Kublai-Khan
Prince
The other state might be Austria, they were also predating the ottoman empire, if i recall correctly they conquered Belgrado, but i am not sure.
Quiz: With a Little Help From Our Friends...
- Thread starter Vrylakas
- Start date
The other state might be Austria, they were also predating the ottoman empire, if i recall correctly they conquered Belgrado, but i am not sure.
Kublai-Khan wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
Knight-Dragon wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19) Within 30 years, the US set about stamping out Berber piracy. Did this have some effect on the empire?
No. The Ottomans didn't benefit from the Berbers' piracy. Hint: The Porte's traditional western allies were absorbed with the Revolution and too distracted to notice something...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With all Europe so busy with the Americans, the Russians began moving south against the Ottomans, occupying more lands belonging to Ottoman vassals? I remember Crimea (and maybe Armenia) passed fr the Ottomans to the Russians around this time I think.
Yes! Exactly. Two predatory powers - Russia and another state I shall not mention because it's a part of another question - both took advantage of Europe's distraction with the American Revolution to covertly advance their own agendas, (in Russia's case, seizing more Turkish real estate).
Good one K-D!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The other state might be Austria, they were also predating the ottoman empire, if i recall correctly they conquered Belgrado, but i am not sure.
Yes! You've answered # 11! Good job K-K! Both the Habsburgs and the Russians used the distractions caused by the American Revolution to further their own local agendas, the Russians in Caucasia/Kavkazja and the Austrians in Bavaria. With the extinction of the Wittelsbachs of Bavaria in 1778, the Austrians tried to seize Bavaria outright but were defeated by the Prussians in Bohemia, and with the Peace of Teschen agreed to give up hopes of absorbing Bavaria. The problem still dragged out until 1790 with Prussia forming a German coalition against the Habsburgs and an Austrian side war against the Turks (with the seizure of Belgrade that you mention in 1791), but its origins lay in Austria's belief in 1778-79 that Europe was too distracted with the American events to notice their own adventures in Central Europe. The Prussians, initially very lukewarm to the American Revolution, became strong supporters of the French pro-American policy after the Peace of Teschen because they hoped for French aid against Austria. The alignment of allies throughout Europe would of course rapidly change after another revolution in 1789, this one much closer to home...
Good job K-K!
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
Knight-Dragon wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19) Within 30 years, the US set about stamping out Berber piracy. Did this have some effect on the empire?
No. The Ottomans didn't benefit from the Berbers' piracy. Hint: The Porte's traditional western allies were absorbed with the Revolution and too distracted to notice something...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With all Europe so busy with the Americans, the Russians began moving south against the Ottomans, occupying more lands belonging to Ottoman vassals? I remember Crimea (and maybe Armenia) passed fr the Ottomans to the Russians around this time I think.
Yes! Exactly. Two predatory powers - Russia and another state I shall not mention because it's a part of another question - both took advantage of Europe's distraction with the American Revolution to covertly advance their own agendas, (in Russia's case, seizing more Turkish real estate).
Good one K-D!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The other state might be Austria, they were also predating the ottoman empire, if i recall correctly they conquered Belgrado, but i am not sure.
Yes! You've answered # 11! Good job K-K! Both the Habsburgs and the Russians used the distractions caused by the American Revolution to further their own local agendas, the Russians in Caucasia/Kavkazja and the Austrians in Bavaria. With the extinction of the Wittelsbachs of Bavaria in 1778, the Austrians tried to seize Bavaria outright but were defeated by the Prussians in Bohemia, and with the Peace of Teschen agreed to give up hopes of absorbing Bavaria. The problem still dragged out until 1790 with Prussia forming a German coalition against the Habsburgs and an Austrian side war against the Turks (with the seizure of Belgrade that you mention in 1791), but its origins lay in Austria's belief in 1778-79 that Europe was too distracted with the American events to notice their own adventures in Central Europe. The Prussians, initially very lukewarm to the American Revolution, became strong supporters of the French pro-American policy after the Peace of Teschen because they hoped for French aid against Austria. The alignment of allies throughout Europe would of course rapidly change after another revolution in 1789, this one much closer to home...
Good job K-K!
OK folks, great progress here. here are some hints for the remaining questions:
8. This one is not based so much on Polish history as general European 18th century history, especially as regards the nobility.
10. These two countries have already been mentioned as answers for other questions.
12. I don't think we answered this one yet. I already gave a hint for this one. Someone answered the Ottoman Empire, and I said no - though very close.
13. I've also given a hint for this one already; that this question is not about Irish history so much as British policy. It is helpful if you know a bit about George III's approach to the American colonies in the 1760s (compared to Ireland) and the American colonists' reactions then.
15. I thought this one would be easy. It's just a question about what the decisive move of the battle was.
20. & 21. If the French, British and Americans had worked out all their problems, then what could be holding up a peace agreement...?
8. This one is not based so much on Polish history as general European 18th century history, especially as regards the nobility.
10. These two countries have already been mentioned as answers for other questions.
12. I don't think we answered this one yet. I already gave a hint for this one. Someone answered the Ottoman Empire, and I said no - though very close.
13. I've also given a hint for this one already; that this question is not about Irish history so much as British policy. It is helpful if you know a bit about George III's approach to the American colonies in the 1760s (compared to Ireland) and the American colonists' reactions then.
15. I thought this one would be easy. It's just a question about what the decisive move of the battle was.
20. & 21. If the French, British and Americans had worked out all their problems, then what could be holding up a peace agreement...?
Kublai-Khan
Prince
12-wild guess
Austria?
Austria?
I'll take a crack at 15, though I'm guessing.
IIRC, there was a sea battle between the British and the French (can't remember the name). I believe the British fleet was carrying supplies for the army. The battle was a draw, but as the British were delayed/withdrew, the Americans were able to win the battle.
If I also recall correctly, the draw was basically due to the flawed British tactics of the time which relied on drawing up and engaging in battle line. Nelson changed these tactics by working to break up the enemy battle line.
That's a total WAG (wild ass guess).
/bruce
DingBat wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
15. I thought this one would be easy. It's just a question about what the decisive move of the battle was.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll take a crack at 15, though I'm guessing.
IIRC, there was a sea battle between the British and the French (can't remember the name). I believe the British fleet was carrying supplies for the army. The battle was a draw, but as the British were delayed/withdrew, the Americans were able to win the battle.
If I also recall correctly, the draw was basically due to the flawed British tactics of the time which relied on drawing up and engaging in battle line. Nelson changed these tactics by working to break up the enemy battle line.
Yes! Close enough, anyway. The American and French armies were constricting around Cornwalis' defensive works, taking line by line. Cornwalis' only hope was relief from the sea in the form of both soldiers and supplies. British admirals Graves and Hood sailed from New York to save Cornwalis but in an amazing stroke of good luck for the Americans were met by the combined French fleets of de Grasse and de Barras just outside Chesapeake Bay - and the British were defeated. This was the critical element of the battle, that for whatever victories the American and French armies won on the land, they needed Cornwalis to be starved of men and supplies for their victory to be complete. The French navy's defeat of the British at Chesapeake Bay sealed that victory, and sealed the fate of British colonial rule in America. The British would get their revenge when the French fleet would be routed and destroyed in a battle of the West Indies a year later, but while British naval prestige would be restored, British rule in the American colonies could not be saved.
That's a total WAG (wild ass guess).
As WAGs go, a damned good one Bruce!
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
15. I thought this one would be easy. It's just a question about what the decisive move of the battle was.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll take a crack at 15, though I'm guessing.
IIRC, there was a sea battle between the British and the French (can't remember the name). I believe the British fleet was carrying supplies for the army. The battle was a draw, but as the British were delayed/withdrew, the Americans were able to win the battle.
If I also recall correctly, the draw was basically due to the flawed British tactics of the time which relied on drawing up and engaging in battle line. Nelson changed these tactics by working to break up the enemy battle line.
Yes! Close enough, anyway. The American and French armies were constricting around Cornwalis' defensive works, taking line by line. Cornwalis' only hope was relief from the sea in the form of both soldiers and supplies. British admirals Graves and Hood sailed from New York to save Cornwalis but in an amazing stroke of good luck for the Americans were met by the combined French fleets of de Grasse and de Barras just outside Chesapeake Bay - and the British were defeated. This was the critical element of the battle, that for whatever victories the American and French armies won on the land, they needed Cornwalis to be starved of men and supplies for their victory to be complete. The French navy's defeat of the British at Chesapeake Bay sealed that victory, and sealed the fate of British colonial rule in America. The British would get their revenge when the French fleet would be routed and destroyed in a battle of the West Indies a year later, but while British naval prestige would be restored, British rule in the American colonies could not be saved.
That's a total WAG (wild ass guess).
As WAGs go, a damned good one Bruce!
Kublai-Khan
Prince
It was Russia i think.
Kublai-Khan wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Kublai-Khan
12-wild guess
Austria?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was Russia i think.
Yes! The answer for #12 was Russia! Britain, finding itself and most of its worldwide possessions under siege by the France-Spain alliance, tried to tempt Russia into an alliance by offering Ekaterina the island of Minorca as a "carrot". Isn't that bizarre? And can you imagine, considering the tensions Russia and Britain would have half a century later in the mid-19th century over Central Asia and the Ottoman Empire, what might have happened if the Russians had a western Mediterranean naval base? What would have happened in the Crimean War? Russia spent most of the 19th century and for that matter most of the 20th trying to break its navy out of the Black Sea into the Mediterranean; and to think that the North cabinet tried to hand crucial strategic access over to St. Petersburg in 1780...
Good shot K-K!
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Kublai-Khan
12-wild guess
Austria?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was Russia i think.
Yes! The answer for #12 was Russia! Britain, finding itself and most of its worldwide possessions under siege by the France-Spain alliance, tried to tempt Russia into an alliance by offering Ekaterina the island of Minorca as a "carrot". Isn't that bizarre? And can you imagine, considering the tensions Russia and Britain would have half a century later in the mid-19th century over Central Asia and the Ottoman Empire, what might have happened if the Russians had a western Mediterranean naval base? What would have happened in the Crimean War? Russia spent most of the 19th century and for that matter most of the 20th trying to break its navy out of the Black Sea into the Mediterranean; and to think that the North cabinet tried to hand crucial strategic access over to St. Petersburg in 1780...
Good shot K-K!
sgrig
Comrade
Now that's a interesting topic for speculative history!!
Kublai-Khan
Prince
I havent seen this one, after the partition of 1772 Poland became the second democracy in the world after the USA. I guess this is the conection.
Later Catherine the great saw the democratic constitution as something dangerous (i supose because of what was going on in France) and invade Poland.
Kublai-Khan wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
8. In 1772, Russia, Prussia and Austria began the first of three partitions of Poland. What significance did this have for the American Revolution
Good luck folks!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I havent seen this one, after the partition of 1772 Poland became the second democracy in the world after the USA. I guess this is the conection.
Later Catherine the great saw the democratic constitution as something dangerous (i supose because of what was going on in France) and invade Poland.
You are very, very close K-K; but not quite there. What you're talking about is the 1791 "May 3rd" Constitution in Poland, which was a reaction to the 2nd Partition by Russia and Prussia. With this Constitution, the Polish king (Stanislaw Poniatowski, a former lover of Ekaterina of Russia) and the un-appointed rebel leader, Tadeusz (Thaddeus) Kosciuszko adopted a democratic Constitutional Monarchy for Poland, based strongly on the by-then 4 year old American Constitution. Yes, Russia almost immediately invaded to squelch this reform because it might have fostered a stable Polish government that may have been able to resist Russian influence/expansion in Poland. It led to the 1791-93 war, which resulted finally in the final partition and destruction of Poland in 1795. Poland remained occupied until 1918, for 123 years (with a brief interlude under Napoleon).
However, you've touched on a critical point (and person) here; the events I've described above happened in 1791-1795, after the American Revolution. Clearly, they were influenced by some of the ideals of the American Revolution, but there is a direct link. What is it?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
8. In 1772, Russia, Prussia and Austria began the first of three partitions of Poland. What significance did this have for the American Revolution
Good luck folks!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I havent seen this one, after the partition of 1772 Poland became the second democracy in the world after the USA. I guess this is the conection.
Later Catherine the great saw the democratic constitution as something dangerous (i supose because of what was going on in France) and invade Poland.
You are very, very close K-K; but not quite there. What you're talking about is the 1791 "May 3rd" Constitution in Poland, which was a reaction to the 2nd Partition by Russia and Prussia. With this Constitution, the Polish king (Stanislaw Poniatowski, a former lover of Ekaterina of Russia) and the un-appointed rebel leader, Tadeusz (Thaddeus) Kosciuszko adopted a democratic Constitutional Monarchy for Poland, based strongly on the by-then 4 year old American Constitution. Yes, Russia almost immediately invaded to squelch this reform because it might have fostered a stable Polish government that may have been able to resist Russian influence/expansion in Poland. It led to the 1791-93 war, which resulted finally in the final partition and destruction of Poland in 1795. Poland remained occupied until 1918, for 123 years (with a brief interlude under Napoleon).
However, you've touched on a critical point (and person) here; the events I've described above happened in 1791-1795, after the American Revolution. Clearly, they were influenced by some of the ideals of the American Revolution, but there is a direct link. What is it?
Ok folks -
Only a few left unanswered.
8. Kublai-Khan came very close on this one.
10. These were the same two countries who benefitted by the distraction the American Revolution caused in Europe. They realized things were getting out of hand....
13. Anyone know any Irish 18th century history for this question?
20. related to question # 2.
21. Most logical step...
Only a few left unanswered.
8. Kublai-Khan came very close on this one.
10. These were the same two countries who benefitted by the distraction the American Revolution caused in Europe. They realized things were getting out of hand....
13. Anyone know any Irish 18th century history for this question?
20. related to question # 2.
21. Most logical step...
I'm still stumped by this one. Some of the Poles involved were also involved in the actions of the American Revolution?
Got to be Austria and Russia.
Something to do with the Potato Famine?
Must be something to do with Spain. They've some remaining issues with Great Britain?
Kublai-Khan
Prince
Vrylakas I think that you should answer the remaining question because it seems that no one knows the answers.
Knight-Dragon wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
8. Kublai-Khan came very close on this one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm still stumped by this one. Some of the Poles involved were also involved in the actions of the American Revolution?
Yes! The point was that 18th century European nobility still typically traveled all over the continent as virtual officer mercenaries, lending their military services to whatever monarch was willing to pay them. Poles were no different. When the First Partition of Poland took place in 1772, it sent a flurry of just such Polish nobles abroad, and the American colonies benefitted from their expertise and experience. Tadeusz Kosciuszko, the Polish rebel leader of the 1791-95 wars against the Russians, had founded West Point in the Hudson River valley and gave many military engineering pointers to the Americans during their Revolution. He is buried today in Wawel Castle, the royal castle in the old royal capital Krakow, with both Polish and American military honors. The more commonly-known Polish noble in the American Revolution was Kazimierz Pulaski (Casimir) who had both seige and cavalry experience that helped the Americans in their southern-state campaigns, although Pulaski was ultimately killed in the seige of Savannah. Simply said, one European state's misery led to a flood of experienced military personnel for the American colonists.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. These were the same two countries who benefitted by the distraction the American Revolution caused in Europe. They realized things were getting out of hand....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Got to be Austria and Russia.
It does indeed.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Anyone know any Irish 18th century history for this question?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Something to do with the Potato Famine?
No, sorry.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. related to question # 2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Must be something to do with Spain. They've some remaining issues with Great Britain?
Yes! The French, Americans and British had come to terms by 1783 but the Spanish hadn't - they wanted Gibraltar before the war ended, and their several attempts to take it had failed. By treaty the Americans and French could only sign a peace treaty together with the British, but the French had another treaty that said they couldn't sign a treaty without the Spanish - hence the road block. Though the Americans weren't officially allied with the Spanish and their war aims had nothing to do with one another, Madrid's refusal to concede defeat at Gibraltar meant men still had to die in North America.
The solution? - for the answer to question # 21 - was that the French secretly told the Americans to sign a peace treaty with the British anyway, breaking the original Franco-American treaty. When the Americans did this, the French publicly declared their shock ("Sacre bleu!") but said that the war is apparently over anyway, which forced the Spanish to either sign or continue alone against the British. They signed. Incidentally, decades later Napoleon would try to invoke the original Franco-American treaty to induce the young United States to enter his wars against the British, but the Americans said that since Vergennes had advised them to break that treaty in 1783, it was no longer valid.
Excellent K-D! All but one question wrapped up...
Kublai-Khan wrote:
Vrylakas I think that you should answer the remaining question because it seems that no one knows the answers.
...which I'll answer because K-K's probably right.
13. George III of Britain viewed the American colonies in the same light as any of his conquered colonies, and therein lay the basic problem. The fact that the American colonies were filled largely with Englishmen, many born in England itself who migrated voluntarily, did not distinguish them in George III's mind from India or Ireland. He therefore treated them like India or Ireland. In the 1760s he passed a series of laws ("The Intolerable Acts", the Americans called them) that added up to almost the exact same treatment the Irish had gotten from the British after a series of futile revolts in 1703-09. By creating an Irish Parliament in 1782, George was hoping to entice the American colonists back by showing how much autonomy he was willing to grant to a subject people like the Irish. Unfortunately, this act came way too late - a year after the last major British Army in the 13 American colonies had been captured, aside from the minor force occupying New York and some obscure outposts. The British were in no position to impose their rule, and after 7 years of war the Americans were in no mood for compromise. Had George III proposed an American Parliament with autonomy in 1765 or even 1773, it probably would have worked and Queen Elisabeth's aged face might be on all North American currency nowadays, but by he was too stubborn to do so then and by 1782 it was just too late.
Great answers folks - thanks for all who participated!
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
8. Kublai-Khan came very close on this one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm still stumped by this one. Some of the Poles involved were also involved in the actions of the American Revolution?
Yes! The point was that 18th century European nobility still typically traveled all over the continent as virtual officer mercenaries, lending their military services to whatever monarch was willing to pay them. Poles were no different. When the First Partition of Poland took place in 1772, it sent a flurry of just such Polish nobles abroad, and the American colonies benefitted from their expertise and experience. Tadeusz Kosciuszko, the Polish rebel leader of the 1791-95 wars against the Russians, had founded West Point in the Hudson River valley and gave many military engineering pointers to the Americans during their Revolution. He is buried today in Wawel Castle, the royal castle in the old royal capital Krakow, with both Polish and American military honors. The more commonly-known Polish noble in the American Revolution was Kazimierz Pulaski (Casimir) who had both seige and cavalry experience that helped the Americans in their southern-state campaigns, although Pulaski was ultimately killed in the seige of Savannah. Simply said, one European state's misery led to a flood of experienced military personnel for the American colonists.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. These were the same two countries who benefitted by the distraction the American Revolution caused in Europe. They realized things were getting out of hand....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Got to be Austria and Russia.
It does indeed.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Anyone know any Irish 18th century history for this question?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Something to do with the Potato Famine?
No, sorry.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. related to question # 2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Must be something to do with Spain. They've some remaining issues with Great Britain?
Yes! The French, Americans and British had come to terms by 1783 but the Spanish hadn't - they wanted Gibraltar before the war ended, and their several attempts to take it had failed. By treaty the Americans and French could only sign a peace treaty together with the British, but the French had another treaty that said they couldn't sign a treaty without the Spanish - hence the road block. Though the Americans weren't officially allied with the Spanish and their war aims had nothing to do with one another, Madrid's refusal to concede defeat at Gibraltar meant men still had to die in North America.
The solution? - for the answer to question # 21 - was that the French secretly told the Americans to sign a peace treaty with the British anyway, breaking the original Franco-American treaty. When the Americans did this, the French publicly declared their shock ("Sacre bleu!") but said that the war is apparently over anyway, which forced the Spanish to either sign or continue alone against the British. They signed. Incidentally, decades later Napoleon would try to invoke the original Franco-American treaty to induce the young United States to enter his wars against the British, but the Americans said that since Vergennes had advised them to break that treaty in 1783, it was no longer valid.
Excellent K-D! All but one question wrapped up...
Kublai-Khan wrote:
Vrylakas I think that you should answer the remaining question because it seems that no one knows the answers.
...which I'll answer because K-K's probably right.
13. George III of Britain viewed the American colonies in the same light as any of his conquered colonies, and therein lay the basic problem. The fact that the American colonies were filled largely with Englishmen, many born in England itself who migrated voluntarily, did not distinguish them in George III's mind from India or Ireland. He therefore treated them like India or Ireland. In the 1760s he passed a series of laws ("The Intolerable Acts", the Americans called them) that added up to almost the exact same treatment the Irish had gotten from the British after a series of futile revolts in 1703-09. By creating an Irish Parliament in 1782, George was hoping to entice the American colonists back by showing how much autonomy he was willing to grant to a subject people like the Irish. Unfortunately, this act came way too late - a year after the last major British Army in the 13 American colonies had been captured, aside from the minor force occupying New York and some obscure outposts. The British were in no position to impose their rule, and after 7 years of war the Americans were in no mood for compromise. Had George III proposed an American Parliament with autonomy in 1765 or even 1773, it probably would have worked and Queen Elisabeth's aged face might be on all North American currency nowadays, but by he was too stubborn to do so then and by 1782 it was just too late.
Great answers folks - thanks for all who participated!
Similar threads
