who proclaimed himself king of Jerusalem? Who didn't really want to go on crusade but had to so the church would take him back? Or was that guy named something else:p

Originally posted by calgacus


Absolutely brilliant Siggy. De Arte Venandi cum Avibus (the Art of Falconry) and Stupor Mundi. :goodjob:

Your turn.

I love being called brilliant... :D
I really had to look over some things, especially those latin title of the book. But, ask a librarian to find that quick and.... well he'll find it anyway... :-)

My question for the military history freaks on this forum:

WW2; Arnhem 1944

During the march from british XXX corps to relieve the British para's near Arnhem a corridor was formed which was repeatedly cut by the germans:

1) What was the name of the operation I mentioned?
2) Who was commander of XXX corps?

Two german armoured units were heavily engaged at the corridor. One at the west side, one at the east side of this road.

3) By what name became this road known to the world?
4) What were the names of the units and its commanders I mentioned?

Ok, that's it for today. i can think of many more nice questions about this subject, but I won't ask them (yet)... I wonder if someone knows them all. Tip: no 4 can be considered a tricky one... :-)

1) Market Garden
2) Horrocks
3) Highway of Hell
4) :o....

Not bad Willem, almost correct. 1) Market Garden, a give away.
2)Brian Horrocks and 3) Hell's highway

We only need number four. If I haven't seen the answer this day, Willem willll get the credits. I'd expected someone would answer the 9th and 10th SS Panzer divisions to number four, which isn't correct, but no one did. I really wonder if someone knows which units I do mean. :-) Tip: they operated in Brabant. One of the units almost recaptured the bridge of Son, the other one was a german Kampfgrupfe of the 15th army; notorious because it included some jagdpanther.

:lol: coincidence or the thing that lead you to make this question: wasn't the 9th knicknamed *Hohenstauffen*?

btw, i think i know one or maybe two...

Originally posted by willemvanoranje
:lol: coincidence or the thing that lead you to make this question: wasn't the 9th knicknamed *Hohenstauffen*?

btw, i think i know one or maybe two...

Yes, bonus point. :D But I thought it was too easy to ask for them.

Well, since no onse seems to be able to answer the fourth question, willemvanoranje gets the credits for answering the first three correctly. Your turn, Willem. :-)

The answer on question four was this: 107th under commander Freiherr von Maltzhahn; operating on the eastern side of the corridor. Mainly equiped with Panther tanks. Attacked Son bridge twice, approached until about 50 meters before beaten back. Managed to cut the corridor at Veghel, a bit further to the south. This kampfgrupfe fought a pitch battle near Overloon some weeks later against superior british and American forces.

The kampfgruppe I meant was KG Chill (commander Kurt Chill). Rag tag unit. Fallschirmjager, second line troops, some Stug, and four jagdpanther. They fought at the western side of hell's highway.

I had no idea what #4 was. :crazyeye:

Good question though.

Thanks. I can make up tons of those about ww2... :D

Urquhart or somebody like that lead one of the britsih paratrooper brigades didnt he........

I really can't come up with a question right now, I'm already happy I was able to answer this one for a part :o first to arrive here gets the question.

OK, this is my first question here so don't rip into me if it's too easy or hard or whatever:

During the Long Parliament (1640-42), a split occured between the Moderates, who supported Charles and the Radicals (led by Pym), who were opposed to him.

i) Who is generally seen as the leader of the Moderates?
ii) What title did he recieve under Charles II?
iii) Which country did he flee to after being scapegoated for military failure?

Originally posted by lord_byron_nz
OK, this is my first question here so don't rip into me if it's too easy or hard or whatever:

During the Long Parliament (1640-42), a split occured between the Moderates, who supported Charles and the Radicals (led by Pym), who were opposed to him.

i) Who is generally seen as the leader of the Moderates?
ii) What title did he recieve under Charles II?
iii) Which country did he flee to after being scapegoated for military failure?

i) Oliver Cromwell
ii) Lord Protector
iii) France?

Originally posted by Kamilian1


i) Oliver Cromwell
ii) Lord Protector
iii) France?

One part is right.

Lord Protector, right?

Oliver Cromwell was NOT a moderate. He became the leader of the radical puritans.

i'll try again.
i) George Goring
ii) general of horse
iii) France
if its not right, then i definitely don't know

You're way off track, Kamilian. If I didn't know better I'd say you were guessing. ;)

I'm suprised this hasn't gone yet. Tell me if you'd like a hint.

No idea who it was, but, like large numbers of others, France would have doubtless been the place they fled to.

Yeah it was France.

Any takers for the other parts?

1. Thomas Wentworth
2. Earl of Stratford
3. France

No, but you are heading in the right direction.

This guy was an MP and not directly involved in Charles I's government. He was a councillour to Charles II, though.

The only possible suspect remaining is Edward Hyde. Wouldn't exactly term him a leader of the king's party in the Long parliament, but he was certainly pro-King.

After the Restoration he became 1st Earl of Clarendon and Lord High Chancellor.

As noted above, he fled to France when Charles II used him as scapegoat for the second Dutch War (which Hyde had opposed).

Well done, Illustiorus.

I thought no one was gonna get it there for a second.

Although he wasn't a member of the king's party, he was one the key players, and to many the leader, of the MODERATE section i.e. Those that rallied against Charles in the first session, in order to punish his advisors and dismantle the machinery of prerogative government. They were opposed however, to the measures propesed by the Pym's Radicals in the second session, that sought to degenerate the monarchy to nothing more than a figurehead.

And Earl of Clarendon was the title I was looking for. This name is most closly linked with the series of anti-puritan laws known as the Clarendon Code, that actually had little to do with Hyde.

You turn, Illustrious

OK, a new question.

In 1747 Commodore Edward Legge, RN, achieved an unusual (although not necessarily enviable) political distinction. Can anyone tell me what it was?

He was elected unopposed for Portsmouth, despite having been dead for 87 days prior to polling.

Nice one ozscott!

Yes, another glorious victory for democracy in the pre-Reform Act days. Nowadays our elected members simply behave as though they're dead, but in the 18th century they did it for real.

I hand the baton over to you.

Originally posted by Illustrious
Nice one ozscott!

Yes, another glorious victory for democracy in the pre-Reform Act days. Nowadays our elected members simply behave as though they're dead, but in the 18th century they did it for real.

I hand the baton over to you.

Why thankyou kind Sir, I believe such a man could still have done an admirable job.

Now to the question:

How many Distinguished Flying Crosses were awarded to the men of 2 Squadron South African Air Force by the USAF during the Korean War?

17, I'm not exactly sure.

Significantly more actually. Their record is as follows:

2,890 Operational missions flown.
THIRY FOUR PILOTS listed as Missing or Killed in action.

American Decorations.
2 Silver Stars,
3Legions of Merit,
* DFC's @ 1cluster,
40 Bronze Stars,
176 AirMedals @ 104 clusters,
1 Soldiers Medal,
8 Prisoners of War.

Just fill in the blank.

Too difficult? Or lack of interest in the SAAF?

I guess it is too difficult. I simply don't know. You can ask me a lot about ww2, ww1 and perhaps the ACW but, the Korean war is quite a blank spot in my knowledge... Does anyone know a good book about the Korean war? And are these as good as Beevor's books? ;-)

Ok then, the answer was 55.

I guess Siggy can have the next question.

Quite a surprise, but thanks ozscott... :-)

Lets see if I can make up some nice questions about my favorite subject... WW2 offcourse...

Title: Nightfighters over Holland

During ww2 large airbattles fought over the Netherlands, and not only in daytime. During the night, British bombers infiltrated the air over occupied Europe. The german answer was quite destructive but not as effective as they wanted it to be. Nevertheless a lot of British and commonwealth aircrews flew their last mission over the netherlands.

1) a: describe how a german nightfighter ussually attacked an english bomber. (I am talking about the position of "hunter and prey")
b: Later in the war, the germans developed and adopted a tool that eliminated the need to make a quite dangerous movement during the night-time attack on a British bomber. Which tool do I mean?



2) What was generally believed to be THE major flaw of British designed bombers?

3) Who was the no1 german nightfighter ace?

4) In the Netherlands there was a huge luftwaffe "gefechtsstand" where luftwaffehelferinnen plotted the position of allied bombers and nightfighters on a glass table.

a: what is the german code name of this gefechtsstand?

b: Where was it located?

Ok, there you have it. Some very tricky questions. It took me a while to make this all up. I will give you all one week time to answer it. I don't think anyone will know the answers directly, so I guess you'll have to look for it. Look carefully: the answers are hard to find, and because I try to eliminate the "google" factor, you might probably end up with the wrong answers if you don't look right. Question 2 and 3 are quite simple. You are a crack if you know question 4... Good luck and have fun.

1. They would attack from the rear. The tool was tracking radar attached to the fighters.

2.

3. Erich Hartmann

4.

1.a. From below - the British bombers had excellent defences in front, at the rear and on top.

1.b. Guns fitted to the upper fuselage, aimed to fire upwards at a 45 degree angle. Known as schrage Musik (literally "oblique music", idiomatically "jazz music"). This meant that they could shoot into the underside of British bombers while flying horizontally.

2. Personally I've never encountered anything that is generally accepted as the single greatest flaw - too much diversity of opinion in WW2 aviation circles. You could I suppose point to the lack of a ventral turret (but then they never did that much good for American planes); or the badly-designed tailplane of early Halifaxes; or the lack of internal anti-frosting equipment or pressurisation, leading to crew hardship at altitude; you could point to all sorts of things. Not sure what you mean.

3. Heinz Schnaufer

4. Diogenes. Schaarsbergen.

EDIT: spoke too soon - got number 4.

Illustrious, one word: SPLENDID!!! :goodjob:

You had all answers correctly. I don't need to comment on that. The "flaw" in question 2 is the ventral turret. In the context of the history of german night-fighters during ww2, the lack of defensive armament at the ventral side of the bomber was the flaw I meant. German night fighters used this blind spot again and again.

Wel done, Illustrious, your turn for a question.

p.s. What was your source? ;)

Thanks, Siggy!

Re q.2, I wondered if that was the one you had in mind, but I was a bit concerned it might be too much of a continuation of q.1. Certainly in the context of the night-fighter campaign the lack of ventral armament was a major weakness.

Re my sources: for 1 to 3, memory. For 4, I got what I needed from www.atlantikwall.com.

Now, for my turn. Something completely different....

There has been a bit of interest recently in hussars. Three hussar-related questions, therefore:

(1) "Un hussard qui n'est pas mort à trente ans n'est qu'un Jean Foutre" ("a hussar who isn't dead by thirty is a blackguard"). Who said this?

(2) Who was known as the "hussar king", and what were the dates of his birth and death?

(3) From the following list, which is the odd one out, and why?


Colonel Henry Conyngham's Regiment of Dragoons
Cunningham's Dragoons
Gore's Dragoons
Princess Anne of Denmark's Regiment of Dragoons
The Queen's Consort Regiment of Dragoons

Ah... Nice 18th century cavalry warfare... ;) i think I know 2 of them, but not for sure... Let the other ones have the first shot.

someone post a new question as there has been no answers to the last question.

Q: Why did Saladin conquer Egypt?

Because it was still a relatively rich province and would provide additional loot, supplies, manpower, revenue etc for his forces?

to get rid of the cursader presence their and to have a base for furute operations and additional supplies?

There also might be some religious conflicts, though I think I'll better pick a couple books to find the certain answer.

My 2nd take - because Saladin was in competition with the Fatimids of Egypt and acted to remove them?

Originally posted by Yoda Power
Q: Why did Saladin conquer Egypt?
In addition to other reasons given, it might have been because the Fatamid caliphate that ruled Egypt were Shi'ite Muslims, and Saladin and the majority of his troops were Sunni.

Just a thought: we probably shouldn't ask "Why did..." questions here. History has very few absolute answers; Saladin may have attacked Egypt because they made fun of his mother or something.

My 2nd take - because Saladin was in competition with the Fatimids of Egypt and acted to remove them?

nearly correct, but not enough informatiom.

Just a thought: we probably shouldn't ask "Why did..." questions here. History has very few absolute answers; Saladin may have attacked Egypt because they made fun of his mother or something.

yes i see your point, just let this be the last of those questions.

I will give you a hint: It was not Saladin that were the official leader of the invasion, it was his uncle, who was comanded(sp)? by Sultan Nuredin of Damascus. But why?

damascus had been raided by the egyptians and wanted reveange?

Thank you so much, West German, for hijacking the thread.

If no-one had answered my question, it should have been for me to pose a subsequent one or add clues - which it had been my intention to do once a week had elapsed without responses (ie today). If you were bored and thought the thread should have moved on more swiftly, the polite thing would have been to PM me.

I would remind members that the questions I asked still remain to be answered.

Here Here

Alright alright, let's not argue here.

We'll get back to Illustrious questions and move fr there, while also taking a shot at Yoda's question as a matter of academic interest. ;) Deal?

Though in all fairness, you never did mention you're giving us one week to reply, Illustrious... ;) Myself, I thought you're gone for awhile or something...

And so it keeps quiet. I had to do some very tough research on your questions, Illustrious. I don't have much books on this topic in military history. However, to keep it a sport, I denied myself the internet and even visited a library to figure it out. ;) (In fact I had to go there. Books where way ovet time, had to pay my debt :D )

1) The quote is from Antoine Lassale.

2) Hans Joachim von Ziethen is known as the hussar king. He was a general in Fredericks army. He was born 14th may 1699 and he died at 26th januari 1786. Quite old for that time I guess. Also a nice example of a general who didn't die on the battlefield; I guess he didn't ride ahead of his troops when he was 86. :-)

3) Honestly I don't have a clue. I am not that familiar with this subject.

@Siggy:

1) Yes. Antoine Charles Louis, Comte de Lasalle. The irony is that, despite his comment, he lived to be 34!

2) Yes.

3) I can forgive you not knowing this one, and since you were brave enough to abjure the internet you would have found it hard to research via books. The answer is, as I hinted, hussar-related. All of the dragoon regiments mentioned became hussar regiments in the British army; in the present day (following numerous amalgamations of regiments), the army has only two regiments of hussars, the King's Royal Hussars and the Queen's Royal Hussars - of the five regiments, Gore's Dragoons is the only one whose descendants form part of the King's, the other four being ancestors of the Queen's.

As you say, tough ones - but I had to get revenge for your night-fighter control station!

Your turn again methinks.

Thanks Illustrious. You of course saw that you actually answered my question about Diogenes while I couldn't answer yours about the hussar regiments. Revenge was hardly necessary. ;)

So offcourse everyone thinks I am going to ask something about WW2. Wrong.

The Ottomans:

Yep, a nice new civ in PTW (You've got to love those Spahi's). I wonder if anyone knows something about it actually:

History has seen a number of semi nomadic tribes coming form central asia. The huns, Gengis Khan and his mongols, Tamerlane... There was another small tribe led by what was that time called a galant warrior. According to legend this galant warrior was riding at the head of his small army when he saw a dustcloud on the horizon. He and his small army of 2000 man rode to the spot. A battle was fought there. This warrior and his army intervened and won the day for the Seljuks who were fighting the mongols at that battlefield. As a reward the Seljuk sultan granted a strip of land around the battlefield to the warrior and his army.

a. Who was the warrior in this story? (His son founded a small empire there and made Bursa his capital in 1305, which was later to be the nucleus of the ottoman empire)

b. What is the name of the Seljuk Sultan and what used to be the name of his empire?

Some 80 (could be more, could be less :p ) years after the date above a battle was fought between christian knights and a large ottoman army. The christians lost. Their king was captured. Christian sources state that one of their nobleman with ten of his men rushed in the tent of the ottoman sultan. They managed to stab the sultan with a dagger in his chest. Those men were executed immediatly and so was the defeated christian king who was litteraly dragged before the dying sultan.

c. Which battle (which is very important in the history of a certain country on the Balkans) am I talking about?

d. What was the name of the nobleman who managed to mortally wound the sultan ?

e. What was the name of the succesor of the sultan who died that long and bloody day? (tip: This succesor received the nickname Yldirim which means lightning. Anyone who explains this nickname to me receives bonus points ;) )

Good luck. One week time again... :) counting on you Illustrious :lol:

a,b. Osman-bei ?

c. Cosovo battle
d. Milosh Obilich

Good start... c and d are correct. :) How about the rest?

bump

And a week has past. At last I made it. I posted a question nobody knew... :p (Offcourse I know no one even bothered or cared to look for the answers... LOL

a. Ertoghrul (gazi) or Tughril. Osman (gazi) was his son and can be considered the founder of the ottoman empire.

b. The name of the seljuk sultan: Kaihusrev. The empire of Rum was the name of his empire.

c and d were answered correctly

e. Bayezid I (Yïldïrïm) was the succesor of sultan Murad I who died at the battle of Kosovo in 1389. His fate was as worse as his father's. He was defeated and captured by Tamerlane. He died in a dungeon. He received his nickname because, according to my source, he was a very active sultan. He fought battles all over his empire and managed to expand in all directions. Because he travelled so fast from one end of his empire to the other end to fight the next battle with as much energy as the one before at the other end of his empire, he received his nickname. I didn't manage to check this with other sources however. I even found another translation for his nickname, Thunderbolt, which almost means the same offcourse.



Bifrost, congratulations; it is your turn.

I don't think more than one question should be asked at a time, it slows down the system unnecessarily.

Ok, no problem with me.

Originally posted by calgacus
I don't think more than one question should be asked at a time, it slows down the system unnecessarily.

That's true. I also don't think people should ask purposefully obscure questions that they know people won't know, and won't have a chance in hell of getting, either. Try and make them sensibly achievable for others.

well, I dont know if Im skipping someone's turn but I have a question:
was the Cid (Spain) really dead when he defeated the arabs in valencia?

Yes he was, but his men didn't know.

Sorry, forgot to post a question, I hope/think I was right, so here it goes:

When was the Suez-canal completed?

In 1892?