New Cumulative General History Quiz

Status
Not open for further replies.
SanPellegrino said:
Alexander Newski, and he lured the heavy armored teutonic knights on the ice, which was too thin for them?

Refers to the question of november 24th "In that case what was the name of a Novgorogian Noble who defeated the German Knights on Chudskoe Lake and what was his strategy?" and is incorrect!

Alexander Nevsky was not a Novgorogian Noble and was a Great Prince/Duke of Rus and the Prince of Vladimir (I believe, could be still Kiev at that time). Novgorod did not have a Prince/Duke of their own as they ran a somewhat democratic city-state. Novgorod called to Alexander to help them against the German knights. He brought his own "druzhina" (from the word "droog" - friend) - the Prince's own army. Combined with what army Novgorod managed to put out, he did indeed defeat the German knights at the Chudskoe Lake. He knew that the German knights tipically used the formation called "pig", which looked something like the triangular shape. He set up the carts and debrees on their way and put the Novgorod's army of peasants in front of it. The Germans charged at the easy target and when they were in deep enough, Alexander pulled the troops back behind the carts. This caused the knights to get stuck in the debrees at which point Alexander's army charged them and drove them back onto the ice. The ice broke and a lot of the knights sank...

Was just reading the thread from the beginning and thought I would correct this since that is the only question I knew so far.
 
[SIZE=+1]Syphilis[/SIZE]

Syphilis is a Sexually Transmitted Disease caused by the spirochete Treponema pallidum affecting only humans.
syphil1.jpg

It is by far the most important of the ‘classical’ STDs (not counting HIV, Hepatitis B, Herpes genitalis), and one of the diseases with the most fascinating histories.

Symptoms:
(Sorry, no pics for two reasons: The content may not be appropriate for this site, and medical sites are extremely iffy with copyrights. If you’re interested, google for Syphilis pics; you’ll at least see numerous thumbnails.)

Syphilis is a slowly progressing disease, and the infected don’t feel really ill for most of the time. Nevertheless, it is far from being a ‘mild’ disease; untreated, stage III is deadly.

Stage I
The primary affection, one typically genital ulcer (‘chancre’), and indurated corresponding lymph nodes
Stage II
If untreated, about 25% of affected progress to this stage within several weeks, with almost any thinkable dermal symptoms (never vesiculae, though). Plus unspecific symptoms, like fever, headache, joint pain, generalized lymphpadenopathia.
After a latent phase of years, about 10% of originally affected progress into the severe
Stage III.
The characteristical lesion is the gumma, a granuloma that is mostly found in the skin, but can affect almost any organ, including bones, the eye, CNS, and the cardiovascular system. Obvioulsly, especially those located in the CNS (leading to dementia), and the aorta (which often cause ruptures) are fatal.

History
The first major outbreak of syphilis dates to the year 1495AD, when the French king Charles VIII besieged the city of Naples. It can not be said for sure if it occurred in the city, or in the camp of Charles’ army; however, it was so devastating that the soldiers (who were mainly mercenaries) fled back to their respective home. The transmission of the disease was so rapid and traceable, many languages called the disease after the nation it seemed to come from…

In France: Neapolitanian Disease, or Italian Disease
In Germany, Italy, Spain, England, Hungary: French Disease (or ‘French Measles’ in England)
In Poland: German Disease
In Russia: Polish Disease
In Scotland: English Disease
In the Ottoman Empire: Frankish/Christian Disease
In Japan: Portuguese Disease

Also, it was spread by European sailors to India and China within some years – but, there are no records about outbreaks in the Americas.

It needs to be mentioned that this plague had little in common with the slowly progressive syphilis we know today, but showed a dramatical course, killing about 1/3 of affected within weeks, mostly due to fever and ulcers all over the integument. And of course, considering the limited medical knowledge of these days, a number of other diseases were wrongly subsummarized with morbus gallicus, especially since the Order of St.Lazarus (who was responsible for the leper houses) was abolished during this time. But today, there is little controversy about that plague resembling the first manifestation of syphilis.

In 1530, the Italian scholar Girolamo Fracastoro published a mythological poem about a shepherd boy with the name ‘Syphilis’ who offended Apollo, and was punished with the disease.

After the initial wave, syphilis developed into the slowly form we know today, and was widespread for centuries. Neurosyphillis was the most common reason to end in the madhouse. As a result, the entire medical discipline of ‘Dermatology’ was in fact established as a split-off from Neurology for treating syphilis during the first half of the 19th century in France.
Even in the 1920ies, about 10% of all Germans (other European countries shouldn’t differ from that, but I have no other data) were suffering from syphilis, and syphilis was a major cause of death, accounting for about 1%.

Famous victims of syphilis:
Erasmus of Rotterdam, Paul Gauguin, Francisco Goya, Guy de Maupassant, Franz Schubert, Lenin, Al Capone

Infection rates in the Western nations were pretty stable for the last decades (about 1100/year in Germany), but are increasing again since some years; not so much because of globalisation, or ‘tourism’ (;) ), but because it is still more common in Eastern Europe and especially the former Soviet union.

Treatment of Syphilis:
Over centuries, the standard treatment of syphilis (and most other skin diseases, btw) was quicksilver paste. Not that there’s the slightest evidence of any curative effects, but from a ‘marketing’ POV, quicksilver was an ingenious medication. The symptoms of quicksilver intoxication are similar to syphilis (rash and CNS alterations)…
So, either you recovered, then it was of course thanks to your doctor and his great cure, or you died from either the syphilis or the Hg intoxication – but in this case, it was always addressed to the disease.
Another, at first sight even more bizarre, cure for syphilis was malaria. Surprisingly, this one indeed was a correct observation: The treponema is highly sensitive to heat, and fever above 41°C can kill it. And yes, compared to stage III syphilis, the milder forms of malaria are the lesser evil. But of course, we should not forget the knowledge about infectious diseases in former centuries was highly limited; malaria was the prime example for the ‘miasma’ theory (‘malaria’ = ‘bad air’, in swamplands), so we shouldn’t believe there was something like a deliberate infection with malaria before 1900. But then, it was successfully employed for some years.
In 1909, Paul Ehrlich developed the arsenic-based chemotherapeuticum Salvarsan (the very first specific chemotherapeuticum *ever*), which allowed for an effective treatment of stage I and II syphilis.
Today, syphilis can be cured with antibiotics; the first stages usually are easy to cure, stage III is a rarity, but here health cannot be fully restored. In fact, the biggest problems arise from the personalities of the typical infected; that’s why one-time treatments with injection of high doses of antibiotics are widely used.

(Online sources for this part of my answers are hard to come by other then Wikipedia; the historical data is easy to find, but medical sources in the net are rarely free. But, I was highly interested in medical history during my time at university; you can trust me here – and, I can provide you with more info, just not free online links.)

The Origins of Syphilis:
As luceafarul already pointed out, there is controversial discussion if syphilis was brought to Europe from Haiti by Columbus’ crew, and then spread via Spanish whores to Spanish Mercenaries later serving in Charles’ VIII army.
First, the facts:
  1. There is clear evidence of bone affections “compatible with treponematosis” (remember, the ‘gummae’, which can be typically found in bones close to the skin, like the shinbone) in Europe or the Mediterranean before discovery of the New World. Still, those are rare findings.
    Especially Dr. Simon Mays of the English Heritage's Centre for Archaeology discovered a case dating back to before 1445 at the graveyard of Rivenhall, Essex, (small note: The article indicates ‘future DNA testings’, but since those weren’t published until today, I doubt that worked) and more cases at Kingston-upon-Hill.
    Another article about bones from a cave in Israel.
  2. Syphilis was around in the Americas before. The natives had ways to treat (not exactly cure) it already, and there are bone findings as well.
  3. The first outbreak of syphilis in Europe dates to 1495.
  4. Any time a population encounters a disease for the first time, the symptoms are dramatically more severe. This is widely known for small pox and Native Americans, and the so-called ‘Plague of Thucidides’ may have been the first outbreak of measles.


What makes me wonder about the ‘Pre-Columbian’ theory is: Why was a disease that rampaged through all of Europe within five years from 1495, and causing millions of deaths over the next centuries, limited to some isolated cases in England and Israel? It’s not like those bone affections are too hard to spot, and it’s not like bones from early medieval graveyards are a rare finding in Europe.

So, the theory I personally believe (and that’s what I've been told in a seminar about plagues) is:
Much like malaria can be found in Europe and Africa, ‘treponematosis’ was indigenous to the Old and the New World. But like Malaria tropica and Malaria tertiana are caused by different strains of plasmodium, I’d consider different strains of treponema. And linking the outbreak of Naples to Columbus’ crew is plausible.
But, this is only a theory; only clear DNA findings can ever answer that question.

Now, if that theory turns out to be true, we could really say “America stroke back”. How many Native Americans died to ‘European’ diseases? IIRC, about 10 millions. The death toll to syphilis is several times higher…

Now, who's turn is it?
I'd say, it's a tie between Birdjaguar for 'Syphilis' and luceafarul for the harder to find details. :thumbsup:
So, whoever of you wants to come up with an interesting questions next, may have it. :)
 
Doc Tsiolkovski said:
Now, who's turn is it?
I'd say, it's a tie between Birdjaguar for 'Syphilis' and luceafarul for the harder to find details. :thumbsup:
So, whoever of you wants to come up with an interesting questions next, may have it. :)
I'll toss one out:

Most 20th Century terrain maps of the battlefield at Borodino are based on a single source. What was the special event for which this source map was created?

Bonus: What terrain feature from this source map was erroneously carried back to 1812?
 
Well given the spectacular response, I will post the answer late tonight and pass the baton to Luceaful.
 
I'll take a wild guess:

could it be that the original map was drawn specifically for the battle itself by either side? I cannot recall what it's called, but there was a particular area on the field where, I believe, General Bagration's troops were fighting that had a rather large significance...
 
klopolov said:
I'll take a wild guess:

could it be that the original map was drawn specifically for the battle itself by either side? I cannot recall what it's called, but there was a particular area on the field where, I believe, General Bagration's troops were fighting that had a rather large significance...
unfortunately, you are incorrect. The map in question post dated the battle by more than a decade. The actual battle maps used by each side were mere sketches made within a day or so of the battle itself. They are not very detailed nor very accurate. The event I'm fishing for was actually state sponsored and the map created very precise.
 
Probably incorrect, but the only thing that comes to mind is Ivan the Terrible had sent a lot of explorers to sketch a map of his empire for him... I doubt that this is the correct answer, but other than that I can't think of anything (without looking it up, of course ;) )
 
klopolov said:
Probably incorrect, but the only thing that comes to mind is Ivan the Terrible had sent a lot of explorers to sketch a map of his empire for him... I doubt that this is the correct answer, but other than that I can't think of anything (without looking it up, of course ;) )
The rules here allow you to use any reference you choose. Google and Wikipedia are favorites along with personal libraries. Ivan the terrible lived many years before Napoleon's great 1812 victory at Borodino (;)). The bonus question can be reasoned out without any knowledge of the primary question.
 
I thought that it was incuraged to use one's own knowledge... silly me... And yeah, I know that Ivan the Terrible lived many years before Napoleon... It's just that him ordering the mapping was state sunctioned and I've read that the maps were very accurate (probably they put extra effort into those to keep their heads where they were)
 
Your thinking, BTW is on the right track in regards to finding the answer, just move it after 1812.
 
BTW, the fact that Russian army retreated after the battle, does not mean they lost it, by all accounts of it I read, it was clearly a tie, neither side gained anything and the losses were pretty even... If someone has any information on the contrary, could you please give me the sourse, I would like to look at it for the educational purposes...

I'll be thinking about this one now... ;)

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borodino says it was a tie :D
 
Does this have anything to do with Potemkin? He was born near that area and might have had a desire to have a detailed map of the area drawn... With his power he could have done it easily...
 
klopolov said:
BTW, the fact that Russian army retreated after the battle, does not mean they lost it, by all accounts of it I read, it was clearly a tie, neither side gained anything and the losses were pretty even... If someone has any information on the contrary, could you please give me the sourse, I would like to look at it for the educational purposes...

I'll be thinking about this one now... ;)

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borodino says it was a tie :D

Everyone knows that Wikipedia has been subverted by filthy English gold and they spread lies about our Emperor!

In reality, Napoleon did win the battle and lost the war. His victory was not the decisive one he needed, but sufficient to drive the Russians away under the cover of night. The Russian postion was untenable had fighting continued the following day. Kutuzov recognized his predicament and wisely retreated out of harms way.
 
I believe, Kutuzov recognized the importance of not losing an army and that it was more important than losing the capitol. That is why he withdrew the army. He realized that the French army would not last long in the abandoned city and with it's supply lines being constantly harrassed by the "partisans" (guerillas) it would have to eventually leave the city. If that is incorrect, please let me know the sourse of your information, I would very much like to know both sides of history.
 
The event in question was the 1839 Russian Army Wargames during which they reenacted the 1812 battle of Borodino. A special set of maps was created for these mock battles. The map sets were 3' x 4' and hand colored. In the reenactments, the defendiing army were victorious.

Almost all 19th & 20th century (from 1840 onwards) depiction’s of the battlefield (including Jomini) are based on these Russian military maps. The 1839 information was presented in later maps as the 1812 battlefield, rather than what it was: the battlefield in 1839. In the 27 years between the actual battle and the reenactment, changes, primarily in the type and extent of forest, took place. Time, distance, lack of ready access and human imagination have created many more changes in the intervening years.

Later mapmakers of the 1812 battle placed the location of wooded areas as they were depicted in 1839, not from any 1812 records. A more likely scenario removes most of those woods. The two maps made at the time of the battle (one Russian and One French) show woods in only two locations: Between the fleches and Utitsa stretching towards Elnia and on the far right of the Russian position. The rest of the battlefield was mostly forest free.

For those in the UK with and interest in Borodino, the British Library has a copy of these outstanding maps.

Luceafarul's turn.
 
Wow, never heard of that, I've heard of reinactments in modern times, but I had no idea they've done them before... Nice to learn something new!
 
Birdjaguar said:
Luceafarul's turn.
OK, I don't have so much time so here's a simple one. :)
Give me the name of a European city, which according to legend was founded by a wise man whose daughter commited suicide to avoid being married to a German.

Additional hint: The creator of the two paintings below was born in this city:

1.jpg


2.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom