Hi all,

I am starting a new quizz. I will ask the questions (a la Vrykalas) and give the answer after some time. Questions will cover different eras and areas and should be mostly "easy" which means if you know history ou should not have to dig too deep on the Internet (that is not the aim) but maybe refresh your memories in a book.
These questions won't focus only on short answers but will often try to study processes and trends rather than mere facts. So I hope it can be of some use as well to learn some things and not "just" for the pleasure.
Hope this quizz attracts some attention otherwise it will be "terminated"...

First question :

how many consuls were there in Rome ? Why ? And how long were they consuls ?

Two consuls, each serving for a year.

They did this so one man couldnt take all the power and make himself King again.

Yep.

Yep, the political system of Rome was against the tyranny of one (monarchy) so the consuls were 2, elected together for a year and shared the power, including the army (2 legios each). The system was aimed at creating rivalry in case one wanted to keep the power.



Next question :

Mostly known from Thucydides, what were the three major reasons of opposition between Sparta and Athenes, especially during the Pelopponesian war ?

You know you can answer even if you think you only one or two...

I don't even know who Thucydides is... :ack:

I'll await the next question.

A Greek writer and citizen which means a soldier as well.

OK basically the three reasons were :

- hegemonia (one could not let the other be the most important power)
- ethnical : Athenians were Ionians whereas Spartans were actually Dorians, the last wave of Greek invasions, who considered themselves superior to the former comers.
- Political : Athenes was an oligarchic/democratic government whereas Sparta had an oligarchic/monarchic. It could appear little to most now but then cities were deeply divided about this question. Which did not prevent some, Athenes for instance, to change governments from time to time, mostly in times of troubles.


Next Question :

What was the "Great Game" (XIXth century mostly) ? Who was concerned, where,...

I think it's a quote from Kipling, referring to the struggle of Great Britain and Russia for Central Asia. Aside from these two, the Central Asian Khanates and kingdoms (Bokhara, Khiva, Afghanistan, Persia etc.) were concerned, as they were the ones to be ruled.
An important aspect was the question, who would rule Persia. The Persian Shah most concerned was Nassir-Edin, who was very friendly towards Europe. That's why the two European powers eventually decided to let Persia have it's independence, and have spheres of influence instead. Russia more or less controlled northern Iran, around Tehran and Tabriz, while Britain got the Gulf Region (central Persia was disregarded).
As for the other regions, Britain got stuck in Afghanistan (three wars were fought), but got to extend their Indian possessions and eventually settled for a geographical border with Afghanistan (thus dividing the Pashtunes). The Russians got all the territories of modern-day Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyztan, Tadjikistan and Kazakhstan. While imperial Russia respected the former boundaries between the Khanates, the Soviets created the (more or less random) borders which still exist today. They also created the (also more or less random) borders in the Caucasus (there are many territorial disputes today), the British created the borders of modern-day Pakistan. In the latter two cases, they took territory from Persia, and disregarded ethnic territories.
This all occured between the mid-19th century and the early 20th century.

That's a perfect answer.
That indeed enabled Persia to remain of the very few "independant" states (Ethiopia, Persia, Thailand and China).



Next question :

What's the Union of Kalmar ? What made it stop ? ...

Originally posted by LouLong
Next question :

What's the Union of Kalmar ? What made it stop ? ... [/B]

a union/alliance of the 3 scandinian countries, sweden, denmark, norway. it fell apart when sweden withdrew

Good start but can you be more precise (time, ways and reasons...) ?

Originally posted by LouLong
Good start but can you be more precise (time, ways and reasons...) ?

started in 1300's, ended in 1500's

The Union was established in 1397 in the city of ... kalmar of course. Norway was basically part of Sweden or Denmark (by mariage since 1387) so the most important was to gather Sweden and Denmark. The issue was that the Swedish nobility was not so crazy about having a more powerful king while it had a lot of power under a "national" monarch. The popular revolts of Engelbrecht (1400-1436) and especially of the regent Sten Sture who defeated the Danes in 1471 at Brukenberg saw the end of the Union that lasted less than a century and was actually never achieved.
Considering the number of Scandinavians on these baords I expected more answer...


Next QuestionWhat state is at the origin of Prussia ? How did it happen ?

Preussischer Bund (Prussian Confederation) or the Teutonic order.

Teutonic Order is a step in the right direction but I need more infos.

Did it began as the Elector of Brandenburg who gotten Prussia (the territories east of it) and with time, became the King of Prussia instead?

Sorry, but my knowledge of European history is vague... :ack:

I don´t know but there was something about the papel calling for a crusade and then the lands got divided somehow.

Konrad von Masowien, a Polish duke, called the Teutonic order in 1225 to help them fighting against the baltic tribe known as Pruzzen. They were no Christians and should be missionized. For making peace in the area known as Prussia, about the area western of Danzig until to Lithunia, the Teutonic order shall become the sovereignity of an own state. The Teutonic order followed this request, made peace in Prussia and builded up a new state. Many German settlers came to this land and many cities were founded: Königsberg, Thorn, Pillau, Danzig, Memel, Riga... In their best times the Teutonic order controlled an area until Courland. But then something happened. Because this state was booming the neighbours felt threatened. Lithunia and Poland united. This was the first step in the decline of the order. In 1410 it came to the decisive battle where over 500 years later another battle would occur: Tannenberg. The order was beaten and had to see Prussia devided: one part as Polish annexion and one under the controle of the order but now fief of Poland.
After the reformation the order secularized the state, which now was the Duchy of Prussia. This was because Albrecht von Brandenburg- Ansbach was a friend of Luther. So the House Brandenburg got Prussia. This was in 1525.
In 1640 the Great Elector become marquis of Brandenburg and Duke of Prussia. He was able to get rid of the Polish souvereignity of Prussia, which was now independent. Prussia was not part of the Reich, while Pommern and Brandenburg were. His son became in 1701 king in Prussia. His grandson Frederic the Great finally King of Prussia, when the area known as Western Prussia became Prussian again. Despite big efforts the Polish kings made they couldn´t polize this area. The population was mainly German.
This is a short history of Prussia until Frederic the Great.

Adler

Yep, you described the two important parts : the origins and the German immigration then the secularization during the Reform that turned a "crusader" religious state into a state that, albeit outside of the Reich, would eventually unite its largest part as Germany.

:goodjob:


Next question :
During the Age of Discoveries, the Portuguese trade colonization process focused on three different and subsequent products that were each time coming from farther away. What are these 3 products and from what areas were they coming (showing a geographic progession) ?

slaves (western Africa), Gold? (South-east Africa), Spices (India)

Spices fr the East Indies and India. Silk, tea, lacquerware fr China?

Pomsa was actually quite close :

Gold, Slaves and Spices (Gold Coast then generally Gulf of Guinea then Indian Ocean) in that order.
The first discoveries were indeed to locate the wealth of the "Sudan" (back then both East and West) so that the muslims of North Africa would not be the necessary middlemen. Then they went furhter away every time.


Next Question :

Why the continent discovered by Colombus is called America and not Colombia ? (Needs quite a few explanations).

Because Columbia was considered not a good marketing name, as it made reference to drug traffic.

Because Columbus always claimed he had discovered a new way to India, not a new continent, so there was no need to give it a new name immediately?

Because Columbus was not given credit to discovering a new continent. The credit was given to Amerigo Vespucci, an Italian who made the first great inland discoveries.

Originally posted by Stefan Haertel
Because Columbus was not given credit to discovering a new continent. The credit was given to Amerigo Vespucci, an Italian who made the first great inland discoveries.

Yep ! But why ? Two reasons can be considered...

The German Cartograph Martin Waldseemüller believed Vespuccis voyage notes of his "Terra Nova" in 1504. So he called the new continent America on his world card "Universalis cosmographia". That was in 1507.

Adler

P.S. There are doubts that Vespucci really made his voyages to South America.

Yep very good answer.

Among the reasons were :

- the fact Colombus discovered actually islands and only went to the continent in his last voyage, after it had been discovered by maybe Amerigo Vespucci, maybe others.
- the fact Colombus had undergone disgrace
- and the most important being that in a book, Amerigo was represented as the discoverer. This reason is very interesting because it shows a Renaissance case of media power, what is being printed becoming official. Besides there is a whole story behind the way Walseemüller got knowledge of this. It seems like he heard of it from a secret letter that was sent to the Medicis. As you see these discoverers were mostly Italians and while the location and route were kept secret so as to avoid other countries sneaking in, some Italian princes wanted to get these secret informations from other Italian "nationals" (if the word had a meaning back then, which I doubt though).

Steph's first answer is... somewhat.... well, I let you guess ;)
His second proposition is quite interesting but when the continent was discovered it became soon obvious it was not India nor Japan, nor China so it is too late to fit in here.

Next question (somehow related) :

Who were the discoverers employed by France and England to find America ? And what did they have in common ?

Hmm. Aren't they Jean Cabot and Sebastien Cabot, his son?
But Jean discovered Cap Breton in 1497 for Henri VII, and Sébastien under Charles V of Spain service, discovered Rio de la Plata in 1527... So I'm not sure they fit the English - French kings.

The first one is correct, albeit John would be more like it, both because of CFC usage language and because he was working for the English....

Well, his real name is Giovani Caboto, born in Genoa circa 1450.

So the second one is Giovanni da Verrazzano, born in Val di Greve in 1485, who discovered Hudson estuary and NewFoundland in 1524, and the common point is their nationality, or it could be their first name.

Ok, sorry for the trick.
Indeed the fact they have in common is that they are both Italians (Verrazano (famous for the bridge) being from Firenze).
I thought it was slightly tricky because John Cabot had actually englicized his name...

The French Cartier only followed Verrazano.

Next Question :

Valladolid is famous for a quite important "disputatio". What was it about ?

Originally posted by LouLong
The French Cartier only followed Verrazano.
Valladolid is famous for a quite important "disputatio". What was it about ?

Yes, and the indian didn't want him. When he tried to land, they came to slaughter his crew, shouting "Pas de Cartier":D

Valladolid:

Do the Indians of the new world have a soul? This is the point of the debate which opposes, in 1550 in Valadolid, in Spain, the canon philosopher Sepulveda and the famous dominican Las Casas, eager defensor of the Indians. Were they redeem by the Christ's blood or are they born to be slaves? In front of a Papal Lagate, a representant of Charles Quint and an assembly, the two opponents are facing. To confirm or infirm their declarations, the Papal Legate has several natives to come: they're going to observe if the natives are capable of human feelings. Eager debate, deep, odd, premonitory. For centuries, the destiny of millions of human beings will depend on the taken decision, but not necessarily of those we're thinking...

There was a quite good movie "The controverse of Valladolid" about this trial, with Jean Pierre Marielle as the Native defender (Bartolomé de las Casas), Jean Carmet who played the papal legate, and Jean-Louis Trintignant as Ginèse de Sepúlveda.

Shrewdness, subtlety, very good understanding of the political and historycal events, a movie to watch, absolutely!!"

:goodjob: (albeit never know about the French movie !).


OK, next question :


What's the kingdom of Two-Sicilys ? Origin, origin of the name, evolution...

It united the southern part of the Italian peninsula with the island of Sicily. The region was conquered by the Normans in the 11th century; the two areas were divided in 1282 between the Angevin (French) dynasty on the mainland and the Aragonese (Spanish) dynasty on the island, both of which claimed the title of King of Sicily. In 1442 Alfonso V of Aragon reunited the two areas and took the title of King of the Two Sicilies. This title was sometimes used during the Spanish and Bourbon rule of the region in the 16th–19th centuries; it became official in 1816, when the administration of both areas was combined and Sicily lost its autonomy. Conquered by Giuseppe de Garibaldi in 1860, the Two Sicilies became part of the Kingdom of Italy.

Well, it seems you forgot one part, quite relevant for your native place....
And do you KNOW that or is it just copied (because I myself would no know all dates like that) ?

I could add that Sicily was given to the Duke of Savoy at the treaty of Utrecht in 1713, thus making Savoy a kingdom, and Sicily was then exchanged for Sardinia in 1720 by the king.

But this was already covered in my article history of Savoy (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=75975)

To answer your question, I've been relatively lucky with your latest questions. I've beta tested Europa Universalis I and II, and played the board game before a lot, so I know relatively well the explorers, I've seen the movie "La controverse de Valladolid", I've read "Les rois maudits", that speak a lot of Charles, brother of Philippe IV, and his link to the kingdom of Sicilly... So I know the main facts, and then I check in dictonnaries, history books or internet sites to give the exact dates and names.

And as I am very lazy, I use copy and paste or I translate French text, without "rewritting" it when the original text fits the answer well.

Ok, fair enough :)

Next Question :

What is the State of Acra, how long and where was it ? Why ?

Harder one. There is the Acra citadel in Palestine... But I don't think it's that. I'd rather go for the Acra city in India.

Nope :p

Actually the spelling varies : it can be Acre as well but it is not the one in Palestine.
It was an independant state for a brief period of time.

Hmmm. There is a State of Acre in Brazil, at the boundary with Peru and Bolivia. But I didn't know it has been independant.

Map (http://fr.search.yahoo.com/search/fr?p=%c9tat+d%27+Acre)

Is it that? Are does it have something to do with the Syrian port Acre, during the Crusades?

Do you mean the African state Accra which was from ~ 1450- 1750, where it was annexed by the Ashanti?

Adler

Damn! Loulong could have been a little more precise. It seems there are at least 5 different Acre, Acra, Accra in Africa, Syria, Brazil, Palestine, India... and several of them could be considered "States" in some way...

Well the one in Brazil was the one I was looking for. Hard for me to be as precise as you guys (don't use Yahoo ;) ) but AFAIK this near Andin state was proclaimend independant between 1899- 1903 over territories that are now Brazilina, Bolivian and Peruvian.

A guy with some guns could still try to create his own state back then, in the good old days...


Next Question :
(and please without too much Yahoo...)

One of the peace proposition for Israel and Palestinians proposed a double state in two parts that could both communicate. What geometric shape did they propose to achieve such an effect (would-be effect of course) ?

:confused: :crazyeye: a "patatoïd"? Don't know for this one...

And BTW, I've started to use Yahoo after you said it was not the one in Palestine nor the one in India.

EDIT: Nevermind

A semi-circle?

Palestine with the West Bank, Gaza, and the Negev, and Israel with Samaria (ad some of Judea)

OK, none got it. The shape was diamond-like. There was to be an intersection at a geometric point between Israeli lands (North and Neguev) and Arab lands (East and West). Now the geometric point was not so great an idea when it came to reality because of the issue of the control of the double checkpoint so the idea was forgotten.

Anyway, next question :
What were the Rajputs (origin of the name, area, religion, history summary) ?

Anyway, next question :
What were the Rajputs (origin of the name, area, religion, history summary) ?

they were hindu's, from india, decendents of invaders from the steppes, great cavalrymen

To add to what pawpaw said, they were possibly descendants of the Sycthians (sp?) that lived in what is now the state of Gujrat in western/central India. They are traditionally warrior types, part of the warrior caste in the Hindu religion. They were independent from the Mughals and other foreign rulers but paid tribute (weren't directly ruled).

The Sons of the Kings (that's what Rajputs mean) are indeed (their ruling class) as their names proves probably the heirs of Indo-European invaders. Great cavalrymen indeed they bended (as vassals) in front of the Mongols and Moghols but they joined fairly early the Hindu revolt led by Shivaji of the Marath confederacy to cause the decline of the Moghol Empire at the end of the XVIIth . They could not really take advantage of it as Europeans joined in the fun fairly quickly.

Next question :

What (?) is the origin of "boycott" ?

What (?) is the origin of "boycott" ?

i'm pretty sure its got to do with ireland and their many problems with the english but i can't think up details

While the Irish farming crisis 1879 Captain Charles Cunninghanm Boycott was leading Lord Earnes manors in the Shire of Mayo. Because of the high fees the tenants the leaders of the radical "land league" called up to isolate these Lords like Lepers. Boycott had the questionable "honour" to be the first. No one made business with him and no one gave him his post. After a year he retreated with his family to England. He died 1897 in Suffolk. But his name became the synonymon for this kind of isolation.

Adler

Yes, indeed. Nice to have your name turn into so nice a common word, isn't it ?
I remembered when I did my master thesis about Irish nationalism and discovered that, I was lol !

Good answer of course.

Next question
What happened to ex-German colony of South-West Africa after WWI ?

It became a mandate of South Africa, which ran the country until 1991 iirc.

Yes, right. Instead of becoming English it became South African till South Africa makes it independant. As you said it took a looonnng time...

Next question

in 1914, German colonies represented how much (in percentage) of total German lands ?

Oh I had a graphics in my old school book about that. IIRC it was over 80- 90 % of the German territory. The German colonies were:
German South West Africa
German East Africa
Togo
Cameroon
Western Samoa
German New Guinea
Micronesia
Tsingtau

In ww1 all colonies except German South west Africa (1915), Cameroon (1916) and German East Africa surrendered in 1914. Only in German East Africa the troops under Majo general Paul von Lettow- Vorbeck were fighting until the very end of the war. Indeed they surrendered finally several days after the cease fire in Europe (bad connection with the European theatre. They got the news because of capturing a British messenger. He was on the way to the British troops, who also had no idea about the peace).

Adler

Yep, they made up 84 % of the global land.
On the other hand, Germany proper made 84% of the global population.
That explains relative ease of colonization.

Yep, they made up 84 % of the global land.
On the other hand, Germany proper made 84% of the global population.
That explains relative ease of colonization.

Next question
[/B] What is the origin of "Gibraltar" ? [B]

The British Crown colony Gibraltar was occupied in the Spanish Successor war 1704. In the Peace of Utrecht the British got this colony in 1714. Since 1830 Crown colony. Last colony in Europe.
The name Gibraltar leads to the Berber warlord and ex slave Tarik ibn Ziyad. He nvaded as first Muslim Europe in 711 with 7000 men near the Rock of Gibraltar, which was called Jebal Tarik (Rock of Tarik) by his men. Eventually the Christians changed the name to Gibraltar.

Adler

Yep, actually I was interested in the second part : Djebel al-Tarik, the Rock of Tarik, where Muslims disembarked.
Now they just take the plane albeit many still try to cross the straigth to reach Spain from Morocco.

Next question :

Name 10 cities or places that have French names of French origins in the US

DesMoines, BâtonRouge, Grand Têton (national park)...

Hmm... I'm not very good with US geography, so that's only 3...

New Orleans, Pierre, Milwaukee, Decatur, Dubuque, Bonne Terre, Marquette, La Fayette, Prichard, Beaumont, Natchez, Abbeville, Thibodaux, Duluth, Des Plains, Grand Marais, Des Moines, Baton Rouge (both mentioned allready by Steph), Saint Francisville and Des Allemands ;).

I hope 10 of these French like names are of French origin (Great Lakes, Louisiana).

Adler

Milwaukee, Decatur, Prichard, Natchez, Duluth don't sound French to me at all.
Most of the others I don't know but I guess they must be (lol). After all there are 3 Paris in Texas alone (or says a German director).
You guys forgot two important cities in the ex-French "Louisiane" : St Louis (if only one !) and Detroit (founded by a French chevalier de Detroit).

OK, fair enough. Wish there were more contenders though, I wished that question to attract US fanatics' attention.

Next question (and without copying the whole stuff from the webn of course ;-)):

What is the "Journey to the West" (aka Xi You Ji) ? Does it have any historical background ?

One of the four literary classics of traditional China. It was based on one of the Buddhist monks' (Fa Hsien?) journey to India, to get the Scriptures (to settle theological arguments back home) direct fr the source.

Milwaukee comes from an American native tongue (go, watch "Wayne's World"!).

IIR now the Indian origin of Milwaukee. But Wayne´s world is a bit too stupid for me.

Adler

XIII got it right.
There is a historical background (beginning of offcial Buddhism in China under the Tang) but the novel itself takes quite a few liberties with history. Indeed it is the novel that tells the story of the monkey king who with his cudgel keeps on fighting against evil spirits who want to eat the flesh of the priest because since he is holy to eat him would provide immortality.
It is actually pretty boring after a while but it is interesting to notice the similarities between it and the manga Dragonball that IMHO got its inspiration from the novel.

Next question
Poland, when allowed as a limited state in the classical age was actually a principality with a foreign ruler, therefore united "personally", even for most of the Napoleonic era. Who was that ruler or what country did he also rule more directly ?

@Loulong
Dragonball, in its earliest form, WAS heavily inspired by the Xi You Ji. San Goku's name written in Kanji translates to the monkey king's exact name. Klilin was the monk Tang San Zang scaled down and given a different personality. (The original was the most annoying "good guy" in the book, according to recent audiences.) Wuron was based on the monkey king's pig-faced companion. (Who was also extremely oversexed, even in the original novel. :D )

For me the best part of the book was the early parts, when the still untamed monkey king single-handedly took on the entire pantheon of Chinese gods (curiously organized just like the earthly imperial system :rolleyes: ), and was actually WINNING! :eek: So it seems so disappointing that such a powerful character ends up serving and protecting a wimpy monk for the rest of the story.

Uh, the King of Prussia?

The Elector of Saxony was for a long time also King of Poland. That´s why king Frederic I. wanted to get also the honour to be a king. In 1701 he became king in Prussia. But IIRC August the Strong was the last Saxon on the Polish throne. After it they had still kings but the state was in rapid decline and finally departed between Prussia, Austria and Russia. So it was before Napoleon when the House Wittelsbach lost the throne of Poland.

Adler

Adler is right about Poland. The same happened under Napoleon when the prince of Saxony was granted once again personally (Saxony and Poland were still considered , Saxony two different states). Of course at Vienna in 1815 Saxony lost it all, Prussia actually wanted Saxony erased from the map ! And Poland was shared by Prussia, Austria and Russia until 1918.

OK, next question :
What is the origin of French Languedoc ? Note Steph, or any other French person, is not allowed to answer this question (too easy).

Oh! One I knew

C´était une question difficile. Mais je sais:
The correct answer is the origin of this word is in historical times the different word for yes. While in one area oc meant yes was it in another oil, which became oui. So Languedoc comes from Langue d´oc meaning the area where oc was the meaning of yes. In contrast there was also the Langue d´oil. I remember hearing something about Dante in this contex but I´m not sure what it is.
C´est tout.

Adler

Yes, Languedoc (the area) basically means the area where the language of "Oc" is spoken and Adler has explained well what "oc" meant. The "frontier" between the two main languages was actually the Loire river (south of it it was the "oc" land) but only the modern French area along the Med and between Spain and Provence is now called that way.

Next question
In 1839-1841, France had to face (albeit it did not turn into a war) a colation of English-Prussians-Russians. Why what this weird alliance for and by what was it caused ?

I know this one! Uhh... :(
I'll have to edit the post when I remember. ;)

Obviosuly nobody knows. It is linked to French influence in Egypt when Mehmet Ali seceded from the Ottomans. The French influence was to be replaced by British one once Egypt became truly independant (1841).

Next question :
The first revolution for independance in Mexico was led by a priest. Who was he ? How did his "campaign" do ?

father hidalgo, he had a huge peasant army that did o.k. for a little while but disolved after hidalgo was betrayed and ambushed with several key followers and executed. another father, morales kept the revolt alive till he too was executed. the revolution went underground for several years till 1820/1821

Well his revolution did not fare so well though. He relied too much on numbers...

BTW since you mentioned Morales, he will be the topic of the next question :

What was Morales ethnical background ?

he was mestizo-had some indian in him

If I am correct he was partly indian, partly black. Mestizos at the origin was actually only used for half-indian, half black people.

Next question :
What European country had the highest percentage of Jews in its population in 1930 ? What percentage ?

Poland with 12- 25 % or so? They had 5 million Jews and 25- 35 million inhabitants. Russia had also many jews but not in that percentages. In Germany there were 500.000 jews under 80.000.000 IIRC.

Adler

Poland it is, albeit they made up roughly 11% of the population "only".

Next question (long question for a short answer), related to it :
Before nazism and even post-WWI German nationalism, the Jews were quite well accepted by the Germans, they were even better appreciated than Slavic people, especially in Germany and Austria-occupied Poland, where many of them served the administration. One fact helped them greatly in playing that role of medium. What was it ?

Money? I think that "many" jews were moneylender. Now i better go and edit my location :D. No seriously. In my history book there are many propaganda posters with a fat jew (with a hooked nose ;)) sitting on a big moneysack. But I also think to remember that the jews were proportionaly a bit more wealthy then the germans.

They were better educated than the majority of the German population.

Maybe I should explain myself better. There was no pb with the German population at that time at all. On the contrary German people used the Jews for the administration and such of the slavic-populated areas (mostly occupied Poland). But how come ?
Indeed education was one of the factors, but there are two others, one linked somehow to better education and another, quite important and which is the one I am looking for right now.
About moneylending, it is indeed true, to know why will then be the interesting subject of my next question... (good hint !).

The fact that they were outside the Protestant-Catholic division ?

The Jews were very good assimilated into the German society. They felt as Germans and were as national as "normal" Germans. Antisemitsm in Germany first started to grow when the orthodox Jews with their "ridiculous" look like went through Germany mostly to the US. some stayed. The liberal, German Jews saw a danger in these Jews and so even among them prejudices spread which are even today sometimes alive. Also in the US these prejudices are still alive. Is that assimilation of the Jews meant?

Adler

I will give the answer I expected because you guys are turning around it.
Basically yes, Jews were quite well assimilated. They were as well more urban than the Slavic peoples, the towns being mostly German + Jewish + some limited Slavic upper-class. Since they were not Slavic they were used by German and Austrian administration (the old rule : divide to control) because there was no fear of collusion between Jews and Slavic on national gorunds. This actually explains the behavior of many Polish towards most Jews under Nazism when Germans switched from benevolent protectors to immediate danger. One other fact greatly helped the Jewish community there to play that role : Yiddish. Yiddish is actually a mixture of Hebrew and German and these similarities of language were actually a great tool for "assimilation" and serving the German powers (all types of administration...).

OK, next question, as promised it is about money-lending.
The Jews have a reputation of money-lenders. Sorry for the ones who prefer political correctness to historical accuracy, but that stereotype had some reasons to exist in Europe. Of course the entire Jewish community was definitely not made up of money-lenders but most money-lenders were Jewish. It is a fact, not a critic. And actually what interests me here is to know how they became, with time, the typical European money-lenders. Any ideas ?

In medievel times christians was forbidden to lent money with interests. But at the end of medievel times the need of money became bigger and bigger. Before Christians was allowed to borrow money with interests, Jews were allowed to do so. Since there were many jobs for the Jews forbidden this was one of the the few jobs they could do.

Adler

P.S.: This is only fact and nobody shall feel offended.

Oh I forgot: Yiddish is considered to be a German dialect.

Adler

Oh I forgot: Yiddish is considered to be a German dialect.

Adler

Yep, adds to my point ! :)

Yep, Adler is right. It is linked to a combination of factors that actually forced Jews to be over-represented in that branch.

Even if things started to change slowly during the late Middle-Ages (Italian bankers, Jacques Coeur in France), money-lending was considered a sin by the catholic hierarchy because man should get his salary/living from working, not by making others work for him by money-lending and interest-getting. This reference was actually found in the Old testament which applied to the Jews too. So both were not allowed to lend money to their own people but since money-lending was actually needed (first by the princes, then by the economy), a "solution" was found, the Jews would be the money-lenders to the Christians. This was all the more interesting that Jews were not allowed to own land (the traditional wealth of medeival Europe and up to the XIXth century the more Eastwards you went in Europe) and since they were forbidden, as Adler said, to apply to many jobs. So they would usually have their wealth in gold, gems, jewelry, which, being carriable, could be loaned. They would be merchants or craftsmen in these jobs too (founder, changer, jeweler) and because of their numerous forced migrations, they could create networks which were quite helpful in banking (see the payment of Richard the Lionheart ransom).
So it was kind of "easy" for Nazis and other anti-Jewish movements (Vichy France,...) to criticize the Jew as the money-lender since basically it is a job he had ben forced to do because of Jew-specific laws.

Next question :
Congo (Zaire, Congo-Kinshasa) was whose colony initially ? Be careful there is a trick

IIRC Congo was the personal colony owned by the king of Belgium. Boy one man owning his own colony! Later it became a Belgish colony, one of the most cruel and awful lead colonies in history.

Adler

Yep it was the personal property of the king (it was granted to him by the first adventurers then missionaries). He later gave this property to Belgium (the country).

Next question :

What is the first European country to create health and accidents insurances ? When ?

Prussia? No idea when...

It was Germany in 1880- 1894 (Sozialgesetze). Bismarck made these laws to help the poor people. Germany became the first state with social laws. Even the US of today have partly no such laws.

Adler

One small details about the money lending issue.
It was not a sin because a "man had to get his salary/living from working, not by making others work for him", this would have been a tremendous earthquake in the very basic of feudal socity, where the peasants works for the lord!
No, the actual reason was more theological. Money-lending is to make money from interests, and so from the work of Time. But as Time was considered directly under God patronage, money lending was considered as trying to make God work for you, and that was the sin.

Yep, Steph is more precise than I was. Obviously the pb was not making offers work for you in the basic meaning of it...
Thanks for the info.

About the last question, Adler was right.
It was Germany (so obviously after 1870) and the social laws of the 1880's. Sickness (or health) insurance in 1883, accidents (1884) and there was a last one in 1889 (old age and maimed (?).

Next question (not only for our prefered Eagle !)
What country did the Sverkers and Eriks families fight for ? When ?

Norway I think...

I think Sweden, but I don't know when.

Sweden it is. Remains the when...

Completely random guess: mid-1700's

Nope ! Late 12th, early 13th.
Mid XVIIth is the Palatinat dynasty (Charles X,...).

Next question :
What's the regnum Bospori ?

Was that the Roman region of the Bosporus, the Crimean peninsula and surrounding territories extending into the Ukraine?

Yep but I would like more infos as usually in this quizz. How did it start, how did it became Roman, when, until when ... ?

Regnum Bosphori:
The first was a commercial kingdom built by a greek (or a half-greek), Spartochos who founded a dinasty (Spartochides) in 5th century bC; then it became an important part of kingdom of Pontus (with Mithridathes' dinasty), and even more important with Pharnax ('great' Mithridates VI's son) cause Pharnax' father had lost 'continental' (Anatolian) part of his kingdom, the Pontus (conquered by Lucullus & Pompeius).
Atm I don't recall any more
Bye you all!

Just quite a bit more precise:
Pompeius ended Lucullus' campaigns in 66 bC.
Pharnax was re-expelled by Pontus by Caesar in 47 bC (battle of Zela: "Veni-vidi-vici"), and his son - making an agreement with Romans - conserved Bosphorus, who continued to be a Roma's 'client' kingdom.
Bye

Yes, it was created by Greek (colonies mostly) in Crimea because it was a wealthy area from which a lot of wheat was exported to the Greek cities of the Aegean sea.
The Pontus dynasty saw the interest of getting this area and the threats of "barbarians" on the Greek colonies enabled him to go there as a savior first then stay as a ruler.
Its resources in wheat and humans enabled the Great Mithridate to rage his war against the Romans but eventually his dynasty was expelled from Pontus proper to remain in the northern part of the kingdom only. It was the end of the Black sea as a Pontic lake.
The regnum bospori then became a protectorate of the Romans but, isolated with only naval contact to the "civilized" world, whose products could be found elswhere in the growing Empire, it slowly disappeared.

Next question :
A Scotsman is quite famous for one of the first capitalist manipulations in France. Who, what, when, why and how ?

Only a look with hurry ;):
maybe John Law, in 18th century (or late 17th? boh?), tried to create a kind of 'Bank of France' and he started using stock exchange 'titles' in that country, but the thing didn't end well... I said, it's just a shot...
Bye

Adam Smith, with his book the Wealth of Nations that talked about a laissez-faire style of economy, sometime in the 1760's-1770's.

I dont know his name but

I think he got a monopoly on trade in the South Sea or somethiing, started a company offered stock, big buying craze, gets KIng to let him print paper money for the goverment, the paper money is backed by shares in his company, share price drops, prints more money leading to a circle of hyper inflation.

I was refering to John Law (like Gagliaudo said)who created a society for the exploitation of the Louisiane, the rest is like Constantine said (apart from the area). Frenzy feeding frenzy until the system collapsed completely, living in the mouth of France a bitter taste. The "big" economy was ruined for a while and definitely not "daring".

Next question :
Three countries occupied parts of the Ottoman Empire after 1918, what were these countries ? Bonus : what areas did they control ?

1) Great Britain: Palestine-Trangiordania
2) France: Siria-Lebanon
3a) Italia: ports in south Anatolia (Rhodos-Doodecanesos and Libia were italian from italian-turkish war 1911-12)
3b) Greece???

Russia occupied part or it (Eastern Anatolia), but was driven back in 1916.
The British attacked from Kuwait, but were envelopped and surrendered in 1915. The British attacked again in Mesopotamia and took Baghdad in 1917. In the meantime, Peter O'Tool lead a bedouin revolt and took Aqaba in 1917. Then, on the Gaza front, British and Arabs cooperated, and took Jerusalemn (december 1917) and Damascus (October 1918).
The Ottomans managed to have a last victory at Aleppo (end of October), but asked for armistice on October 30th 1918.

France occupied Syria and Lebanon (Secret Spykes - Picot agreement between France and England in 1917), and also Cilicia.
The Italians claimed the coast opposite the already Italian Dodekanese islands; the Greeks desired the Smyrna region and Eastern Thrace.

In 1921, France withdrew from Cilicia; the united front of the Entente disintegrated. Ataturk's forces defeated the Greeks in the battle of Sakalya in 1922; in 1923 the Greeks were expelled from Smyrna. The Italians withdrew. The war had been decided militarily.

Well, Steph, Peter O´Toole is a British actor, who was in the movie Lawrence of Arabia.
In the list of Gagliaudo Mesopotamia is missing. Parts of them became the Iraq after a short British reign. Saudi- Arabia was IIRC not part of the Ottoman Empire.

Adler

Well, Steph, Peter O´Toole is a British actor, who was in the movie Lawrence of Arabia.
Adler

I know, but when I visited Oxford, I went to the college where Lawrence made his studies. And in the dining room, there is a painting of him, in arabian outfit.
And the guide told us that once, he was here the school children, and he asked "Who can you recognize in these pictures?" And one of the children pointed at the painting and said "Peter O'Tool!". And it is true they look quite similar.

Yes, I forgot Mesopotamia (my hurry).
I thought at Russia, too, but I recalled that Russia exit from war before 1918 (and the question was on 1918 and after).
Sykes-Picot secret agreement was in 1916.
I think Steph was joking about oldie Pety O'Toole...
He couldn't struggle in Arabia in 1916-18 AD, cause he died defending Troy in ca 1184 bC... :lol: :lol: :lol:

Oops I made a huge mistake in the question (otherwise it is impossible to answer). I meant Turkey after 1918, not the colonies, protectorates of Syria, Irak,... but on the Turkish soil proper.

Well...
Italia (see before) - France (port of Alexandretta and maybe others) - Greece (?)

Then Italy, coast opposite Dodecanese Island, Greece around Smyrna, France in Cilicia

Yep, Steph had it almost complete. Greeks also controlled Thracia (European Turkey).
The Greeks actually planned on staying at least around Smyrna for for them it was part of ancient Greece, not as a land-based country but centered around the Aegean sea. The French who controlled Syria (just South of Cilicia they occupied) decided to take a part of it and give it to Turkey. Syria is still angry because of it against both France and Turkey. It is true the area had a nice harbor (the gulf of Alexandrette (Iskanderun in Turkish) but blocked from its hinterland, it declined a lot and did not bring that much to Turkey while being a real loss for Syria).

Next question :
In 1930, a international naval conference in London decided to maintain a ratio of 5-5-3. What does it mean ? For what countries ?

Submarines?

The ratio of capital ships that each nation can build. 5:5:3 for US:UK:Japan. Japan got the smallest fraction 'cause they're only active in the Pacific.

Nice to see our mod step in ! And all the more for a good answer. Nothing to add.

Next question
Now what was the order before 1914 ?

I'm pretty sure there was no treaty limiting naval size until after WW1. Do you want the order of the navies in size?

No, there wasn't a limitation treaty before WWI. So it must be fleet
size.

UK, US, Germany?

I don´t know, what you mean exactly with order, but the strength of the navies was:
1. UK
2. Germany
3. USA
4. France

Adler

There was no actual multilateral treaty but some treaties existed, mostly with UK and another power = bilateral rather than truly international treaties.
UK was the dominant power but how did it remain so in both its treaties and its policy ?

There was no actual multilateral treaty but some treaties existed, mostly with UK and another power = bilateral rather than truly international treaties.
UK was the dominant power but how did it remain so in both its treaties and its policy ?

i think they tried to keep a ratio of 3--2 over germany in battleships

That was the ratio at Jutland. The British once tried to show the worlds the Germans were the bad guys. They sent an ambassador to Germany who should ask for a treaty. They thought he would be soon back. But the Germans, even Tirpitz agreed. So the British ambassador, who didn´t thought about the Germans could agree, went suddenly. In 1914 however the Germans were close to sign a treaty with the UK. But then the war came...

Adler

Well if you invade neutrals that's where it gets you ;)

(That's a joke btw)

My question was poorly phrased so I will give the answer. Traditionally the UK policy was to have a fleet at least equal to the n°2 and n° 3 countries' navies.

It sometimes reached agreement, as with Germany where a consensus was found as long as battleships (dreadgnoughts really) would still be double the number of German ones.

Next question (less "complicated") :
What have Rabelais and Thomas More had in common ?

Both wrote satirical books.

Adler

The idea is good but satyrical was not the adjective I was expecting.

I´m a Lutheran and don´t know if Rabelais was made holy by the Pope. More yes, but Rabelais?

Adler

Maybe both wrote surrealistic works... I mean, "Utopia" (More) and "Gargantua/Pantagruel" (Rabelais), can't recall more... (or More???) ;)

Gagliaudo, these books I mentioned before.

Adler

Adler, I imagined this, but I read Loulong expected another ADJECTIVE, so I try to change you 'satyric' in 'surrealistic', also mentioning titles (you didn't exactly this, but I didn't mean this sense). I don't know well Rabelais, too.
It's only a tentative, I'm just curious knowing response, not my intention steal your FIRST answer. So, don't be sad.

:confused: What did he mean? An adjective FOR the books or for the MEN ? :confused:

Adler

Next question (less "complicated") :
What have Rabelais and Thomas More had in common ?

there both dead :rolleyes:

@pawpaw:
:lol: :lol: :lol:
No doubt that's RIGHT answer...

Edit : double post. Nothing to see here, please proceed to next post. Please proceed or we will call the police. Please.... ! ;)

Pawpaw is ...... RIGHT ! But that is not what I wanted.
Basically what I wanted was "utopists", a word derived from Thomas More's own "Utopia", the place that does not exist but is a dream one leans towards.
Rabelais described such an utopia, the abbaye of Theleme that was slightly different.
Many of you were near the answer.

Side note to Gagliaudo if he does not mind by being an obnoxious teacher :
"j'ai détesté l'iniquité, c'est pourquoi je meurs en exil."

BTW, next question :
What is gold used for in More's Utopia ?

Gold is used in the foreign policy in the "original use". Despite this it is only used for night pots and chains. (I would be glad to trade with them ;) )

Adler

Good answer from Adler.

Next question
Paskievitch was nicknamed "the butcher of the ....". What people was he the butcher of ? Why did he act there ?

I heard about him as govenor of Poland who bloodily suppressed a Polish uprising in the 1830s. So I suppose he was the butcher of the Poles. He wanted to russifize Poland and suppressed them very bloody.

Adler

Yes, he was a Russian general, military governor that was quite harsh in his repression of Polish nationalism. He was so "good" at that that later when Austria had problems of its own in Hungary, he was sent there to help Austrian armed forces. Russia was providing help because of the Holy Alliance between Austria and Russia against all changes.

Next question :
Germany raged three wars to achieve its unity. Against what countries and why these countries in particular ? When would be nice as well ;-).

1864 - against Denmark for Schleswig.Holstein duchies' question (allied with Austria!)
1866 - against Austria to erase Hapsburg influence on German Confederation
1870/1 - against Napoleon III French Empire who threatened the unity intention of Germany under the Prussia

Also, IIRC the Franco-Prussian war was over whether a hollerzon(sp, Prussian royal family) would acede to the Spanish Throne. France opposed this as they feared Prussia and Spain attacking it on two fronts.

I would add a fourth, the first German- Danish war of 1848. Here is a short description of the history of Schleswig- Holstein and both wars.
Both wars had to be lead because of Danish nationalists woh wanted to annex Schleswig, which would have meant a violation of a treaty with a member of the German Confederation. This was prevented in both wars.
The German war of 1866 was a much more complicated war. Austria once torpedoed all plans to unify Germany because of the territiories out of Germany they had (Germany in this time was considered as Germany in the borders of 1871 (without Alsace- Lorraine), Austria, South Tyrol, Trieste, Bohemia and Moravia). The Astrians refused to give up these territories and the Germans didn´t want such a monster of Austria- Hungary AND Germany. So there was only one way to "persuade" the Austrians: War! After 7 weeks Austria was beaten. So there was only one nation left which could make trouble: France. And it made trouble. Napoleon III. suffered a big diplomatic defeat when the Austrians lost on the Bohemian fields of Königgrätz. He had problems with the French people and this defeat was not at a good time. He couldn´t allow a strong Germany in the east. Not at this point. But the Germans had the right to unify. And the only way to prevent it had to be war. Bismarck could not attack France without risking war with every other power in Europe. So he had to clear the German back diplomatically. He had already a treaty with Russia and Britain was not interested to fight for France and Napoleon. Austria was defeated, but due to a mild peace they were not sueing for revenge. Denmark had a big fleet, but now the Germans had 5 new armoured ships while the Danes had none. And because of the switching of the government the nationalists were in the opposition. So only France was left. And Bismarck knew that when he wanted to unify Germany he had to risk a last war. It was inevitable. The only question was not the if of this war but the when. So he prepared for this date. He founded the first German unified state, the north German confederacy. Only the south German states were left out. But he managed it to make to make secret mutual protection pacts with them. The South German states had to fight against French raids since centuries and so there was no problem for such a treaty.
In 1870 the Spanish king died without heir. The Spanish asked a related of the Prussian king to become king of Spain. At once the alert bells rung in Paris. They feared the times of Karl V. who encircled France. And Naopleon had interior problems. So he decided to make this topic to his number one and sent the ambassador to the Prussian king Wilhelm I. He agreed to retake his related as Spanish king- and went on holidays to Bad Ems. Bismarck was disappointed. Such a big chance to catch the French- and what did he? He retreated. But then somethin unpredictable happened: The French ambassador also went to Bad Ems and spoke to the king without permission! A big faux- pas! He was very polite and demanded that never again a German shall become king of Spain. But this time it was too much to be acceptable. The king denied. He said he coudn´t agree to that. The he continued to go for a walk. But soon he telegraphed Bismarck. Bismarck got the depeche when sitting for lunch with Moltke. Bismarck became very glad to hold this small paper in his hands. He edited the depeche, known as Emser Depesche. He deleted a few words, but nothing was added. This edited paper was published. Now it looked like a personal offense to the king of Prussia. Germany was outraged. But also the French. The pressure was too big for Napoleon to accept this. He declared war. Although surprised to be at war with TOTAL Germany the French thought that was not a big problem. On Christmas they would be in Berlin or back at home. They took their wifes and children with them. At day they wanted to serve La Patrie, but L´amour at night (typical French ;) ). Even the emperor was with the main army. But the war went bad. Despite the ability of the French navy to blockade the German harbours, the German navy with the super battleship König Wilhelm as fleet in being kept the French fleet from being too offensive. And the Danes were not persuadable to attack Germany. And then the catastrophy: Sedan. The French main army was encircled and had to surrender with Napoleon. At the very next day France was republic. But instead of giving up and accept a united Germany the combats continued. The planned invasion of North Germany was terminated and the soldiers sent to the front. But the Germans advanced. on December the 18th 1870 King Wilhelm accepted the request of the president of the Bundestag to become German emperor. Because he had resentiments to become a democratic elected leader, which he was now, in January the 18th the German Reich was proclamed at Versailles. Paris was already enclosed and would fall within a few weeks. After the fall of Paris France made peace in Frankfurt am Main. So Germany was a united nation.
This is a short history of the German unification.

Adler

@Adler: nice history.
I may add Italia was a bad ally for Prussia in 1866... ;)
(Only Garibaldi made something good, likelater in 1871...)

:lol: Tegethoff and Lissa ;)

Adler

Well, u know your history. Adler I did not expect less from you being German lol.
Two notes : about Denamrk and Austria, less about France. The pb is that after 888, the German part of the Carolingian Empire became the HOly Roman Empire while France decided to keep out and follow its own destiny. It was the first opposition between the beginning of a nation-state and the universal dream of the Empire.
Called German, this Empire included however many territories that were not German ethnically and more were added with time (Bohemia for instance). If you add to that the feudal rules of sovereignty, some territories became dominated by foreign rulers (and some became kings) while remaining officially within the Holy Roman EMpire boundaries. The result was that after Napoleon interfered, the Empire was still made of one Empire (Austria), 5 kingdoms (Prussia, Saxony, Bavaria, Wurtemberg, Hanover (English) as well etc..... including 10 duchies, some of them belonging to foregin rulers.
So the situation was difficult to follow. The king of Denamrk was king in his own kingdom but a vassal duke of the Empire while England was a kingdom within the Empire besides its own islands. The desire for unity after 1814 faced the archaic feudal traditions of the Empire and would have to fight both inside for one ruler to emerge then against the foreign rulers who were also part of the German table.
Two inner rulers were considered : Prussia (lutherian) and its new holdings in ex-Westphalia and Austria (catholic) with its traditional ally Bavaria. Both were German ethnically but Prussia was mostly German (except Silesia) while Austria was only partly and its size and religion frightened some Germans. So the Danish war was to make clear foregin rulers would have to forfeit the feudal rights over German lands while the war with Austria was to decide what type of Germany would emerge (Gross Deutschland with Asutria, or klein Deutschalnd with Prussia and keeping the Austrian EMpire and all its foreign holdings out. Eventually the fight with France was to force the unity (always easier against a common ennemy) and to avoid French resistance indeed as well as to take back some ex-Holy Roman Empire lands France had digested over time, but only the ethnic German ones (Alsace and a small part of Lorraine) as Germany was supposed to be a nation-state. After 1918 when Austria had become only German it decided by itself to join Germany but was forbidden to do so by the Versialles treaty which explained why Hitler's anschluss was accepted quite easily.

The main reason peace was not signed in Paris was because there had been a rebellion in Paris called La Commune that Republicans such as Thiers finished off with German help or laissez-faire.

Next question :
During their late golden age, Pirates (mostly Europeans) tried to create a egalitarian republic in a harbor on the shores of Morroco. What harbor ?

I don´t think that foreign rulers were such a problem. Infact it could have lead to very trustable allies. Your notes are correct, But two additions: In 1848 (the year of the March revolutions) the Germans wanted to become one nation. The border of that what was the German Confederacy should first become the German border. Bohemia and Moravia, no ethnical German areas, were part of the Holy Roman Empire for centuries. They were seen as German as the area of Berlin or Königsberg or Vienna. But the question was what should happen with the other Austrian territories? There was a long- too long- dispute in the National Assembly. Finally the small German solution was taken, but with the rejection of the emperor crown by the Prussian king Friedrich Wilhelm IV. the revolution died. Bismarck was a foe of this revolution indeed but a strong supporter of the German unity. So he had no chance as to fight against Austria. In this war, you´re right insofar, the last foreign ruler, the English king, lost his German kingdom Hannover. But Britain was not at war with Prussia! So the influence of these kings was little and made in their German and not foreign capitols. On the other hand I believe that the reason to keep foreign rulers out of Germany was one of Bismarcks reasons to annex Hannover. The other was having a territory which connected Westphalia and the rest of the Prussian lands.
Bismarck didn´t want to annex Alsace Lorraine at first. If the French made peace he would, against the will of the marshals, made a mild peace with them. But the French fought until the very end so he couldn´t prevent the annexion. This the French never forgot. The Germans indeed supported in this times the republican forces of the French. Because the German ambessedor von Arnim was supporting the Royalists, he had trouble with Bismarck. But that´s another story.

Adler

Well, the answer was not easy obviously.
It was the small Pirate republic of Sale on the Atlantic coast of Morroco.

Next question :
Where did Ignace de Loyola build his "society of Jesus" ? Hint it is a large European city.And why did he do that in a foreign country ?

He founded it in Paris. I'm not sure of the why. I know he was wounded at war and decided to do a spiritual retreat, and then founded the society, dedicated to the Pope. But why in a foreign country?

Yes, he was injured at the siege of Pampelona then decided to become a soldier of Christ and indeed he founded the order in Paris. His order, albeit dedicated to the Pope appeared a little unorthodox at the beginning so he had troubles with the SPanish inquisition (and who wanted to have troubles with them !!!). Putting the order directly under the leadership of the Pope was thus a way of getting protection too.

Private Hudson will the the guest asking the next question.

Well since I've been invited :D

Malborough and Wellington were both inflicted with the same political problem in their army during their last major engagement, what was it?

They had officially lost their title prior to the battle but fought them nevertheless ?

Uhmm, I don't think so, Wellington didn't loose his title before Waterloo :)

They both had the Dutch as overseers and hanger ons to the army?

Wellington had the Young Frog

And Malborughs camagains were politically controlled by the dutch?

Oooooooooo so close, but a little more precision and you'll have it :D Malborough's problems were more than just the dutch politicians... ;)

Ummm,

Malbourgh had to get permisson to move and attack with his army from the Dutch, possibly whether he could invade France as well?

Nope, it has very specifically to do with something that happened and actions taken on the days of Waterloo and Malpaquet sorry :)

Ok I'll give it until 12pm tomorrow (GMT) before giving the answer :)

Uhmmm sorry guys, gonna be probably out most of the day so....

The answer is that in both battles, the British commander was plagued by a Prince of Orange! The better known one at Waterloo I'm sure most of us are familiar with, even if I do think that he wasn't that bad ;) Malborough's "prince" though is less well known.

At Malpaquet Malborough was, like Wellington forced to give a significant proportion of his allied force over to the political appointment represented by the Prince of Orange. Malborough gave him command of the entire left wing of the army, but only with the simple task of launching a series of semi-serious diversionary attacks on the French troops facing him to pin them in place. Meanwhile Malborough would crush the French elsewhere.

Unfortunately he had failed to judge the prince, or the French right wing correctly. Facing the Prince the french had deployed some 20 cannon in the woods that would enflilade any advance there. Whether annoyed at being assigned such a menial task, or just plain incompetent, the prince ignored his orders almost completely. After waiting the requisite time in order to allow the other attacks to begin the prince promptly gathered his Dutch and Scotish cavalry squadrons and proceeded to charge full tilt at the french positions. In an early version of the charge of the light brigade, over 5,000 cavalrymen were shot down in barely 1/2 an hour.

In the meantime Malborough and Schulenberg had won a hard fought victory on the right, only for a dutch messenger to gallop up and announce the disaster on the left. Rushing to that flank, Malborough and Eugene arrived just in time to prevent a third similar attack by the prince. It's possible that had they been delayed, the entire allied left flank may have collapsed. Something like 40% of the dutch present had become casualties, some 8,000 men. :eek:

So the problem they both faced was that both were hindered by having to hand a good proportion of their command over to an untested Prince of the Dutch that almost proved fatal. In both cases this lead to the prince causing some serious losses. Both princes were young and never commanded in the field. Malborough and Wellington overcame this, Wellington to win his final, decisive victory with his Prussian allies, Malborough to see the war drag on for another 4 years without satisfaction. Malpaquet was one of the bloodiest battles of the period, not equalled in europe until Borodino it's said. Malborough had brought new meaning to "Phyrric"

Like I said cosntantine, you came close, but not specific enough ;)

Next question :

What is the Great Schism ?

The great shichsm (can't spell) was about the late 1378s-1417 or so. Basically, the French did not accept the picked (and disputed) pope in rome, and so they set up a puppet pope in Avignon (actually, there already had been one, just a little earlier). This led to a great divide for several years, with rival popes in Avignon and Rome, which was eventually resolved.

Supporting the French pope was mainly france and co., and Castile and Aragon, whereas supporting the Roman pope was England, the Holy Roman Empire, aand most of the rest.

Either what North King just posted, or the separation between the Roman Catholic and East Orthodox churches. Not sure...

Also forgot the years...

North King is right. The trick was actually not to mix that with the separation between the Orthodow and Catholic church, so thank you Dann for providing the introduction to it :-)

Next question :
Organize these states by growing order of population in 1820 : England, France, Germany.

I think Germany, England and then France. Germany had a big population boom in the 19th century. France was not so growing. And England was in the middle.

Adler

There was no Germany in 1820 :p

Otherwise, I think Germany, France, and England. (Unless you're counting colonies, in which case it is England, Germany, and France)

Well there was a Germany, but no unified state, I concur. :p Germany in this times was considered as the German confederation. The first verse of the German national anthem takes this border as backgorund:
1. Germany, Germany above all *
Above everything in the world *
When, always, for protection and defense
Brothers stand together.
From the Maas to the Memel
From the Etsch to the Belt,
Germany, Germany above all
Above all in the world.

This verse is not sung anymore but is still the first verse of our national anthem.

Adler

no colonies and Germany means the German territories except Austria, of course, not united Germany yet.
Nope at the moment, some more propositions... ?

Then there are only the possibilities left England, Germany and France, which I prefer, and England, France and Germany.

Adler

You forget France, Germany, England (which I prefer) and France, England, Germany.

France had quite a large population, bigger than England until after the Industrial Revolution, IIRC.

North King is right with France, Germany, England.

Strange just because France did not do its demographic transition the other countries did. So from being the largest country (in population) it became quite average after the other countries had multiplied their population.
In 1820, France had 27 M, "Germany" 24 M and United Kingdom (including Ireland) only 16 M. So you can see the evolution over time, especially considering the huge numbers of people who migrated from Germany and England to the new worlds (Americas mostly, Australia, South Africa, etc...).
It explains the weight France had in European affairs until the end of the XIXth century.

Next question
what were the Lollards ?

A heritcal sect in late hundred years war England. It was anticlerical and also typical of the social unrest in those days.

Indeed interesting! Until WW2 France got 55- 60 milion people, Germany 80 and Britain also 60. England and Germany had a boom 4*, while in France it was only doubled. But what may have been the reasons? Germany and England were and are much more industrialized than France. I think that´s the reason. Big cities to give home and work for millions. But France? One huge center, some big ones and masses of small towns and villages. Big industry? Yes but not compareable to Germany or Britain. I think this thoughts, being superior in al areas the French had when they were not the power any longer. So they believed in a small war against these few Prussians in 1870. Well they were thinking back like the Prussians after the death of Frederic the Great. So they lost the war. And were never again able to cope with Germany as power alone. So even it is interesting to see how so many factors have place in the historical game.

Adler

Now it is the opposite. France has one of the highest growth rate of Europe (with Ireland) while Germany could disappear as such in less than a century.

The reasons are more social then industrial me thinks for France was more industrialized than Germany until the 1860s when Germany just decided to pass both French and English. They have been analyzed but no clear answer has emerged.

North King is right, the Lollards were a coupled religious and social group that caused troubles mostly in the XIVth century and a bit later.
Inspired by John Wicliff (Oxford teacher !), they were against the Pope and for a national church; with no celibacy and focusing only on the Holy Book. It was a first protestantism of sorts. It was coupled with social rural unrest, as often happened. They influenced Jan Hus heavily (--> Hussits).

Next question :
What was the guide book of every noble and gentleman of the high classes from the Renaissance to nearly the XVIIIth century for their behavior ?

MH???
The "Galateus" by De La Casa ???

Nope ! (d**n limit).

"The Prince"?

Nope again ! lol

Baldassaro Castiglione's "The Courtier"?
(? as to the exact spelling of BC's name and the origibal title in Italian.)
:)

@Verbose: :goodjob:
Baldassarre Castiglione, "Il Cortigiano" :)

Hey, you didn't say "good behavior" :king:

Verbose got it right ! Congrats as it was a bit more precise than usual and thaks for Gagliaudo for the original Italian version.

I think I am gonna use it for another question actually...

In what court was he ? To what larger state did it belong ?

I'll take a wild guess and say: The court of Naples, under domination of Aragon

Wild, definitely !!
Albeit it is (obviously for an Italian) in Italy. But more to the North..

Milan, under the domination of Austria, then?

Wild, definitely !!
Albeit it is (obviously for an Italian) in Italy. But more to the North..

You're right, but... i'm Italian and I don't recall the Castiglione's court...
It's so bad, I know... :o :confused:
I'll try however... I'm in doubt between Gonzaga's court in duchy of Mantova and Este's court in duchy of Ferrara...
I say Gonzaga, and I 'give' Este as a 'gift'to North King (the list of Italian Renaissance states is nearly at the end :lol: )

I accept Mantova albeit he moved a lot during his carreer and mostly he worked in the small semi-independant courts of the Papal State.

This book truly remained the guidebook for becoming and behaving as a good gentelamen at courts. Ah these Italians ! ;-)

Next question
What administrative position was one of the main cause of the Merovingians' decline ?

Les 'maitres du palais', mostly the Carolingiennes (Pepins & Charleses ;) ), but Ebroin & others, too: they took more and more power, until they became kings!

Maitres means masters and it is not the good title albeit you got the position right.

SOmebody can provide the good title ?

I only know the German name for that title: Hausmeier. This was the title for this administrative position. The word evolves to Hausmeister, caretaker today, but means at first master of the house. Maître du palais is a good French translation but I do not think it is a good one, because here house is more meant with the house in the meaning of clan, family. So I do not know the French name for that. But I think LouLong can and will tell me ;).

Adler

Well, on Italian history books they're called 'maggiordomi', I knew the french word, too, I read it on French sources, tough.
Sincerly, I believed "Maitre' was the transposition from the latin "magister", that in later Roman Empire was a high military (with political links, too) role (Magister Militum, Equitum, etc.), and Roman-Barbaric kingdoms :king: (like Franken's ) take LOTS of terms from Imperial burocratic terminology (Barbarians hadn't them ;) ), I think to 'comes', 'dux' and so on,, that continued to be used through the centuries, changing their ortografic form (comte, duc, duca, doge, duke...). And I thought 'master' was a later meaning.
That's all.
Well, I'll say "MAIORDOMI" :D Bye!

Ahem...I was just forgetting...
I premit I'll never teach anybody his own language :) ..., but I was thinking that French word 'maire' (mayor) maybe has the same origin... :mischief:

Yes, Maire it is :-)))))))

That's how the Carolingians took power away from the last Merovingians, the "idle" kings (rough translation).

Next question is strictly reserved to non-Italians !!!!!

What Italian music writer became a symbol for Italian XIXth century unification... and why ?

Maire !!! Damn me! :wallbash:

@LouLong:
Hey, "roi faineant" :p, why poor Italians guys couldn't answer ??? :lol: :lol: :lol:
Come here close to me, I'll say you at the hear... :p ;) :lol:

I think it was Verdi, but I don´t know why anymore...

Adler

Because apart from his romantic national music (that could be used for showing nationalism or could be used as anthems) his name, considered as an anagram meant Vittorio Emmanuele Re D'Italia (Victor-Emmanuel King of Italy). Very useful coincidence !


Next question :
The cardinal Wolsey was fired from his position of main advisor. Of which king ? And why ?

The cardinal Wolsey was fired from his position of main advisor. Of which king ? And why ?
I'm thinking he was Henry VIII's advisor. Wasn't he fired because he failed to get the king's divorce (from his first wife, Catherine of Aragon) settled with the Pope?

Argh, to late. Henri VIII advisor, very active in diplomacy, favored an alliance with France (although death of Emperor and election made him change his plan often). He was fire because Anne Boleyn thought he was responsible for the delays in the trial for the divorce, and use the failure of the trial to get Henri VIII to fire him

I had forgotten Anne Boleyn put Henry up to it. Of course, she got her own reward, a few years later. (It amazes me that beheading was considered a better way to die than hanging. The axeman didn't always sever the neck with the first stroke. Urg...)

They were not barbarians. He hired an expert beheader from France, whio used asword instead of an axe. It was ver kind.

Well it was considered the beheading is a much gentle way to kill persons while hanging was only the way to kill thiefs and other "scum". BTW Göring wanted to be executed by shooting. He was the opinion only that can be the penalty of a real soldier. Because he should be hung, he commited suicide.

Adler

Well it was considered the beheading is a much gentle way to kill persons while hanging was only the way to kill thiefs and other "scum". BTW Göring wanted to be executed by shooting. He was the opinion only that can be the penalty of a real soldier. Because he should be hung, he commited suicide.
Adler
If I had to trial him, I would have selected shooting instead of hanging. First, the target was hard to miss. Second, finding a rope strong enough may have been hard.

OK, before the discussion started to move off-topic a little (I don't mind though), yes, the cardinal was the Pope envoy and naturally tried to make Henry VIII give up the idea of divorce instead of trying to convince the Pope (what Henry VIII expected).
He was fired, then the divorce was accepted by the assembly of what was to become the Anglican church.

Next question :

What was a lochage ? (English spelling might be slightly different).

Is it an ancient Greek officer in the rank of todays Captain?

Adler

It is a... a... I haven't the slightest idea :blush:

Good answer from Adler, good try from Steph lol
Well, there is no real equivalent in today's armies but there were levels in ancient Greece. In Sparta, they were the equivalent of captains under the 2 kings. In most other areas it was a line (16 hoplites) chief.

Next question
On the 5th of May 1914, Cyprus was annexed. By whom and from whom ?

England take it from Turkie ... (or oposite..) hm..

Great Britain from Ottomans

Actually there is a trick ;-)

Didn't the British promise to help the Ottomans defend it from the Russians or something only to snatch it from them when they joined the first world war against the UK. So technically the British kinda broke their oath as the Turks were also fighting the Russians :D

Well.. Austria declared war the 28th of July 1914...

Great Britain annexed Cyprus from Ottomans the 5th of November 1914. Funny part, Cyprus was actually occupied by the British since 1878, although technically it was still property of the Sultan :crazyeye:

I can't see who could have annexed it in May, 2.5 half month before WWI, and 6 months before the Brits did it. :confused:

Well.. Austria declared war the 28th of July 1914...

Great Britain annexed Cyprus from Ottomans the 5th of November 1914. Funny part, Cyprus was actually occupied by the British since 1878, although technically it was still property of the Sultan :crazyeye:

I can't see who could have annexed it in May, 2.5 half month before WWI, and 6 months before the Brits did it. :confused:
Greece? :crazyeye:

Steph got it right, and sorry for my mistake, indeed it was 5th of November (just put 5th and wrote 5th month too). Basically the British had occupied Cyprus since the Berlin treaty of 1878, sharing the parts of the Ottoman EMpire controlled by Europeans. Britian had a base as well but in 1914 it simply annexed it, officially from the Ottomans, actually from themselves... lol

Next question
What non-human "general" caused havoc in the Napoleonian army in the Russian campaign ?

general winter

@pawpaw: I think Loulong wanted the exactly answer in Russian language :lol: (Now I edit ...)
I like French, but I meaned RUSSIAN :p ;)
Janvar, Febrial'... and so on :lol: (I can't recall well those 4 Russian words I learned due a girl I missed :( ... so bad memories... )
But life continues :)

The French called them General's Janvier and Fevrier or something, whatever their words for January and February was :p

Pawpaw got it right, right away. But the others got the idea too.

Harsh general, if any.

Next question
The rostra of ships captured/destroyed during a battle in 328 BC were hung by Romans on their forum. Who did they fight, defeat during that battle ?

Carthage!

(I think...) :)

:blush:

My first answer was rubbish! I need more :coffee:

Rome in fact didn't go to war with Carthage for another century or so! The late 4th century was the era of the wars in central Italy against the Latin League, and the Samnites.

So... The Latin League is my second (final) answer!

The Latin league it is. After the victory, the Latin league was actually destroyed and the cities that made it were incorporated city per city into the Roman world. There were other rostra(e) Romans took from the Carthaginians but as you wrote, it happened much later.


Next question :
What was the Transkei under the Apartheid ?

Isn't it the province that became Lesotho? One of the only country completly landlocked into another country. No coastline, and only one border.

I don't think so. Transkei is still part of South African Republic. At the time of aparthead it was separate area just for a black people.

Alone is going into the right direction.

It was a so called Homeland.

Adler

Ok, Transkei is not Lesotho, but is limited to one side by it. It's the first homeland that became independant, in 1976

Adding your answers enable to reach the answer so....:
Transkei was indeed a bantustan (from the language "bantu") or homeland. These homelands were created by the Apartheid regime as "independant" states where the largest part of the black population would be "parked". Lacking funds and of course without any power, these bantustans had a high density of population officially, officially because most of the younger men getting permits to work in White-owned companies, farms outside the bantustans. There they were officially considered as foreigners so they were housed together, poorly paid and could not bring any women so that they would got back to their homelands after a few years working and saving up some money.
Swasiland and Lesotho are the target the South African government had for these bantustans. That would limit the weight of the black population within the South-African union and legitimate the white power. They were officially based on ethnicity (normal in Africa) but they were quite far from being clear ethnically and they defintely did not cover these ethnies had occupied before.
Transkei was on the coast so it was not landlocked.

Next question
The battle of Bornhöved (1227) saw the end of what country's hegemonic dream ? Who was (were) the winner(s) ?

1227... So it cannot be the battle between Denmark and Sweden during the 1813 campapaign (7th od December). However, given the similarities of names, I suppose it includes Danish or Swedish troops at least?

Let my check my book... Got it.

But shall I give the answer, or wait for someone who knows it? Because I didn't knew it but had to find it in a book... Wouldn't it be cheating?

Ok, just one hint. It gave Valdemar the Victor the opportunity to reclaim the lands he had to pay as ransom when he was captured in 1220.

The battle of Bornhöved was a Danish defeat against the Swedish. North Germany was prevented to become Danish (thank god ;)) so the Germans and Swedes were the winners ,while the Danish king Waldemar II. wad wounded and defeated.
History of Schleswig- Holstein.

Adler

Oh, I've found two different sources. In one, it says "Valdemars attempt to recover his lands ends in defeat by an army of Holsteiners under the Holy Grail Banner,at Bornhoved, between Ploen and Segeberg. 4000 Danes are killed when the Dittmarsh peasants are bribed by the Holsteiners to change sides. Denmark loses both German and Slavic areas, with all their towns."

In another source, it says the Danes won the battle :confused:

But after cross checking, all the sources but one say it's a Danish defeat.

It seems a good example that when dealing with history, relying on only one source of information can be a big mistake :blush:

You´re absolutely right. It was indeed not a Swedish but a German army under the command of Earl Adolf IV. von Holstein who wanted to reconquer Holstein. Lübeck and Hamburg supported this. In the battle Waldemar used a Hünengrab (giants grave) as his command point. He was wounded and had to flee. This hill is even today called Köngsbarg, meaning in normal German Königsberg (mountain of the king, NOT the capital of Prussia). In the peace the Danish king lost the island of Rügen, Pommerania, Mecklenburg, Holstein and Stormarn.
Boy it was yesterday late. I thought the Swedish were involved, but I was wrong.

Adler

Actually, there is another Bornhover battle between Danes and Swedes, but it's the 7th of December 1813.

Yes this was another battle between Danes and Swedes/ Prussians. The allied general, a Swede, saw himself as winner of this battle, while the Danes retreated to Kiel (they were retreating already).
Another battle took place in 798 between Frankish supported Aborites and Saxons. The Saxons lost this battle.

Adler

Adler, you are from Schleswig-Holstein and you thought of the Swedish ! :( ;)
Indeed it was the end of the hegemonic deam of a Danish Baltic. The Danes (Valdemar II the Victorious :D ) was defeated by northern German princes and Lübeck which enabled the subsequent development of the Hanseatic League and saw the loss (for Denmark) of Pomerania and Holstein mostly.

@ Steph : your answer was valid. My questions are not always easy and supposed to force you to check/learn a few things about an era, so it is no pb.

Next question :
Who was the Duke of Iron (XVIth century) and why was he called that way ?

When I answered it it was 23 o`clock. I was tired and in a hurry to answer before Steph. Also medievel history is not the historical area in which I´m very good.

Adler

To your question: It was Fe