New forum, new thread, new rules-- no more Yi Rule.
Where was Bomber Harris from?
:bleeding:
Fuck me, I pulled a Viking.
He was from England. What do I win?
Hmmm. I recently read he was from Rhodesia.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 22, 2009, 03:33:49 PM
Hmmm. I recently read he was from Rhodesia.
Read the wiki article a bit closer.
I approve of this thread. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Armyknife on July 22, 2009, 03:56:42 PM
Quote from: ulmont on July 22, 2009, 03:43:13 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 22, 2009, 03:33:49 PM
Hmmm. I recently read he was from Rhodesia.
Read the wiki article a bit closer.
What is now Zambia ?
I was more pointing out that he was born in England and returned there after his Rhodesia days.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 22, 2009, 03:15:40 PM
Where was Bomber Harris from?
His momma. What do I win?
Hey mutton, you want this thread moved?
Quote from: katmai on July 22, 2009, 06:17:23 PM
Hey mutton, you want this thread moved?
Yeah mang. Bean me up Scotty.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 22, 2009, 03:16:16 PM
:bleeding:
Fuck me, I pulled a Viking.
Well, it is a game. ;)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 22, 2009, 03:16:16 PM
:bleeding:
Fuck me, I pulled a Viking.
What's a Viking?
Quote from: Viking on July 22, 2009, 07:01:56 PM
What's a Viking?
Starting a thread in the wrong forum.
QuoteNot considered academically gifted by his parents, he was given the choice of "either army or the colonies." He chose the colonies
What better qualification could one have to join RAF? No wonder he made to Air Marshall! Jolly good show... :bowler:
When you have sex with a family member
I'll take the floor if you don't mind, gentlemen.
Officers of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic armies did salute more or less in the modern way, but privates and NCOs saluted bringing their three middle fingers to their forehead, showing the palm of the hand. And the cause of this difference was...?
Quote from: Alatriste on July 23, 2009, 02:08:54 AM
I'll take the floor if you don't mind, gentlemen.
Officers of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic armies did salute more or less in the modern way, but privates and NCOs saluted bringing their three middle fingers to their forehead, showing the palm of the hand. And the cause of this difference was...?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthetruthaboutsuccess.files.wordpress.com%2F2007%2F12%2Floser.jpg&hash=886945a38903cc6ce0fe497008725bc420795dc4)
So far we've had two questions with less then satisfactory answers.
"Where is Bomber Harris from?" which we have three answers:
Rhodesia, England and his mother.
And "What is a Viking" which we have two answers:
A thread in the wrong forum and a pirate. So far this thread sucks.
Palms forward probably meant they had to have clean hands. So the salute was different to ensure that the men kept their palms clean for some reason?
Quote from: Viking on July 23, 2009, 02:22:20 AM
Palms forward probably meant they had to have clean hands. So the salute was different to ensure that the men kept their palms clean for some reason?
Nope. That was a bit misleading, I mentioned that they showed the palm to give you an idea of the position of the hand.
Genetics?
Quote from: Alatriste on July 23, 2009, 02:08:54 AM
I'll take the floor if you don't mind, gentlemen.
Officers of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic armies did salute more or less in the modern way, but privates and NCOs saluted bringing their three middle fingers to their forehead, showing the palm of the hand. And the cause of this difference was...?
just to be different? Officers can't salute the same way as the ordinary soldier.
Quote from: Octavian on July 23, 2009, 05:06:58 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on July 23, 2009, 02:08:54 AM
I'll take the floor if you don't mind, gentlemen.
Officers of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic armies did salute more or less in the modern way, but privates and NCOs saluted bringing their three middle fingers to their forehead, showing the palm of the hand. And the cause of this difference was...?
just to be different? Officers can't salute the same way as the ordinary soldier.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3653%2F3390182310_f86c82cb95.jpg&hash=e7bd4c051ca11892fd1b1bcbf408daa52efd23a1)
Quote from: Alatriste on July 23, 2009, 02:08:54 AM
I'll take the floor if you don't mind, gentlemen.
Officers of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic armies did salute more or less in the modern way, but privates and NCOs saluted bringing their three middle fingers to their forehead, showing the palm of the hand. And the cause of this difference was...?
Was it something to do with showing that their fingers that were most needed in combat (like for firing a gun), were ok?
Nope, it's far easier than that... :lol:
Quote from: Jaron on July 23, 2009, 01:49:20 AM
When you have sex with a family member
About once a week. What do I win?
Quote from: Alatriste on July 23, 2009, 07:00:48 AM
Nope, it's far easier than that... :lol:
Something to do with serfs/peasants knuckling their foreheads?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 23, 2009, 07:04:57 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on July 23, 2009, 07:00:48 AM
Nope, it's far easier than that... :lol:
Something to do with serfs/peasants knuckling their foreheads?
That's what I am guessing. The enlisted salute evolved from knuckling the forehead, while the officer salute evolved from raising the hat.
Quote from: grumbler on July 23, 2009, 07:30:38 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 23, 2009, 07:04:57 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on July 23, 2009, 07:00:48 AM
Nope, it's far easier than that... :lol:
Something to do with serfs/peasants knuckling their foreheads?
That's what I am guessing. The enlisted salute evolved from knuckling the forehead, while the officer salute evolved from raising the hat.
There is some doubt about who copied who, but generally it's assumed that was the reason. Some say that it was because officers used bicornes, but in several armies both soldiers and officers used them and in those armies soldiers normally used their bicornes left to right, alowing them to 'knuckle their foreheads', officers back to front or 'twisted'.
Quote from: Alatriste on July 23, 2009, 07:41:18 AM
There is some doubt about who copied who, but generally it's assumed that was the reason. Some say that it was because officers used bicornes, but in several armies both soldiers and officers used them and in those armies soldiers normally used their bicornes left to right, alowing them to 'knuckle their foreheads', officers back to front or 'twisted'.
Exactly.
Quote from: grumbler on July 23, 2009, 07:30:38 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 23, 2009, 07:04:57 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on July 23, 2009, 07:00:48 AM
Nope, it's far easier than that... :lol:
Something to do with serfs/peasants knuckling their foreheads?
That's what I am guessing. The enlisted salute evolved from knuckling the forehead, while the officer salute evolved from raising the hat.
I read somewhere (no idea of the accuracy) that the officer salute evolved from the act of lifting one's helmet visor.
Quote from: Malthus on July 23, 2009, 08:03:23 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 23, 2009, 07:30:38 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 23, 2009, 07:04:57 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on July 23, 2009, 07:00:48 AM
Nope, it's far easier than that... :lol:
Something to do with serfs/peasants knuckling their foreheads?
That's what I am guessing. The enlisted salute evolved from knuckling the forehead, while the officer salute evolved from raising the hat.
I read somewhere (no idea of the accuracy) that the officer salute evolved from the act of lifting one's helmet visor.
Yeah thats what I read as well: the knights raised the visor to honor the enemy/fellow knight by showing their identity or something.
Wiki suggests that Roman Legionaries shaded their eyes when faced with the luminence which was their commander as a means of homage.
nice reboot so far. :p
Quote from: Malthus on July 23, 2009, 08:03:23 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 23, 2009, 07:30:38 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 23, 2009, 07:04:57 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on July 23, 2009, 07:00:48 AM
Nope, it's far easier than that... :lol:
Something to do with serfs/peasants knuckling their foreheads?
That's what I am guessing. The enlisted salute evolved from knuckling the forehead, while the officer salute evolved from raising the hat.
I read somewhere (no idea of the accuracy) that the officer salute evolved from the act of lifting one's helmet visor.
This is the version we were taught in basic training.
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 23, 2009, 09:55:09 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 23, 2009, 08:03:23 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 23, 2009, 07:30:38 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 23, 2009, 07:04:57 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on July 23, 2009, 07:00:48 AM
Nope, it's far easier than that... :lol:
Something to do with serfs/peasants knuckling their foreheads?
That's what I am guessing. The enlisted salute evolved from knuckling the forehead, while the officer salute evolved from raising the hat.
I read somewhere (no idea of the accuracy) that the officer salute evolved from the act of lifting one's helmet visor.
This is the version we were taught in basic training.
They lied to you then.
Quote from: Jaron on July 23, 2009, 09:57:46 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 23, 2009, 09:55:09 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 23, 2009, 08:03:23 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 23, 2009, 07:30:38 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 23, 2009, 07:04:57 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on July 23, 2009, 07:00:48 AM
Nope, it's far easier than that... :lol:
Something to do with serfs/peasants knuckling their foreheads?
That's what I am guessing. The enlisted salute evolved from knuckling the forehead, while the officer salute evolved from raising the hat.
I read somewhere (no idea of the accuracy) that the officer salute evolved from the act of lifting one's helmet visor.
This is the version we were taught in basic training.
They lied to you then.
Well, in basic, one of our instructors(an enlisted NCO) for a period of classroom instruction, taught us that 9/11 was a conspiracy, and that it was a missile that blew a hole in the Pentagon.
No, I'm not kidding.
tje romans knuckle their armor or shield, depending if they were officers or enlisted.
Modern salute evolved from lifting the visor, to the gesture of taking off head gear, to showing your right hand unarmed.
What the fuck is that about 'knuckling the head?
Never heard that one before.
Quote from: Siege on July 23, 2009, 10:42:12 PM
What the fuck is that about 'knuckling the head?
Never heard that one before.
Ironic, much?
:p
OK, Grumbler probably will know this one, but it's too good not to post it. Why did Austrians think white uniforms were actually the easiest to keep clean and attractive on campaign?
Because they were racist.
Like modern Americans they used bleach instead of actually washing them thoroughly.
In Austria the dirt is white.
Raz, Brainy, you are closer than you think to the truth...
They clean them with snow?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 24, 2009, 06:08:26 AM
They clean them with snow?
Nope, snow would have worked with any color.
They washed them in limewater, which acts as a natural bleaching agent?
Quote from: Alatriste on July 24, 2009, 01:46:04 AM
OK, Grumbler probably will know this one, but it's too good not to post it. Why did Austrians think white uniforms were actually the easiest to keep clean and attractive on campaign?
I'll stay out of this one. Good question, though.
They would lay the uniforms out between campaigns and hope the sun bleached them back to white?
I have no idea. I even googled it to no avail. :(
I actually decided to google it too after my second guess and also cannot find the answer. :huh:
White means any dirt is easily visible and thus the soldiers make a greater effort to keep the uniforms clean. On a blue or red or green background dirt might go un-noticed.
Should I post the answer?
Quote from: Alatriste on July 24, 2009, 12:45:06 PM
Should I post the answer?
Yes, if our brilliant minds haven't deduced the answer by now then it's not going to ever happen.
Quote from: Alatriste on July 24, 2009, 12:45:06 PM
Should I post the answer?
Hah, I just found the answer through the google.
I thought it was because it would be easier for dyers to get the color right. Keeping it clean---no idea.
Quote from: ulmont on July 24, 2009, 12:47:44 PM
Quote from: Alatriste on July 24, 2009, 12:45:06 PM
Should I post the answer?
Hah, I just found the answer through the google.
I wonder if it's the same I read.
OK, it's true white uniforms could be 'cleaned' with dirt and even with chalk too (all armies used chalk to 'clean' white leather equipment, by the way) mainly because they weren't truely white but natural wool... they would probably look a a very pale cream or gray to us.
And that's the reason, that white uniforms weren't dyed. Dyes were so bad in those days that uniforms of other colors looked old and worn out in far less time than white ones. In addition white uniforms were cheaper, making them even more attractive for cash starved Austria.
I was going to make another question, what trick did soldiers use to hide holes in their shoes if they had a parade, etc (answer: paint their feet black with shoe polish) but I have already made two...
@MadInmortalMan
Forget about getting the color right. In those days, prior to the Industrial Revolution, that was an unachievable dream... Regiments tried hard to achieve uniformity but memories from this epoch leave it abundantly clear that many battalions in campaign were indeed a motley crew, with civilian pants, coats from several batches that didn't really match, etc, etc...
For example many French battalions in Spain in 1809-10 were indeed in a sorry state, with a mix of blue and white coats, bicorns and shakos, all in the same unit...
Quote from: Alatriste on July 24, 2009, 01:12:20 PM
I wonder if it's the same I read.
OK, it's true white uniforms could be 'cleaned' with dirt and even with chalk too (all armies used chalk to 'clean' white leather equipment, by the way) mainly because they weren't truely white but natural wool... they would probably look a a very pale cream or gray to us.
The one I read just said they could be 'cleaned' with chalk, missing the dirt, but otherwise yes.
Quote from: ulmont on July 24, 2009, 01:57:09 PM
The one I read just said they could be 'cleaned' with chalk, missing the dirt, but otherwise yes.
They commonly used pipe clay, which is a white "dirt" (not really a clay unless mixed with water) that was cheap and covered up the stains (until the next rain, anyway). Chalk was also used, but was more expensive.
Leaving the uniforms undyed also was cheaper. The Napoleonic French army experimented with white uniforms for the same reasons.
Here's a softball: why is the commanding officer of a warship always called "captain?"
Quote from: grumbler on July 24, 2009, 06:22:05 PM
Here's a softball: why is the commanding officer of a warship always called "captain?"
Ego?
It simplified signalling?
"Commodore" sounded too gay?
Quote from: grumbler on July 24, 2009, 06:22:05 PM
Here's a softball: why is the commanding officer of a warship always called "captain?"
Tradition!
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 26, 2009, 03:13:03 AM
Tradition!
You are on the right track.
Biggish hint: it is the same reason the crew is called "the ship's company."
I didn't want to answer because, if I'm right, it's quite related with Spanish history. Anyway... during the XVI century the biggest ships, the galleons for example, carried one company of infantry... commanded by a captain. In consequence, the ships had to be commanded by captains to avoid the godamned landlubbers being in charge!
I take the floor, gentlemen.
Napoleonic trivia, part MMCLVIII: Russian warships of this era had a much shorter life span than those of other powers, quite a few were scrapped after barely 10 years afloat. Why?
Usage of inferior wood? Not aged long enough so it warped or something? No idea.
I guess it has something to do with faulty reactor shielding.
Quote from: Judas Iscariot on July 29, 2009, 01:44:52 AM
Usage of inferior wood? Not aged long enough so it warped or something? No idea.
Indeed, the wood the Russians used wasn't 'cured' long enough (a process that took years in English, French, Spanish or Dutch shipyards) but why did they use that wood?
Erm... desperation/lack of options? They wanted to get a fleet in action as quickly as possible?
Quote from: Alatriste on July 29, 2009, 01:54:22 AM
Quote from: Judas Iscariot on July 29, 2009, 01:44:52 AM
Usage of inferior wood? Not aged long enough so it warped or something? No idea.
Quality building is considered a vice in Russia?
Indeed, the wood the Russians used wasn't 'cured' long enough (a process that took years in English, French, Spanish or Dutch shipyards) but why did they use that wood?
Seriously Wags? Now you're just being a retard with your quoting. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Alatriste on July 29, 2009, 01:54:22 AM
Quote from: Judas Iscariot on July 29, 2009, 01:44:52 AM
Usage of inferior wood? Not aged long enough so it warped or something? No idea.
Indeed, the wood the Russians used wasn't 'cured' long enough (a process that took years in English, French, Spanish or Dutch shipyards) but why did they use that wood?
Not enough space to cure it?
Quote from: Judas Iscariot on July 29, 2009, 02:45:52 AM
Seriously Wags? Now you're just being a retard with your quoting. :rolleyes:
Well fuck you too moron.
Quote from: Alatriste on July 29, 2009, 01:54:22 AM
Quote from: Judas Iscariot on July 29, 2009, 01:44:52 AM
Usage of inferior wood? Not aged long enough so it warped or something? No idea.
Indeed, the wood the Russians used wasn't 'cured' long enough (a process that took years in English, French, Spanish or Dutch shipyards) but why did they use that wood?
Not using it is treason!
Quote from: Alatriste on July 29, 2009, 01:54:22 AM
Quote from: Judas Iscariot on July 29, 2009, 01:44:52 AM
Usage of inferior wood? Not aged long enough so it warped or something? No idea.
Indeed, the wood the Russians used wasn't 'cured' long enough (a process that took years in English, French, Spanish or Dutch shipyards) but why did they use that wood?
The wood could be damaged by cold and they had limited/none heated curing facilities for the wood?
They used larch wood, which sucks for shipbuilding, but is cheap and plentiful in Russia?
I don't see how timber supply can be the answer since Russia's had to have stuff similar to Sweden and Finland, which IIRC supplied high quality shipbuilding wood.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 29, 2009, 02:48:58 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on July 29, 2009, 01:54:22 AM
Quote from: Judas Iscariot on July 29, 2009, 01:44:52 AM
Usage of inferior wood? Not aged long enough so it warped or something? No idea.
Indeed, the wood the Russians used wasn't 'cured' long enough (a process that took years in English, French, Spanish or Dutch shipyards) but why did they use that wood?
Not enough space to cure it?
Was it sick? :unsure:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 29, 2009, 05:16:38 AM
I don't see how timber supply can be the answer since Russia's had to have stuff similar to Sweden and Finland, which IIRC supplied high quality shipbuilding wood.
Yi is close to the right answer...
Quote from: Alatriste on July 29, 2009, 06:04:30 AM
Yi is close to the right answer...
Saying it wasn't timber quality is close to the right answer?:puzzled:
I could go for un indicio, vato.
They probably used something inferior to hold the wood together.
They got their wood from Finland and the Finns intentionally provided them with crap wood?
It was cheaper?
The wood was held together with pipe clay and undyed Austrian uniforms.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 29, 2009, 06:42:46 AM
I could go for un indicio, vato.
What's a "vato", friendo?
Hint: Great Britain in 1805 had at least 140 ships of the line. But in spite of the crisis that led to Trafalgar far less than 50% of them were in actual service... and pretty much the same happened with the British, Dutch, Spanish and French fleets during the XVIII century and the Napoleonic Wars.
errr.... the Baltic is infested with some kind of worm that really likes to eat wood?
Quote from: Caliga on July 29, 2009, 07:01:37 AM
errr.... the Baltic is infested with some kind of worm that really likes to eat wood?
Nope. I will say it in another way: Why did Britain, France, Spain, etc. build so many ships when they couldn't find crews for more than 30% or 40% of them at the most?
Quote from: Alatriste on July 29, 2009, 06:59:43 AM
What's a "vato", friendo?
Central American equivalent of dude. No clue what it actually means.
Quote from: Alatriste on July 29, 2009, 07:08:22 AM
Quote from: Caliga on July 29, 2009, 07:01:37 AM
errr.... the Baltic is infested with some kind of worm that really likes to eat wood?
Nope. I will say it in another way: Why did Britain, France, Spain, etc. build so many ships when they couldn't find crews for more than 30% or 40% of them at the most?
There wasn't enough sheer hulks?
Who was the guy who used to google/wiki every trivia question and then deny he had done that? Agelastus?
We don't know! and when we tried to google it we FAILED!
Just tell us the answer.
Quote from: Alatriste on July 29, 2009, 07:08:22 AM
Why did Britain build so many ships when they couldn't find crews for more than 30% or 40% of them at the most?
They were optimistic about how many ships they'd be able to crew with American pressgangs?
Quote from: Alatriste on July 27, 2009, 03:28:32 PM
I didn't want to answer because, if I'm right, it's quite related with Spanish history. Anyway... during the XVI century the biggest ships, the galleons for example, carried one company of infantry... commanded by a captain. In consequence, the ships had to be commanded by captains to avoid the godamned landlubbers being in charge!
Close enough. In fact, the "captain" was, indeed, the commander of the ship's company of soldiers. The modern naval crew is, in fact, descended from those soldiers, and not the civilian crews who used to man the ship (under the "master"). This is also why the RN has a position in the British Army order of precedence.
Quote from: Alatriste on July 29, 2009, 01:21:52 AM
I take the floor, gentlemen.
Napoleonic trivia, part MMCLVIII: Russian warships of this era had a much shorter life span than those of other powers, quite a few were scrapped after barely 10 years afloat. Why?
guessing with thanks from google! these ships were temporary, and were built to escape high timber taxes. once they reached destination, they were salvaged and the wood was sold for profit. Russia was a timber exporter so the practise was widespread, maybe aided by a corrupt tsarist naval bureaucracy who got paid twice for 1) building the warships and then after a polite period of floating storage 2) selling the timber at market.
???
Whoa, so pre-XIX century ships weren't durable?
What life-span are we talking about here? Years?
Quote from: Siege on July 29, 2009, 06:57:39 PM
Whoa, so pre-XIX century ships weren't durable?
What life-span are we talking about here? Years?
On the contrary, HMS
Victory is still afloat for a reason. If timber was properly cured (a process that took years) wooden ships could last for 100 years in service and some actually did.
Sorry about the delay, but the reason, ironically, was that Russia had a secure, cheap and endless supply of everything needed to build ships: timber, hemp, pitch, copper, iron... and workers too, more dirt cheap serfs that you can shake a stick at.
The other powers had to take into account that their vital naval supplies were always in danger. Just Denmark closing the Sund would cut their vital supply line and force them to close their shipyards once they exhausted their stocks.
Regarding timber, their answer was to buy in times of peace, cure it properly, build all the ships they could, and make sure that the ships would last for decades. In war they kept building ships if they could, but crewing the ships already built and kept in reserve was much faster.
The Russians were in the opposite situation. They controlled the supply and the prices, and serfs weren't paid at all... in consequence the Tsar paid a far lower price for a new ship of the line than Britain, France or Spain. in those conditions it made perfect sense to build shoddy ships with green timber. Sure, they would rot in 10 or 15 years, but why bother spending time, space and resources in curing the timber when one has all the inmense forests of Russia and Siberia?
You're right, I was close. :D
Quote from: Armyknife on July 30, 2009, 07:38:31 AM
The Victory is in dry dock and probably has been for many, many years.
Constitution is still in the sea.
Which countries were the first to introduce a nationwide minimum wage?
Either one of two will do, if you get both you get a handjob from Jaron.
For that matter, when they brought Wasa up from the deep she still floated.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 30, 2009, 11:59:10 AM
Which countries were the first to introduce a nationwide minimum wage?
Either one of two will do, if you get both you get a handjob from Jaron.
Oh, what the hell, before Googling I guess Germany and France.
...and after Googling I see that I have turbo-failed.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 30, 2009, 11:59:10 AM
Which countries were the first to introduce a nationwide minimum wage?
Either one of two will do, if you get both you get a handjob from Jaron.
The Soviet Union and The German Empire.
Quote from: ulmont on July 30, 2009, 12:02:03 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 30, 2009, 11:59:10 AM
Which countries were the first to introduce a nationwide minimum wage?
Either one of two will do, if you get both you get a handjob from Jaron.
Oh, what the hell, before Googling I guess Germany and France.
...and after Googling I see that I have turbo-failed.
No handjob for you!! Nor for Viking.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 30, 2009, 12:03:47 PM
Quote from: ulmont on July 30, 2009, 12:02:03 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 30, 2009, 11:59:10 AM
Which countries were the first to introduce a nationwide minimum wage?
Either one of two will do, if you get both you get a handjob from Jaron.
Oh, what the hell, before Googling I guess Germany and France.
...and after Googling I see that I have turbo-failed.
No handjob for you!! Nor for Viking.
Thanks be to hod for no handjob from Jaron.
However, after googling it I find that my first three guesses before my "trick question" filter kicked in, and led me to conclude that Bismarck probably did it and that it probably happened after universal sufferage in the west and assuming that communism probably did have a minimum wage, included both.
Quote from: Viking on July 30, 2009, 12:06:39 PM
Thanks be to hod for no handjob from Jaron.
However, after googling it I find that my first three guesses before my "trick question" filter kicked in, and led me to conclude that Bismarck probably did it and that it probably happened after universal sufferage in the west and assuming that communism probably did have a minimum wage, included both.
Huh?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 30, 2009, 12:07:48 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 30, 2009, 12:06:39 PM
Thanks be to hod for no handjob from Jaron.
However, after googling it I find that my first three guesses before my "trick question" filter kicked in, and led me to conclude that Bismarck probably did it and that it probably happened after universal sufferage in the west and assuming that communism probably did have a minimum wage, included both.
Huh?
Viking is claiming that he originally had the answer and talked himself out of it. I call bullshit. ;)
Quote from: ulmont on July 30, 2009, 12:09:00 PM
Viking is claiming that he originally had the answer and talked himself out of it. I call bullshit. ;)
I'm laying a claim to schmuckdom, why would I bullshit?
One is NZ.
No idea the other, would be funny if it was India :lol:
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 30, 2009, 12:24:00 PM
One is NZ.
No idea the other, would be funny if it was India :lol:
Hooray! :cheers:
The other one is Oztralia.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 30, 2009, 12:37:20 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 30, 2009, 12:24:00 PM
One is NZ.
No idea the other, would be funny if it was India :lol:
Hooray! :cheers:
The other one is Oztralia.
L'Arc de Triomphe was commissioned in 1806, why?
Austerlitz.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 30, 2009, 12:37:20 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 30, 2009, 12:24:00 PM
One is NZ.
No idea the other, would be funny if it was India :lol:
Hooray! :cheers:
The other one is Oztralia.
Huh. I ruled out Australia because you specified a national rate - I was sure it would be provincial jurisdiction in Australia (like it is in Canada).
Quote from: Barrister on July 30, 2009, 12:56:04 PM
Huh. I ruled out Australia because you specified a national rate - I was sure it would be provincial jurisdiction in Australia (like it is in Canada).
Newsweek could be writing bullshit. I can't vouch for it.
Quote from: Caliga on July 30, 2009, 12:53:50 PM
Austerlitz.
Right. Your floor.
Next time, I'm going Nouvelle-France on you lot.
:)
Napoleon = OSSUM. :yeah:
But then again he was a Corsican. -_-
Gimme a little bit to think something up.
The French submarine Le Surcouf was part of an invasion force during the Second World War. Under what flag did it serve and where did the invasion occur?
Lets take a stab in the dark. Vichy flag, invasion of... Norway?
Siezed by the Japs i 1940 and took part in the invasion of Malaya?
Quote from: Barrister on July 30, 2009, 01:12:43 PM
Lets take a stab in the dark. Vichy flag, invasion of... Norway?
Invasion of Norway 9 April 1940
Start of Fall Gelb (invasion of belgium) 10 May 1940
unpossible.
Quote from: Viking on July 30, 2009, 01:13:44 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 30, 2009, 01:12:43 PM
Lets take a stab in the dark. Vichy flag, invasion of... Norway?
Invasion of Norway 9 April 1940
Start of Fall Gelb (invasion of belgium) 10 May 1940
unpossible.
Meh - I figured it would break the rules to google even side facts like that.
Quote from: Barrister on July 30, 2009, 01:16:31 PM
Meh - I figured it would break the rules to google even side facts like that.
but come on.. getting the order of declarations of war in 1940 should be easy...
You are all...not close.
Okay, lets go with the more obvious guess:
Free French forces, invasion of Normandy.
British flag, invasion of Madagascar.
Kriegsmarine, the Moon.
Free France, South of France?
Sons of Horus, Terra.
Free French, Operation Torch?
Quote from: frunk on July 30, 2009, 02:29:09 PM
Free French, Operation Torch?
Would have to be under the British Flag then. The cooperation of the Free French was an iffy proposition.
Given the problems between the British and Free French I am guessing that they were not part of any allied effort. Was there an invasion conducted by only Free French forces? Not sure but that would be my guess - as far as it goes.
Free French, St Pierre et Miquelon
Ah, that fits my description.... Do I win. :P
Remember Max, the Yi Rule is dead * so ask all the Mennonite questions you want to. :)
* 24 Hour Rule and Timmy Rule still in effect.
Quote from: Caliga on July 30, 2009, 02:59:14 PM
:huh:
No questions on numbers, e.g. how many men of the Black Watch were present and fit for duty at the battle of Waterloo.
Dates still OK.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 30, 2009, 03:00:49 PM
Quote from: Caliga on July 30, 2009, 02:59:14 PM
:huh:
No questions on numbers, e.g. how many men of the Black Watch were present and fit for duty at the battle of Waterloo.
Dates still OK.
800, thats about one battalion. the other battalion in the regiment was probably in scotland
Quote from: Barrister on July 30, 2009, 12:56:04 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 30, 2009, 12:37:20 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 30, 2009, 12:24:00 PM
One is NZ.
No idea the other, would be funny if it was India :lol:
Hooray! :cheers:
The other one is Oztralia.
Huh. I ruled out Australia because you specified a national rate - I was sure it would be provincial jurisdiction in Australia (like it is in Canada).
Fucking lawyers
;) ;) ;)
Quote from: Viking on July 30, 2009, 03:29:38 PM
800, thats about one battalion. the other battalion in the regiment was probably in scotland
Games I've played always have British liine batallion strengths at 500-600.:nerd:
Quote from: Josephus on July 30, 2009, 03:32:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 30, 2009, 12:56:04 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 30, 2009, 12:37:20 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 30, 2009, 12:24:00 PM
One is NZ.
No idea the other, would be funny if it was India :lol:
Hooray! :cheers:
The other one is Oztralia.
Huh. I ruled out Australia because you specified a national rate - I was sure it would be provincial jurisdiction in Australia (like it is in Canada).
Fucking lawyers
;) ;) ;)
According to a rather dubious wiki page I was right - Australia's states brought in minimum wage legislation, but no national legislation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_history
While we await Max, here is a softball: who was the only one of Napoleon's brothers never to command troops in battle?
Quote from: grumbler on July 30, 2009, 04:39:59 PM
While we await Max, here is a softball: who was the only one of Napoleon's brothers never to command troops in battle?
Damn how inadequate he must have felt. :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 30, 2009, 12:37:20 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 30, 2009, 12:24:00 PM
One is NZ.
No idea the other, would be funny if it was India :lol:
Hooray! :cheers:
The other one is Oztralia.
Goddamnit, I knew that one but wasn't online. :(
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 30, 2009, 04:55:47 PM
Damn how inadequate he must have felt. :lol:
The "success" of his brothers made him seem a military genius in comparison! :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on July 30, 2009, 04:39:59 PM
While we await Max, here is a softball: who was the only one of Napoleon's brothers never to command troops in battle?
Lucien?
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 30, 2009, 05:35:09 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 30, 2009, 04:39:59 PM
While we await Max, here is a softball: who was the only one of Napoleon's brothers never to command troops in battle?
Lucien?
Bingo! :woot: You win jack shit, because it is Max's turn, but you can throw a softball.
Quote from: grumbler on July 30, 2009, 06:04:26 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 30, 2009, 05:35:09 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 30, 2009, 04:39:59 PM
While we await Max, here is a softball: who was the only one of Napoleon's brothers never to command troops in battle?
Lucien?
Bingo! :woot: You win jack shit, because it is Max's turn, but you can throw a softball.
My obscure knowledge of Napoleon would come in handy some day. And the teachers said I'd be a failure. I SHOWED THEM. :P
I have no softballs ready. :blush:
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 30, 2009, 06:06:30 PM
My obscure knowledge of Napoleon would come in handy some day. And the teachers said I'd be a failure. I SHOWED THEM. :P
Don't listen to teachers. Teachers are stupid -_-
Quote from: Caliga on July 30, 2009, 06:11:02 PM
Don't listen to teachers. Teachers are stupid -_-
Hey! :ultra: I resemble that remark!
:lol: :P
Ok, sorry for the delay, I was on my way to class when I answered that.
Of what nationality(by birth) was the viceroy of Peru in 1800?
French?
( I assume Spanish is just too obvious)
Filipino?
No and no
Chinese?
I cheated and Googled the answer and am not particularly surprised at it. Silly Spaniards employed a lot of those buggers.
Peruvian?
Porto?
Dutch?
Turkish?
I'm thinking some form of Italian.
But for 1800 how precise do I need to be. Naples?
Quote from: Barrister on July 30, 2009, 06:59:53 PM
I'm thinking some form of Italian.
But for 1800 how precise do I need to be. Naples?
It ain't Italian, so that's close enough...and wrong.
British?
Irish.
German?
Israeli?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 30, 2009, 07:13:36 PM
Irish.
Bingo, Ambrose O'Higgins by name, minor nobility from County Sligo.
The Duke of Eckmuhl is better known by what name?
Marshal Davout?
Pertaining to the book I finished somewhat recently...
What semi-famous French general was given credit by the Western press for the "Miracle on the Vistula" despite having next to nothing to do with the victory there?
Quote from: Habbaku on July 30, 2009, 10:09:12 PM
Pertaining to the book I finished somewhat recently...
What semi-famous French general was given credit by the Western press for the "Miracle on the Vistula" despite having next to nothing to do with the victory there?
Weygand? (had to look up how to spell his name right).
Quote from: Razgovory on July 30, 2009, 11:30:31 PM
Weygand? (had to look up how to spell his name right).
Correct. Poor bastard was actually surprised when he got back to France to a hero's welcome--he had no idea what he'd done right!
You're up.
Which high level Bolshevik leader reportedly died of the Spanish Flu? I saw reportedly cause facts change in Russia.
Bukharin?
Edit : No idea who it was, but it definitely wasn't the B-man--he died in '38.
Trotsky. Stalin's personal physicians attempted to treat him, but he died from ice pick-related complications during surgery.
At least, according to the "Newly Revised and Updated Official History of Russia: 5th ed."
Quote from: Razgovory on July 31, 2009, 12:34:25 AM
Which high level Bolshevik leader reportedly died of the Spanish Flu? I saw reportedly cause facts change in Russia.
I've got no idea. but I think the joke was 'In the Soviet Union we know what the future holds; it's the past what changes every day'
Hint: He was a commie.
Interestly he had a brother who also grew up to be an important man for a very different cause.
Quote from: Habbaku on July 30, 2009, 06:55:18 PM
I cheated and Googled the answer and am not particularly surprised at it. Silly Spaniards employed a lot of those buggers.
Yup, we surely liked our Wild Geese and their descendants. :lol:
Sverdlov?
Quote from: Caliga on July 31, 2009, 06:48:37 AM
Sverdlov?
I don't want to wait all day for a new question so, AFAIC google that's right.
I knew it was either him or Voroshilov... one of the cats that had cities named after them early on.
Ask away!
Providence, Rhode Island was abandoned and burned to the ground during what war?
Revolutionary?
Nope.
King Phillips?
Quote from: Armyknife on July 31, 2009, 09:00:12 AM
Quote from: Caliga on July 31, 2009, 08:35:19 AM
Providence, Rhode Island was abandoned and burned to the ground during what war?
The Stonewall riots ?
:blink:
Anyway, Viking is correct.
Quote from: Armyknife on July 31, 2009, 09:00:12 AM
Quote from: Caliga on July 31, 2009, 08:35:19 AM
Providence, Rhode Island was abandoned and burned to the ground during what war?
The Stonewall riots ?
:lol:
Now *there's* a mental image to savour.
A man named Coignet used chickenwire to invent one of the most important technologies in modern civilisation. What is that technology?
Radar?
Edit : Man, I was way off.
Barbed Wire?
Quote from: Habbaku on July 31, 2009, 09:21:38 AM
Radar?
Edit : Man, I was way off.
That was going to be my guess. :lol:
Reinforced concrete?
Telegraph wires?
Quote from: Maximus on July 31, 2009, 09:23:37 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on July 31, 2009, 09:21:38 AM
Radar?
Edit : Man, I was way off.
That was going to be my guess. :lol:
Reinforced concrete?
Bingo. He first used chicken wire as a structure for bird houses then he expanded the technology using a heavier steel grating to build full size buildings making steel re-enforced concrete resistant to all forces acting on it, not just the compressive stress like regular concrete.
In that vein;
What did the romans use as a substitute for concrete as mortar and structural castings?
The blood of their enemies.
Quote from: Maximus on July 31, 2009, 09:46:47 AM
In that vein;
What did the romans use as a substitute for concrete as mortar and structural castings?
This really sounds strange
1) Concrete is cement plus a filler, it is not used as mortar. Cement is used as mortar.
2) They used Concrete for "structural casting" in buildings (assuming it means what I think it means).
If the question is what material often replaced volcanic ash as the filler when money was being saved then ground recycled pottery is the answer.
Viking, you over thought this.
It was a trick question. The answer is nothing. :P
Dung?
Quote from: Viking on July 31, 2009, 10:28:47 AM
This really sounds strange
1) Concrete is cement plus a filler, it is not used as mortar. Cement is used as mortar.
2) They used Concrete for "structural casting" in buildings (assuming it means what I think it means).
If the question is what material often replaced volcanic ash as the filler when money was being saved then ground recycled pottery is the answer.
Cement is the powder mixed with water and aggregate to make concrete.
They also used concrete but they used something else that was often cheaper to make than cement.
It is frequently found between stones on pillars where the immense weight of the structure would crack the stones if no mortar was used. It is found on bridge pillars as well as the corner pillars that support the dome of the Haggia Sophia. It was also sometimes poured around the base of bridge pillars to prevent erosion.
Quote from: Armyknife on July 31, 2009, 09:00:12 AM
Quote from: Caliga on July 31, 2009, 08:35:19 AM
Providence, Rhode Island was abandoned and burned to the ground during what war?
The Stonewall riots ?
:lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: I laughed and laughed.
You stood by and laughed while bloodthirsty savages burned Providence to the ground!? :ultra:
Tim: Puerto Rico Nero. :mad:
Quote from: Caliga on July 31, 2009, 12:43:04 PM
You stood by and laughed while bloodthirsty savages burned Providence to the ground!? :ultra:
The rioters at Stonewall had a different fluid of choice.
I don't know.
The floor seems to be open, so I will throw an easy one out there: By date of commission, who was the United States first 5-star general, and in what year was he promoted to that rank?
Pershing... 1918?
McClelland, 186...2?
Grant or does he not count?
Actually, after double-checking wiki, it seems I may have made a mistake. My intended answer was: George Washington, 1864. I was under the impression that Congress posthumously promoted Washington in that year, so that Grant wouldn't outrank him; wiki says Washington wasn't promoted until 1976, and then to the rank of General of the Armies, or a six-star rank (which is apparently what Pershing held). Another potential source of confusion is whether or not the rank of General of the Army (Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan's rank) is equivalent to a 5-star general (it is), since none of them actually wore 5-stars on their uniform. Because of these discrepencies, I yield the floor, shame-faced. :blush:
I knew that George Washington received a posthumous 5-star promotion, but I thought you meant which person was the first to be awared five stars in chronological order of the award. IIRC Washington got a later promotion to 6 stars and the title "General of the United States", which was Congress's way of making sure nobody would ever outrank Washington under any circumstances.
Quote from: Kleves on July 31, 2009, 01:23:33 PM
Actually, after double-checking wiki, it seems I may have made a mistake. My intended answer was: George Washington, 1864. I was under the impression that Congress posthumously promoted Washington in that year, so that Grant wouldn't outrank him; wiki says Washington wasn't promoted until 1976, and then to the rank of General of the Armies, or a six-star rank (which is apparently what Pershing held). Another potential source of confusion is whether or not the rank of General of the Army (Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan's rank) is equivalent to a 5-star general (it is), since none of them actually wore 5-stars on their uniform. Because of these discrepencies, I yield the floor, shame-faced. :blush:
Grant was General of the Army which was at the time a 4 star rank.
Marshal was the first 5 star general, and IIRC the reason there is no Field Marshal rank in the US. They thought it would be silly if he was Field Marshal Marshal.
But Tim, it would have been Field Marshal Marshall. -_-
Quote from: Caliga on July 31, 2009, 01:33:00 PM
But Tim, it would have been Field Marshal Marshall. -_-
Well than that makes it A Okay.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 31, 2009, 01:30:24 PM
Grant was General of the Army which was at the time a 4 star rank.
Grant wore 4 stars, as did Sheridan, while Sherman wore 2. I don't think they had the stars hammered out at that point. Wasn't Marshall's rank that of General of the Army?
Quote from: Caliga on July 31, 2009, 01:33:00 PM
But Tim, it would have been Field Marshal Marshall. -_-
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tvgasm.com%2Fnewsgasm%2FFred%2520Weller%2520In%2520Plain%2520Sight%2520USA.jpg&hash=6ef5a705843b17f8673927e079489dbe52cf9d10)
Marshal Marshall Mann approves of this joke.
The answer was lead. I'm out for the weekend so feel free.
Quote from: Maximus on July 31, 2009, 04:36:11 PM
The answer was lead. I'm out for the weekend so feel free.
Alles fliesst. In terms of civil engineering should be a lubricant. It sounds strange. Do you have any more detail about it?
Since the floor is free...
on March 25, 1945, PM Winston Churchill visited eisenhower's headquarters on the front. Later that day he, Montgomery, and a few officers actually crossed the Rhine river for a short visit, before returning to the other side and returning home.
What two things did Churchill do while on the other side of the Rhine?
(no idea if this is ridiculously easy or not - I'd never heard the story till a few days ago).
Shoot and consume a German soldier.
Quote from: Barrister on July 31, 2009, 05:26:08 PM
Since the floor is free...
on March 25, 1945, PM Winston Churchill visited eisenhower's headquarters on the front. Later that day he, Montgomery, and a few officers actually crossed the Rhine river for a short visit, before returning to the other side and returning home.
What two things did Churchill do while on the other side of the Rhine?
(no idea if this is ridiculously easy or not - I'd never heard the story till a few days ago).
Drink whiskey and smoke a cigar.
It's entirely possible he smoked a cigar, but that's not what I was looking for.
I bet he pissed in the river.
Was Churchill still Prime minister then?
I'm going with "banged a hooker and killed a German".
Oh and Cal was right on my question. His brother went to France joined the army and became a General, and fought for the Free French.
Quote from: Armyknife on July 31, 2009, 05:36:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 31, 2009, 05:26:08 PM
Since the floor is free...
on March 25, 1945, PM Winston Churchill visited eisenhower's headquarters on the front. Later that day he, Montgomery, and a few officers actually crossed the Rhine river for a short visit, before returning to the other side and returning home.
What two things did Churchill do while on the other side of the Rhine?
(no idea if this is ridiculously easy or not - I'd never heard the story till a few days ago).
He took a piss.
And a wild guess, was sick.
Yes, he pissed (on the ground though - German soil, not in the river).
That of course was the amusing part, but he also made a point of doing something else.
1) Insulted Stalin (hey! I got to germany first! U suXXorZ)
2) Tried to plot with FDR against Stalin
3) Symbolically ordered an attack to be launched.
4) Visited a site connected to his "Illustrious Ancestor"
these are my guesses, just to save time.
but then again, pissing and smoking are two things.
Went back in time and ejaculated into the primordial ooze.
He may have smoked a cigar, but thee was no reference to that.
Since the crowd seems bored with this one, I'll just say they had lunch. There was a funny photo of Churchill, Montgomery, and a few others huddled around a tiny folding table having a picnic on a cold March day on the banks of the Rhine in the middle of a war zone.
The first of Anger or Armyknife can give the next question.
:huh: I had the eating lunch part.
Quote from: Barrister on July 31, 2009, 06:20:12 PM
He may have smoked a cigar, but thee was no reference to that.
Since the crowd seems bored with this one, I'll just say they had lunch. There was a funny photo of Churchill, Montgomery, and a few others huddled around a tiny folding table having a picnic on a cold March day on the banks of the Rhine in the middle of a war zone.
The first of Anger or Armyknife can give the next question.
I have nothing.
24 hour rule and all that.
Helium is named after a specific object. It got that name after that object was observed by a Frenchman in India in the 19th century. Now, without naming the object, which property of the object led to the conclusion that helium must exist.
That's more of a science question. I'm going to say the detectablity of Helium led to the conclusion that it must exist.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2009, 10:03:43 AM
That's more of a science question. I'm going to say the detectablity of Helium led to the conclusion that it must exist.
Well, with that logic Alariste's Russian Ship of the Line question is more of an economics question. The question remains, which property of the observed object led to the conclusion that Helium must exist.
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2009, 07:40:28 AM
24 hour rule and all that.
Helium is named after a specific object. It got that name after that object was observed by a Frenchman in India in the 19th century. Now, without naming the object, which property of the object led to the conclusion that helium must exist.
I'm thinking the floating without blowing up, probably.
EDIT: That's not an "object", Viking.
Quote from: ulmont on August 01, 2009, 10:22:20 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2009, 07:40:28 AM
24 hour rule and all that.
Helium is named after a specific object. It got that name after that object was observed by a Frenchman in India in the 19th century. Now, without naming the object, which property of the object led to the conclusion that helium must exist.
I'm thinking the floating without blowing up, probably.
EDIT: That's not an "object", Viking.
Neither the buoyancy nor the flammability of object led to the conclusion.
From dictionary.com
I say way. It is an object.
Quoteob⋅ject
/n. ˈɒbdʒɪkt, -dʒɛkt; v. əbˈdʒɛkt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [n. ob-jikt, -jekt; v. uhb-jekt] Show IPA
Use object in a Sentence
–noun
1. anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form.
2. a thing, person, or matter to which thought or action is directed: an object of medical investigation.
3. the end toward which effort or action is directed; goal; purpose: Profit is the object of business.
4. a person or thing with reference to the impression made on the mind or the feeling or emotion elicited in an observer: an object of curiosity and pity.
5. anything that may be apprehended intellectually: objects of thought.
6. Optics. the thing of which a lens or mirror forms an image.
7. Grammar. (in many languages, as English) a noun, noun phrase, or noun substitute representing by its syntactical position either the goal of the action of a verb or the goal of a preposition in a prepositional phrase, as ball in John hit the ball, Venice in He came to Venice, coin and her in He gave her a coin. Compare direct object, indirect object.
8. Computers. any item that can be individually selected or manipulated, as a picture, data file, or piece of text.
9. Metaphysics. something toward which a cognitive act is directed.
I googled the answer and I have to say I doubt I would have ever guessed this. Neat question :)
Well it has to be something to do with the sun since it led to the detection of helium.
Which property of the sun?
err...
sun dogs
Quote from: Barrister on August 01, 2009, 10:41:05 AM
Well it has to be something to do with the sun since it led to the detection of helium.
Which property of the sun?
err...
sun dogs
:huh: Do you mean sun spots?
Quote from: Caliga on August 01, 2009, 10:38:20 AM
I googled the answer and I have to say I doubt I would have ever guessed this. Neat question :)
I try to ask questions which are very easily googled. I check before asking that you can get the answer with usually the most obvious query for google.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 01, 2009, 10:44:28 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 01, 2009, 10:41:05 AM
Well it has to be something to do with the sun since it led to the detection of helium.
Which property of the sun?
err...
sun dogs
:huh: Do you mean sun spots?
Neither sun spots nor sun dogs.
Quote from: Barrister on August 01, 2009, 11:05:15 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 01, 2009, 10:44:28 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 01, 2009, 10:41:05 AM
sun dogs
:huh: Do you mean sun spots?
No I did not mean sun spots. I meant sun dogs.
Regarding Sun Dogs, they would also have the same property as the object which I am looking for if the object were the sun.
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2009, 10:11:37 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2009, 10:03:43 AM
That's more of a science question. I'm going to say the detectablity of Helium led to the conclusion that it must exist.
Well, with that logic Alariste's Russian Ship of the Line question is more of an economics question. The question remains, which property of the observed object led to the conclusion that Helium must exist.
I answered it! It's detectability allowed the conclusion that it must exist. As with all things.
The blurriness around the edges?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2009, 06:02:50 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2009, 10:11:37 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 01, 2009, 10:03:43 AM
That's more of a science question. I'm going to say the detectablity of Helium led to the conclusion that it must exist.
Well, with that logic Alariste's Russian Ship of the Line question is more of an economics question. The question remains, which property of the observed object led to the conclusion that Helium must exist.
I answered it! It's detectability allowed the conclusion that it must exist. As with all things.
OK, wrong. The object has been detectable since either 540 million years ago or when it came into existence, which ever is later.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 01, 2009, 06:05:51 PM
The blurriness around the edges?
No, but this property was observed in the blurriness around the edges at a time when the rest of the object was covered by something else.
Stop dancing. Next question please.
French Astronomer Pierre Janssen went to India in 1868 to observe a total eclipse of the sun. He observed the corona and looked at the spectrum of the light. He found a line in the yellow region near the two sodium lines. Originally thinking that his equipment was faulty. His results were looked at and other scientists found the line when the looked at the sun as well. Since that specific wavelength didn't occur with any known element. So astronomers postulated that the a new element which they called helium after the sun in greek (Helios). Actual helium was identified by a British chemist working on a mineral.
Today it is usually found in natural gas in certain US deposits which resulted in the US having a virtual monopoly on helium in the time of airships.
I'll cede the floor since none of you schmucks are literate in the history of science.
Science questions are gay.
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2009, 11:28:35 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 01, 2009, 11:05:15 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 01, 2009, 10:44:28 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 01, 2009, 10:41:05 AM
sun dogs
:huh: Do you mean sun spots?
No I did not mean sun spots. I meant sun dogs.
Regarding Sun Dogs, they would also have the same property as the object which I am looking for if the object were the sun.
Well, now I'm intrigued. What are sun dogs?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_dogs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_dogs)
Q: Which pharao wrote the play A Mummy's House?
A: Peribsen.
Who where the Baker Street Irregulars during ww2?
Quote from: Zoupa on August 01, 2009, 11:12:43 PM
Who where the Baker Street Irregulars during ww2?
PAC!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2009, 06:33:20 PM
French Astronomer Pierre Janssen went to India in 1868 to observe a total eclipse of the sun.
Which, one will note, is more of an "event" than an "object."
Quote from: ulmont on August 01, 2009, 11:40:35 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2009, 06:33:20 PM
French Astronomer Pierre Janssen went to India in 1868 to observe a total eclipse of the sun.
Which, one will note, is more of an "event" than an "object."
But the Sun is an object and helium was named after it.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 01, 2009, 07:04:33 PM
Well, now I'm intrigued. What are sun dogs?
It's like two suns in the sky. I saw one once. I sat around a long time in a parking lot trying to figure out why we now had two suns.
Quote from: Viking on August 01, 2009, 06:09:51 PM
OK, wrong. The object has been detectable since either 540 million years ago or when it came into existence, which ever is later.
No the dectability of helium. :rolleyes:
Judar Pasha, who conquered the Songhai Empire in the late 16th century, was originally of what ethnicity?
Pashtu
Sami.
Spanish.
Jewish
Quote from: Malthus on August 04, 2009, 02:45:37 PM
Spanish.
Correct. A Spaniard captured as a boy and turned into a eunuch. :)
Quote from: Caliga on August 04, 2009, 02:52:13 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 04, 2009, 02:45:37 PM
Spanish.
Correct. A Spaniard captured as a boy and turned into a eunuch. :)
Okay, this may be a hard one, even for us military history geeks ...
The city of Naples was taken twice in sieges by exactly the same notable strategy: soldiers crept through a broken aqueduct into the city. Allegedly the
exact same aqueduct was used on both occasions - some 900 years apart, showing that some learn from history and some don't ;) .
Who were the successful generals in each case?
Garibalidi and Norman dude.
hmmm....
case 1: Roger Guiscard d'Hauteville
case 2: Mark Clark
I don't think anybody is getting the generals....
1. Lombards
2. French
Oh, yikes. Was the Lombard general Totila?
If it was 900 years after the Lombards, that would be in like the 1500s for the French general. I'm trying to remember the name of that famous French general who fought the Spanish in Italy around that time.
Heh, as I said, this is a tough one. Should I give more clues?
Yes.
Okay ... the first general of the two was famous for having an overbearing wife who was a reformed "actress".
That should give the game away ...
Quote from: Malthus on August 05, 2009, 08:11:01 AM
Okay ... the first general of the two was famous for having an overbearing wife who was a reformed "actress".
That should give the game away ...
I would have Guessed Belisarius for the first, but wasn't it Justinian that had the reformed actress wife?
:yes:
Justinian didn't do the Byzantine reconquest of Italy, Belisarius (and I think Narses?) did.
Quote from: Threviel on August 05, 2009, 08:37:57 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 05, 2009, 08:11:01 AM
Okay ... the first general of the two was famous for having an overbearing wife who was a reformed "actress".
That should give the game away ...
I would have Guessed Belisarius for the first, but wasn't it Justinian that had the reformed actress wife?
Belisarius is correct - his wife Antonia was a reformed actress & a personal best buddy of Theodora (they met in their "acting" days).
Quote from: Caliga on August 05, 2009, 08:41:00 AM
:yes:
Justinian didn't do the Byzantine reconquest of Italy, Belisarius (and I think Narses?) did.
Narses relieved Belisarius after Justinian got nervous.
The ostrogoths did offer Belisarius the western imperial crown.
Oh yeah, I forgot.
Anyway, that makes the second conquest circa 1465.
Somewhat too late, but emperor Charles after the sack of Rome 1527?
Quote from: Threviel on August 05, 2009, 11:01:33 AM
Somewhat too late, but emperor Charles after the sack of Rome 1527?
Nope, earlier than that ...
Who ever was Louis the great's general?
Prolly someone like Charles of Anjou, they were always running around claiming southern Italy.
Hmmm... yeah, probably an Angevin but I think Charles was an inheriter, not a fighter.
Rene d'Anjou?
New, somewhat better question: Who was the first person since the 1600's to hold both an active military commision and a cabinet position in the British government?
Churchill. One or the other.
Churchill's not who I was thinking of. Is First Lord of the Admiralty a cabinet position?
Quote from: Kleves on August 15, 2009, 07:29:04 PM
Churchill's not who I was thinking of. Is First Lord of the Admiralty a cabinet position?
Is the Pope the Antichrist (non-rhetorical)?
Quote from: Kleves on August 15, 2009, 07:29:04 PM
Churchill's not who I was thinking of. Is First Lord of the Admiralty a cabinet position?
Does this mean Churchill came before whoever you're thinking of?
Marlborough
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 15, 2009, 08:21:32 PM
Quote from: Kleves on August 15, 2009, 07:29:04 PM
Churchill's not who I was thinking of. Is First Lord of the Admiralty a cabinet position?
Does this mean Churchill came before whoever you're thinking of?
Yes. Although the man I'm thinking of was his contemporary.
Yi: Malborough is not who i was thinking of, either.
Ok, since my original question may have been wrong, or at least suspect, let me narrow the field a bit: The man I'm thinking of famously wore his military uniform while executing his government duties, which greatly upset the first non-royal (the husband, at least) to be married in Buckingham palace's chapel.
Sounds like Kitchner.
Kitchener, yep. He wore his Field Marshal's uniform to a meeting with Douglas Haig in France. Haig's wedding was the first non-royal one in the history of Buckingham palace.
Quote from: grumbler on August 15, 2009, 09:22:13 PM
Sounds like Kitchner.
I had thought he had been retired.
Quote from: Kleves on August 15, 2009, 07:29:04 PM
Churchill's not who I was thinking of. Is First Lord of the Admiralty a cabinet position?
First Lord of the Admiralty used to be, yeah. They could be military or civilian until the Napoleonic wars when only civilians were appointed while the First Sea Lord was the military position.
You let this thread die while I was away. :mad:
Here is an easy one to get things going.
As we all know Columbus tried to shop his idea of travelling west to reach the Indies in several Royal Courts. One of those was Portugual. However he was unsuccessful pursuading the Portugese because on his arrival in Portugual the King's attention was taken by another event.
What was it?
The capture of Ceuta?
His wedding
Both wrong but Viking is closer.
Capture of Tangier?
Not the capture of something but it does have to do with Africa.
Oh, dammit, someone had just returned, hadn't they...who the hell was it...
Aw, Hades, I am sure it is the wrong year, but let's see...
Da Gama?
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2009, 12:13:06 PM
Not the capture of something but it does have to do with Africa.
The circumnavigation of Africa?
Malthus, tell us the name of the second general!
Da Gama made his most famous voyage in 1498.
OTOH the Cape of Good Hope had been rounded in 1487 IIRC. Could be a contender.
You guys are definitely hot. Now you just need the name.
Sorry, no can do. I knew the name (95% sure) but then I happened to see the name when googling something else.
I have to disqualify myself as well, I am afraid, as I was interested enough to check Wikipedia.
Bartholomeu Diaz had returned?
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 24, 2009, 01:42:31 PM
Bartholomeu Diaz had returned?
Ding Ding Ding.
The floor is yours - thanks to the honesty of the other two.
Which two future explorers of the Pacific are along the exact same river, at the same time, in North America in 1759 ?
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 24, 2009, 01:50:56 PM
Which two future explorers of the Pacific are along the exact same river, at the same time, in North America in 1759 ?
Cook, Dampier, St. Lawrence?
Quote from: Viking on August 24, 2009, 01:56:33 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 24, 2009, 01:50:56 PM
Which two future explorers of the Pacific are along the exact same river, at the same time, in North America in 1759 ?
Cook, Dampier, St. Lawrence?
1 and 3 are good. N° 2 is quite dead by 1759
Bougainville
Yep. Cook was surveying the St. Lawrence for the Royal Navy. Bougainville was defending Quebec.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 24, 2009, 02:23:02 PM
Yep. Cook was surveying the St. Lawrence for the Royal Navy. Bougainville was defending Quebec.
Very cool bit of trivia.
Well done.
Go ahead if you got one canuck.
I pass to the Brain.
What's the story behind this picture?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi13.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa299%2FSlayhem%2FImage1.jpg&hash=25c6caa6dc63ff3918a935d15fcf78ccca59b847)
balloon crash
Attaching a wicker basket was insufficient in moving the giant lead ball.
Some Italian general or prince tries to fly with a balloon over the North Pole?
Quote from: Zanza on August 25, 2009, 01:00:47 AM
Some Italian general or prince tries to fly with a balloon over the North Pole?
Very close.
Its got to be an challenge of some sort to travel to the North Pole by Balloon. Since you are you, there must be a Swedish connection so one or all of the Balloonists is Swedish. Only two are in the shot so I am assuming this isnt the rescue party - they would also be in the shot. Not a lot of equipment or supplies lying about so it is unlikely they survived to be saved.
I suppose the real question is why did they crash. Aside from the obvious answer that they were Swedes, that remains a mystery.
Was the ambient air temperature so cold that the gas in the balloon could not be heated sufficiently to provide height?
@CC: Good reasoning, you win.
It's the Swedish 1897 Andrée expedition to get to the North Pole by hydrogen balloon. The picture is obviously taken after they were forced to land by hydrogen loss and ice after 2 days in the air. After the landing they started a 3 month trek across the ice trying to reach either of two prepared supply dumps. They kept journals and took photographs. After fighting ice and fatigue they were finally forced to make camp on the island of Kvitøya where they died shortly after. In 1930 their remains were discovered and caused quite a sensation in Sweden. Theirs is a great story of Victorian ideals and Vernesque technology.
Some photos, and some of their journals:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi13.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa299%2FSlayhem%2FImage5.jpg&hash=f1d36ec6ec37fdc6d5adb4c1b0a06c0ddca16032)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi13.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa299%2FSlayhem%2FImage7.jpg&hash=4031f78e96ae50697e245f994bad8667cdc7c0d9)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi13.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa299%2FSlayhem%2FImage4.jpg&hash=15863a1a01c362095cbe57c9768b69df53e00de0)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi13.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa299%2FSlayhem%2FImage3.jpg&hash=262f84cda6a90f757af7fb1b815e260ca5b6f73d)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi13.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa299%2FSlayhem%2FImage6.jpg&hash=f4bc57283c20c4db01a79637608652a9773507df)
Quote from: Warspite on August 26, 2009, 03:48:36 PM
Was the ambient air temperature so cold that the gas in the balloon could not be heated sufficiently to provide height?
The balloon hadn't been tested thoroughly because of time issues and leaked more hydrogen gas than calculated. Also the practical problems of ballooning in arctic summer weather and such had probably been underestimated.
Quote from: Warspite on August 26, 2009, 03:48:36 PM
Was the ambient air temperature so cold that the gas in the balloon could not be heated sufficiently to provide height?
I don't think it works like that.
However, depending on the fuel used to heat the balloon, it could have gotten cold enough that it would not light. I think it would stay lit once started though.
Alternately, if it was a lighter-than air balloon, deflation due to the gas cooling might cause it to lose positive buoyancy.
That is very cool!
No pun intended.
More proof that reality is often stranger then fiction.
Ok, this one might be a bit more difficult.
Everyone remembers who Pizarro was. But does anyone know who his partner in the conquest of the Inca was?
Lots of people, IIRC, but you are perhaps thinking of Almagro ?
Oex, I thought I had a stumper there. Well done.
I await your question.
Well, it's not quite fair, since I am teaching colonial history. I should have let others answer.
Who is this guy who links Mozart with Voltaire, clockmaking with arms selling, the American Insurgents to Louis XVI; spy, harpist, inventor, publisher, judge and speculator... (as well as his first occupation) ?
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 26, 2009, 06:26:19 PM
Well, it's not quite fair, since I am teaching colonial history. I should have let others answer.
Who is this guy who links Mozart with Voltaire, clockmaking with arms selling, the American Insurgents to Louis XVI; spy, harpist, inventor, publisher, judge and speculator... (as well as his first occupation) ?
The Scottish banker dude for France. Locke?
If you are thinking of John Law, no, that's not him. He died in 1729, in exile, in Venice.
(Though that guy sure lived an interesting life on its own merit).
I'm guessing Casanova.
I forget the name but was he the guy that built 3 clockwork androids that still work? Czech iirc?
He's a Casanova type alright. But not Casanova.
Max: perhaps you are thinking of Jacquet-Droz, the Swiss automaton maker.
Hungarian?
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 26, 2009, 07:49:06 PM
Max: perhaps you are thinking of Jacquet-Droz, the Swiss automaton maker.
Yea that sounds right.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 27, 2009, 01:13:12 AM
Hungarian?
Nope, he's a French guy (and perhaps less well-known than I thought).
You surely can't mean the Count of St. Germain!!!
Quote from: Alatriste on August 28, 2009, 12:53:36 PM
You surely can't mean the Count of St. Germain!!!
I know he knew Mozart and was a spy (or at least claimed to be). Don't know about Voltaire but probably wasn't French.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 26, 2009, 06:26:19 PM
Well, it's not quite fair, since I am teaching colonial history. I should have let others answer.
Who is this guy who links Mozart with Voltaire, clockmaking with arms selling, the American Insurgents to Louis XVI; spy, harpist, inventor, publisher, judge and speculator... (as well as his first occupation) ?
Pierre Beaumarchais?
Although it sounds like the Count of St. Germain, wasn't he thought a complete fraud (i.e. never proved to have done any of the many things he claimed to do)? If so then the question is a little misleading.
Quote from: Caliga on August 28, 2009, 01:46:53 PM
Although it sounds like the Count of St. Germain, wasn't he thought a complete fraud (i.e. never proved to have done any of the many things he claimed to do)? If so then the question is a little misleading.
Well it's unlikely he was immortal but he did seem to be a talented chemist and musician.
I am dying to google. There is something just on the edge of my memory but I just cant recall the name. Does he have any connection with the low countries?
I think Sav got it right since I google that name and it fits.
Quote from: Savonarola on August 28, 2009, 01:46:20 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 26, 2009, 06:26:19 PM
Well, it's not quite fair, since I am teaching colonial history. I should have let others answer.
Who is this guy who links Mozart with Voltaire, clockmaking with arms selling, the American Insurgents to Louis XVI; spy, harpist, inventor, publisher, judge and speculator... (as well as his first occupation) ?
Pierre Beaumarchais?
Yep, Pierre-Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais, he invented pedals for the harp, taught it to one of the daughters of Louis XV (IIRC), bought an office of judge of hunt and forest, made lots of money speculating, published the first edition of Voltaire's complete works, sold weapons to the American Insurgents under a false name (Hortalez) for which his heirs only got paid in the 1820s... and of course was an author. He is the one who wrote Figaro, which Mozart turned into the opera.
I don't have anything; someone else can give the next question.
In 1856, the city of Charleston gave Congressman Preston Brooks a cane with what inscription?
Hit him again?
Are you sure that the city actually gave him one with that, though? Do you have a link corroborating it? I thought it was just a thing that a lot of gifted canes to him had on them.
http://www.hithimagain.com/origins/ (http://www.hithimagain.com/origins/)
At any rate, that answer is correct.
I think there was some merit to the Yi rule. <_<
Quote from: Barrister on August 31, 2009, 12:58:13 AM
I think there was some merit to the Yi rule. <_<
I'm sorry the question I asked that was answered 7 minutes later was too obscure for you.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 31, 2009, 01:06:23 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 31, 2009, 12:58:13 AM
I think there was some merit to the Yi rule. <_<
I'm sorry the question I asked that was answered 7 minutes later was too obscure for you.
...by a fellow sourthern American.
Quote from: Barrister on August 31, 2009, 01:08:41 AM
...by a fellow sourthern American.
Floor's yours, counselor. I'm too tired to come up with a decent, non-Yi violating question at the moment.
Quote from: Barrister on August 31, 2009, 01:08:41 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 31, 2009, 01:06:23 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 31, 2009, 12:58:13 AM
I think there was some merit to the Yi rule. <_<
I'm sorry the question I asked that was answered 7 minutes later was too obscure for you.
...by a fellow sourthern American.
It is something taught In junior high in the US. I wouldn't doubt a great many Americans would know it.
:yes: I knew it too.
Quote from: Barrister on August 31, 2009, 12:58:13 AM
I think there was some merit to the Yi rule. <_<
Of course there was. Why the hell was it dropped?
I'm all for reinstating it. :)
Quote from: Maximus on August 31, 2009, 07:17:29 AM
Of course there was. Why the hell was it dropped?
Six months without a question?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 31, 2009, 07:34:32 AM
Six months without a question?
Does it necessarily follow that that rule was the cause?
What is the Yi rule?
Quote from: Liep on August 31, 2009, 08:13:26 AM
What is the Yi rule?
No questions are to be asked about your own country.
"Who's question is it?"
that is unless we want Preston Brooks to render another debate moot
These are dangerous times for the Languish History Thread. The floor belongs to BB and he has 24 hours to think of the best question he can to demonstrate the need for the Yi Rule.
I expect that if you have no knowledge of Canada's north, BB's question will be impossible to answer.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 31, 2009, 10:53:02 AM
These are dangerous times for the Languish History Thread. The floor belongs to BB and he has 24 hours to think of the best question he can to demonstrate the need for the Yi Rule.
I expect that if you have no knowledge of Canada's north, BB's question will be impossible to answer.
I'm sure the question will involve mounties and ukrainian tractors. Or red coated cossacks at least....
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 31, 2009, 10:53:02 AM
These are dangerous times for the Languish History Thread. The floor belongs to BB and he has 24 hours to think of the best question he can to demonstrate the need for the Yi Rule.
I expect that if you have no knowledge of Canada's north, BB's question will be impossible to answer.
:shifty:
Quote from: Barrister on August 31, 2009, 01:08:41 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 31, 2009, 01:06:23 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 31, 2009, 12:58:13 AM
I think there was some merit to the Yi rule. <_<
I'm sorry the question I asked that was answered 7 minutes later was too obscure for you.
...by a fellow sourthern American.
I knew the answer immediately and would have posted it if Habbaku hadn't already.
During the Klondike Gold Rush of 1898, one prospector, Charles Anderson, became famous as the "Lucky Swede".
What did he do to earn that nickname?
Quote from: Maximus on August 31, 2009, 08:06:13 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 31, 2009, 07:34:32 AM
Six months without a question?
Does it necessarily follow that that rule was the cause?
Yes, without question it killed the thread.
Quote from: Barrister on August 31, 2009, 11:06:16 AM
During the Klondike Gold Rush of 1898, one prospector, Charles Anderson, became famous as the "Lucky Swede".
What did he do to earn that nickname?
He made abridged homemade versions of famous movies starring himself and his negro friend.
Quote from: Barrister on August 31, 2009, 11:06:16 AM
During the Klondike Gold Rush of 1898, one prospector, Charles Anderson, became famous as the "Lucky Swede".
What did he do to earn that nickname?
He got into selling whiskey or mining supplies?
Edit: ehh.. that might have made him "the smart swede"
Quote from: Viking on August 31, 2009, 11:37:47 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 31, 2009, 11:06:16 AM
During the Klondike Gold Rush of 1898, one prospector, Charles Anderson, became famous as the "Lucky Swede".
What did he do to earn that nickname?
He got into selling whiskey or mining supplies?
Edit: ehh.. that might have made him "the smart swede"
So I am guessing he was lucky because he found a gold strike, sold it and was one of the few propectors to actually make money.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 31, 2009, 11:49:57 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 31, 2009, 11:37:47 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 31, 2009, 11:06:16 AM
During the Klondike Gold Rush of 1898, one prospector, Charles Anderson, became famous as the "Lucky Swede".
What did he do to earn that nickname?
He got into selling whiskey or mining supplies?
Edit: ehh.. that might have made him "the smart swede"
So I am guessing he was lucky because he found a gold strike, sold it and was one of the few propectors to actually make money.
He did strike gold, but that wasn't all that unusual. It was a gold rush after all. Thats not what made him the Lucky Swede.
Quote from: Viking on August 31, 2009, 11:37:47 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 31, 2009, 11:06:16 AM
During the Klondike Gold Rush of 1898, one prospector, Charles Anderson, became famous as the "Lucky Swede".
What did he do to earn that nickname?
He got into selling whiskey or mining supplies?
Edit: ehh.. that might have made him "the smart swede"
Indeed. It is often said that more gold was made by prospecting the miner's pockets than was made in the hills of the Klondike.
But no. As mentioned, the Lucky Swede was a miner.
I wikipedia'ed it, and it's funny
No idea, probably has something to do with vegetables.
Quote from: Barrister on August 31, 2009, 11:55:11 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 31, 2009, 11:37:47 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 31, 2009, 11:06:16 AM
During the Klondike Gold Rush of 1898, one prospector, Charles Anderson, became famous as the "Lucky Swede".
What did he do to earn that nickname?
He got into selling whiskey or mining supplies?
Edit: ehh.. that might have made him "the smart swede"
Indeed. It is often said that more gold was made by prospecting the miner's pockets than was made in the hills of the Klondike.
But no. As mentioned, the Lucky Swede was a miner.
Then it has to be something specific about how or where he found the gold that made it a fluke.
Maybe he used rutabagas in panning for gold.
I have always supported the Yi rule. I hope it gets reinstated.
Quote from: The Brain on August 31, 2009, 03:01:16 PM
I have always supported the Yi rule. I hope it gets reinstated.
Thank God people are coming to their senses on this.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 31, 2009, 03:21:07 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 31, 2009, 03:01:16 PM
I have always supported the Yi rule. I hope it gets reinstated.
Thank God people are coming to their senses on this.
If it's reinstated this thread will quickly die. Most people, even people on this board know far more about the history of their nation than that of others.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 31, 2009, 02:49:56 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 31, 2009, 11:55:11 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 31, 2009, 11:37:47 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 31, 2009, 11:06:16 AM
During the Klondike Gold Rush of 1898, one prospector, Charles Anderson, became famous as the "Lucky Swede".
What did he do to earn that nickname?
He got into selling whiskey or mining supplies?
Edit: ehh.. that might have made him "the smart swede"
Indeed. It is often said that more gold was made by prospecting the miner's pockets than was made in the hills of the Klondike.
But no. As mentioned, the Lucky Swede was a miner.
Then it has to be something specific about how or where he found the gold that made it a fluke.
And what do you think that "something specific" was?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 31, 2009, 03:29:43 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 31, 2009, 03:21:07 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 31, 2009, 03:01:16 PM
I have always supported the Yi rule. I hope it gets reinstated.
Thank God people are coming to their senses on this.
If it's reinstated this thread will quickly die. Most people, even people on this board know far more about the history of their nation than that of others.
WTF? you sure you're not getting this the wrong way round? I can ask questions about minor characters in the Sagas of secondary importance. I'm sure the spanish can ask about the cum stains on Franco's pants, the 'murricans about which brand of canned horseradish the donner party used as relish and the germans about exactly which of the two village breweries in Bad Homburg adopted the Reinheitgebot first. So unless you want this thread to degenerate into in-joke-ping-pong then we need the Yi Rule.
And if you want to argue against the Yi Rule, then I suggest you do so after you tell me
"What do a former Telia executive and a man who had his head impaled by King Olaf Tryggvason have in common?"
N.B. this is for timmay only. The rest of you don't need to worry about this one.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 31, 2009, 03:29:43 PM
If it's reinstated this thread will quickly die. Most people, even people on this board know far more about the history of their nation than that of others.
But that's exactly the problem Jimmy. My question is an extremely easy question if you know anything at all about gold rush history. But I could ask an even easier question and probably no one on this board could get the answer, because gold rush history isn't widely known all over the world.
By forcing people to answer question about other countries, it hopefully ensures that questions are about topics that are widely known all over the world.
Follow Yi rule. Unless you are capable of either tying your national trivia question to an international event or an event of a larger scope than local politics or are giving hints which might enable an informed participant to guess/answer.
People can ask madly esoteric and unanswerable questions about a country not their own as well. Dropping the Yi rule doesn't change the prevailing spirit, which is questions that are tough and informative but not impossible and useless.
Charley Anderson was one of a whole community of prospectors living in a small community called Forty Mile. In early 1896 George Carmack, Skookum Jim and Tagish Charlie made an enormous discovery of gold on Rabbit Creek (quickly renamed to Bonanza Creek), a tributary of the Klondike River. The community of Forty Mile quickly emptied and all the prospectors struck up claims in the Klondike area.
Charley Anderson delayed leaving Forty Mile, and when he arrived in the Klondike all the good prospects were taken. He took to drinking heavily. One night during a binge he agreed to buy a claim from another miner for $800. The next morning he was horrified - it was widely expected that claim would be worthless. Anderson tried to sell his claim, but there were no takers.
Nearly out of money he figured he had no other option but to start mining his claim.
He took out one million dollars worth of gold, and was forever known as the Lucky Swede.
But as happened to so many Klondike gold kings, by the end of his life the money was spent, his dancing-girl wife had left him, and he was back resorting to menial labour to make ends meet.
I'll try thinking of a Yi-approved question, but if someone else can sneak in they're welcome to.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 31, 2009, 04:57:38 PM
People can ask madly esoteric and unanswerable questions about a country not their own as well.
:yes:
Quote from: Barrister on August 31, 2009, 05:05:05 PM
I'll try thinking of a Yi-approved question, but if someone else can sneak in they're welcome to.
:rolleyes: Why don't you just try thinking of a question you think is good.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 31, 2009, 05:53:27 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 31, 2009, 05:05:05 PM
I'll try thinking of a Yi-approved question, but if someone else can sneak in they're welcome to.
:rolleyes: Why don't you just try thinking of a question you think is good.
I thought mine was a good question. It's always an amusing story to tell. :)
The term "Triad" was first applied to certain Chinese secret societies in 1821 by Dr William Milne, principal of the Anglo-Chinese college in Malacca. His coinage was derived from one of the many aliases the societies used, namely the Samhehui (Three United Society). There are a number of possible explanations for what these three unities represent. I'm looking for three different explanations, victory going to whoever contributes the most accurate information and context overall (though Mono gets a minor handicap).
Quote from: Jacob on September 01, 2009, 02:45:27 PM
The term "Triad" was first applied to certain Chinese secret societies in 1821 by Dr William Milne, principal of the Anglo-Chinese college in Malacca. His coinage was derived from one of the many aliases the societies used, namely the Samhehui (Three United Society). There are a number of possible explanations for what these three unities represent. I'm looking for three different explanations, victory going to whoever contributes the most accurate information and context overall (though Mono gets a minor handicap).
Heaven, People, Ruler?
Quote from: Viking on September 01, 2009, 03:00:51 PMHeaven, People, Ruler?
This is close (I'd score it 1.5 out of 3), but not quite right, for the modern explanation (i.e. the explanation you'll usually hear from triad members themselves and in the media).
Little. Yellow. Different.
Heaven, Earth, Duty?
Guessing Heaven was one, twitched the other two a bit.
Quote from: Viking on September 01, 2009, 03:06:10 PM
Heaven, Earth, Duty?
Guessing Heaven was one, twitched the other two a bit.
2/3, and the 1 is different than the 0.5 in your previous guess.
Quote from: Jacob on September 01, 2009, 03:07:49 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 01, 2009, 03:06:10 PM
Heaven, Earth, Duty?
Guessing Heaven was one, twitched the other two a bit.
2/3, and the 1 is different than the 0.5 in your previous guess.
Ancestor, Earth, Boss?
Edit: that extra info just confused me more.
Quote from: Viking on September 01, 2009, 03:10:17 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 01, 2009, 03:07:49 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 01, 2009, 03:06:10 PM
Heaven, Earth, Duty?
Guessing Heaven was one, twitched the other two a bit.
2/3, and the 1 is different than the 0.5 in your previous guess.
Ancestor, Earth, Boss?
1/3
I'm surprised you changed two of your previous answers when you had 2/3 previously :lol:
Ok, lets play mastermind!!!
Heaven, Earth, Rubber duck.
Heaven, Earth, Duty
Heaven, Earth, Halfling
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 01, 2009, 03:16:28 PM
Heaven, Earth, Halfling
This is the closest so far :)
2.5/3
Of course, there are two other explanations that no one has ventured at as well, but perhaps they are too obscure.
DoH!
Heaven, Earth, People!!
Edit: but didn't I get 1.5 for Heaven, People, Ruler?
Edit2: Halfling gets 0.5 points... geddit?
Quote from: Viking on September 01, 2009, 03:18:41 PM
DoH!
Heaven, Earth, People!!
people was only half right, why I said halfling. :D
Oh and I'll guess Heaven, Earth, Body
Quote from: Viking on September 01, 2009, 03:18:41 PM
DoH!
Heaven, Earth, People!!
Edit: but didn't I get 1.5 for Heaven, People, Ruler?
Edit2: Halfling gets 0.5 points... geddit?
Heave, Earth, People also gets 2.5 because I'm being a stickler. In fact, with a different translator from Chinese might get be worth the full three points.
So that's one explanation out of three possible (and the one you'll find on wikipedia). Any takers on the other explanations? I'll post them later tonight if there are no takers.
Heaven, Soil, People?
Heaven, Earth, Peasants?
Heaven, Earth, China
The point was awarded to Heaven, Earth and People.
The answer I was looking for was Heaven, Earth and Man, but I think the difference between "man" and "people" is one that lies in the English-Chinese translation rather than the substance of the actual meaning. No point in reducing it to semantics.
Now, would anyone like to guess what the other possible origin for the Three United Society?
Hey Jacob, who is the chick in your avatar?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 01, 2009, 04:21:10 PM
Hey Jacob, who is the chick in your avatar?
I probably knew way back when when I made the avatar, but now I don't remember at all.
Quote from: Jacob on September 01, 2009, 04:19:12 PM
The point was awarded to Heaven, Earth and People.
The answer I was looking for was Heaven, Earth and Man, but I think the difference between "man" and "people" is one that lies in the English-Chinese translation rather than the substance of the actual meaning. No point in reducing it to semantics.
Now, would anyone like to guess what the other possible origin for the Three United Society?
isn't "人" (ren) used for both man and people?
Quote from: Viking on September 01, 2009, 05:39:06 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 01, 2009, 04:19:12 PM
The point was awarded to Heaven, Earth and People.
The answer I was looking for was Heaven, Earth and Man, but I think the difference between "man" and "people" is one that lies in the English-Chinese translation rather than the substance of the actual meaning. No point in reducing it to semantics.
Now, would anyone like to guess what the other possible origin for the Three United Society?
isn't "人" (ren) used for both man and people?
Only Squares think that.
I think the next question is mine.
The poor man Böttgers little magic trick resulted in the discovery of a great secret which made the man that kidnapped him much richer than he already was. What was the great secret?
Quote from: Viking on September 01, 2009, 05:46:07 PM
I think the next question is mine.
The poor man Böttgers little magic trick resulted in the discovery of a great secret which made the man that kidnapped him much richer than he already was. What was the great secret?
Sure if no one can come up with the other two explanations for the three unities. You got the easy one.
Quote from: Jacob on September 01, 2009, 05:53:33 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 01, 2009, 05:46:07 PM
I think the next question is mine.
The poor man Böttgers little magic trick resulted in the discovery of a great secret which made the man that kidnapped him much richer than he already was. What was the great secret?
Sure if no one can come up with the other two explanations for the three unities. You got the easy one.
But you have to give us the answer and background.
Quote from: Jacob on September 01, 2009, 05:53:33 PM
Sure if no one can come up with the other two explanations for the three unities. You got the easy one.
You wanted one answer. We obviously didn't know and just started guessing. I don't think anyone of us suddenly gonna brainstorm the other meanings, unless they are gold, opium and blood.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 01, 2009, 06:00:49 PMBut you have to give us the answer and background.
According to the legend when the Shaolin temple was destroyed by the Qing emperor (at the incitement of the grand secretary, claiming that the monks would rebel) only five monks survived. The monks set up a society, the Tiandihui (the Heaven and Earth Society), to overthrow the Qing. The Tiandihui was originally headquarted in Muk Yeung City in Fujian. The five monks failed to overthrow the Qing and split up, each founding a lodge in different parts of China to continue the struggle. Before they parted, they devised a series of secret signs and signals by which their followers were meant to identify each other. In the 19th the second of these lodges, the Samhehui, in Guandong province became quite powerful. It was called the Samhehui (Three United Society) because the lodge was founded near three rivers.
So that's the second explanation.
The Tiandihui were first noticed by the Qing empire when the society tried to rebel in 1786 in Taiwan. Once the rebellion was repressed, the Emperor ordered a task force to investigate the origin of the society. After a three year investigation, involving many officials across the country the investigation concluded that the Tiandihui was founded in 1761 or 1762 by the monk Hung Erh at the Guanyin Temple in Gaoxi village, Zhanpu county, Zhangshou prefecture in Fujian province. Modern scholarship is suspicious of the Shaolin founding legend and leans towards the Tiandihui being the natural evolution of various mutual protection societies divorced from any political aims. The Samhehui alias of the Tiandihui is posited as being named after the three primary founders, Hung, Lee and Zhu, the statues of which appear on triad altars.
And that's the third explanation.
Quote from: Viking on September 01, 2009, 06:03:48 PMYou wanted one answer. We obviously didn't know and just started guessing. I don't think anyone of us suddenly gonna brainstorm the other meanings, unless they are gold, opium and blood.
Maybe someone who didn't post yet happened to know :)
But yeah, all yours.
Time has passed.
What is the origin of the word "nerd?"
Dr. Seuss book
Yup.
I think Peter is maybe not going to ask a question.
Thomas Bayes developed Bayseian mathematics to assist him in what pursuit?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2009, 06:50:03 PM
I think Peter is maybe not going to ask a question.
Thomas Bayes developed Bayseian mathematics to assist him in what pursuit?
Gambling?
Picking up chicks, duh.
No and no.
Proving the existence of god?
Quote from: Razgovory on September 09, 2009, 07:11:37 AM
Really? Was he satisfied with the result?
I didn't ask him.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 09, 2009, 06:30:08 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 09, 2009, 06:29:25 AM
Proving the existence of god?
Bingo.
Using lots of bad evidence to made up for lack of any good. Couldn't have been anything else.
I'm thinking about a question as we speak.
Newton invented Calculus, but what did he call it?
Leibniz's system?
A system for calculating slopes and surfaces with very small numbers?
God's Math?
Nope, nope and nope.
Leibnitz called it calculus after he independently invented it.
:frusty:
I'm sure this was mentioned in the Baroque Cycle but I can't remember it.
Pythagorean super numbers.
it was neither pythagorean super numbers nor :frusty:
Hint: the root word is synonymous with change and flow
dynamics?
Ejaculation.
nope, and you're just taking the piss
Quote from: Viking on September 09, 2009, 07:32:35 AM
Newton invented Calculus, but what did he call it?
Fluctions?
Quote from: Malthus on September 09, 2009, 04:55:52 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 09, 2009, 07:32:35 AM
Newton invented Calculus, but what did he call it?
Fluctions?
You win!!!
He called it fluctions when he invented it and KEPT IT SECRET SO NOBODY ELSE COULD GET ANY GOOD IDEAS USING IT. When he found out Leibnitz had invented it as well he huffed and puffed and published.
Quote from: Viking on September 09, 2009, 06:50:24 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 09, 2009, 04:55:52 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 09, 2009, 07:32:35 AM
Newton invented Calculus, but what did he call it?
Fluctions?
You win!!!
He called it fluctions when he invented it and KEPT IT SECRET SO NOBODY ELSE COULD GET ANY GOOD IDEAS USING IT. When he found out Leibnitz had invented it as well he huffed and puffed and published.
See, software patents and 'intellectual property' claims were already a source of problems in the 1700s... not to mention inflated egos! :P
A dispute between Russia and France over possession of something that you could hold in your hand led to the Crimean War. What was that something?
Quote from: Kleves on September 11, 2009, 02:29:27 AM
A dispute between Russia and France over possession of something that you could hold in your hand led to the Crimean War. What was that something?
What privileges Orthodox and Catholic churches would have in Palestine?
It's a little too big to allow holding it in your hand. :lol:
Keys to a church, can't recall which one.
Quote from: HVC on September 11, 2009, 03:01:10 AM
Keys to a church, can't recall which one.
The Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. You're up.
I suck at thinking up questions, so the floor is open.
Alrightly then. Prior to the Crimean War, Tsar Nicholas I of Russia raised tensions with France by refusing to use this salutation when addressing Napoleon III. What was the salutation? Also, bonus points if you can tell me which salutation Nicholas finally did deign to use.
Imperial Majesty?
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 11, 2009, 12:28:52 PM
Imperial Majesty?
Nope. It's not a salutation unique to France or Russia.
Cousin?
Brother?
"Hey bro!"
He eventually settled for "'Sup, dawg?"
You're really on a Crimean war bend Kleves.
President?
Quote from: merithyn on September 11, 2009, 07:29:34 PM
Brother?
Bingo! The Tsar was upset by the other European monarchs addressing Nappy III as "brother," when he regarded the Emperor as a mere usurper. The Tsar would only go as addressing Napoleon as "my dear friend."
I'll squeeze one in until Meri shows up.
Who was the first socialist elected to the US Congress?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2009, 02:09:16 PM
I'll squeeze one in until Meri shows up.
Who was the first socialist elected to the US Congress?
I thought we did away with the suspension of the Yi Rule?
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2009, 02:35:30 PM
I thought we did away with the suspension of the Yi Rule?
Beeb and Max agitated for it, vox populii did not speak.
Hold a vote if you want to.
Debs?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 12, 2009, 02:58:23 PM
Debs?
Nope. Pretty sure Debs was never elected to any public office.
Wasn't Milwaukee the first US city to elect a Socialist mayor?
So is this shit happening or what? If not I have a question about American history (ha!) just to prove Peter Wigger wrong.
I have a question.
This guy was:
a) The greatest Ukrainian religious figure
b) Had a Moldavian father and a Hungarian mother
c) His family ruled two different realms in the 16th and 17th century
d) Is a saint in three different churches
Sorry, Yi rule is killing in the poll. No questions about saints from men who stare at crosses.
Basil?
Quote from: The Brain on September 13, 2009, 07:08:19 AM
Sorry, Yi rule is killing in the poll. No questions about saints from men who stare at crosses.
It's not a crime to simply recognise you don't know the answer.
Quote from: Alexandru H. on September 13, 2009, 06:34:15 AM
I have a question.
This guy was:
a) The greatest Ukrainian religious figure
b) Had a Moldavian father and a Hungarian mother
c) His family ruled two different realms in the 16th and 17th century
d) Is a saint in three different churches
Zapolya?
BB
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2009, 08:38:53 AM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on September 13, 2009, 06:34:15 AM
I have a question.
This guy was:
a) The greatest Ukrainian religious figure
b) Had a Moldavian father and a Hungarian mother
c) His family ruled two different realms in the 16th and 17th century
d) Is a saint in three different churches
Zapolya?
No.
The family was Orthodox.
Emil somebody.
Quote from: Alexandru H. on September 13, 2009, 09:11:16 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2009, 08:38:53 AM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on September 13, 2009, 06:34:15 AM
I have a question.
This guy was:
a) The greatest Ukrainian religious figure
b) Had a Moldavian father and a Hungarian mother
c) His family ruled two different realms in the 16th and 17th century
d) Is a saint in three different churches
Zapolya?
No.
The family was Orthodox.
How about that Skanderbegalike Moldavian guy the super general in EUIII the balkantards got into the game... Stefan something?
The answer is Petru Movila (Moghila), Metropolitan of Kyiv, Halych and All-Rus' from 1633 until 1646. He was probably the last great Ukrainian figure that expected to see Ukraine as the third realm within the Commonwealth. Wikipedia is, unfortunately, very uninformative about the subject.
His father was Hospodar of Moldavia and Wallachia, his uncle and two cousins were Hospodars of Moldavia, while another cousin was the wife of a polish king. He is considered the father of Modern Orthodoxy and is considered the man that saved Ukraine from catholicism. As a trivia notion, his "Orthodox Creed" is the third most important profession of faith in Orthodoxy after the Nicene Creed and the "Dogmatik" of St. Ioan Damaskinos.
-----------
Viking, that's Stephen III the Great. Usually placed very high on the "greatest generals list"...
Quote from: Alexandru H. on September 13, 2009, 10:11:01 AM
Viking, that's Stephen III the Great. Usually placed very high on the "greatest generals list"...
Was he better than Jon Scarecrow (of Icelandic Civil War fame)?
Sorry. Had friends over all day yesterday.
Name the last Tsar of Bulgaria.
Quote from: merithyn on September 13, 2009, 10:28:01 AM
Sorry. Had friends over all day yesterday.
Name the last Tsar of Bulgaria.
Too easy. Simeon II, also prime-minister of Bulgaria 5 years ago.
Question: Who was the most prolific executioner in history?
Quote from: Alexandru H. on September 13, 2009, 03:13:34 PM
Question: Who was the most prolific executioner in history?
Eichmann
Do you mean the person doing the actual killing or the one who ordered it done?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 13, 2009, 03:29:20 PM
Do you mean the person doing the actual killing or the one who ordered it done?
Actual killing.
Edit: don't place here people that threw nuclear bombs or closed people in gas chambers.
Jack Ketch.
Sanson?
Nope.
Clue: he killed most of his victimes with a german gun.
I thought you meant state-appointed executionner, as in the dude who delivers the sentences (death) from tribunals.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 13, 2009, 03:45:40 PM
I thought you meant state-appointed executionner, as in the dude who delivers the sentences (death) from tribunals.
He was a state-appointed executioner in all but name (since modern times have destroyed the good reputation of the word "executioner").
That's a rather ironic usage of the word prolific.
or is it...
Is that the Russian guy who shot 30,000 people with a handgun? I may have dreamt it and anyway I don't have a name.
Quote from: The Brain on September 13, 2009, 04:00:05 PM
Is that the Russian guy who shot 30,000 people with a handgun? I may have dreamt it and anyway I don't have a name.
Bingo. Vasili Mikhailovich Blokhin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Blokhin).
Great.
Which was the biggest Old West shootout between bandits and upstanding citizens (no military actions or Indians or Mexicans) counted by the number of people killed?
Go for the obvious - OK Corral?
:unsure:
Quote from: Alexandru H. on September 13, 2009, 03:13:34 PM
Question: Who was the most prolific executioner in history?
Vlad Dracul?
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2009, 06:14:00 PM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on September 13, 2009, 03:13:34 PM
Question: Who was the most prolific executioner in history?
Vlad Dracul?
I've got a thousand stories as interesting as the "Dracula" story. His son, Mihnea, is not well-known, even though he was as ruthless as his father: "As soon as Mihnea began to rule he at once abandoned his sheep's clothing and plugged up his ears like an asp.... He took all the greater boyars captive, worked them hard, cruelly confiscated their property, and even slept with their wives in their presence. He cut off the noses and lips of some, others he hanged, and still others drowned.". He was murdered by assasins, who were strangled while they tried to escape by his son, the grandson of Dracula.
I didn't even know asps had ears.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 13, 2009, 06:51:49 PM
I didn't even know asps had ears.
That's the point. He loses his ears (metaphorically) in order to be free to do whatever he wants, without being able to hear the cries for mercy.
Quote from: Alexandru H. on September 13, 2009, 07:02:43 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 13, 2009, 06:51:49 PM
I didn't even know asps had ears.
That's the point. He loses his ears (metaphorically) in order to be free to do whatever he wants, without being able to hear the cries for mercy.
Hopefully he picked up the heat sense in the bargain.
Yi rule back in. It's official.
Quote from: The Brain on September 13, 2009, 04:34:20 PM
Great.
Which was the biggest Old West shootout between bandits and upstanding citizens (no military actions or Indians or Mexicans) counted by the number of people killed?
Hmmm... Tom Horn, perhaps?
Quote from: Barrister on September 13, 2009, 04:45:07 PM
Go for the obvious - OK Corral?
:unsure:
No, only 3 killed there IIRC.
Quote from: Alatriste on September 14, 2009, 12:08:16 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 13, 2009, 04:34:20 PM
Great.
Which was the biggest Old West shootout between bandits and upstanding citizens (no military actions or Indians or Mexicans) counted by the number of people killed?
Hmmm... Tom Horn, perhaps?
A specific shootout?
Waco.
Reno shot a kid in Waco just to watch it die.
HINT: the shootout involved a very famous outlaw gang which was almost wiped out in it.
Quote from: The Brain on September 14, 2009, 12:34:09 PM
Reno shot a kid in Waco just to watch it die.
HINT: the shootout involved a very famous outlaw gang which was almost wiped out in it.
Wasn't that the James gang shootout in, well, wherever?
Quote from: The Brain on September 14, 2009, 12:34:09 PM
Reno shot a kid in Waco just to watch it die.
HINT: the shootout involved a very famous outlaw gang which was almost wiped out in it.
Jesse James and his gang?
No, not the James gang. Though the gang in question tried to do something spectacular in order to compete with the James legend. This proved fatal.
Viking, I saw that!
Quote from: The Brain on September 14, 2009, 01:11:05 PM
Viking, I saw that!
:blush:
Dalton gang?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lucky-luke.de%2Fe5%2Fe24%2Fe44%2FdieDaltons.gif&hash=05baceff6226a30368a953d38aef13d5f937ce1b)
Since Americans don't know their own "history" I will give it to you Viking. Yes, the gang was the Daltons (though not their cousins) and the shootout took place October 5, 1892 in Coffeyville, Kansas.
The Daltons planned to rob two banks at the same time and rode into town disguised. But a townsperson recognized them and while the Daltons were in the banks making their withdrawals the citizens armed themselves. When the Daltons exited the banks, in the words of horribly overrated movie Boondock Saints "there was a FIREFIGHT!". A ten minute shootout when the Daltons tried to get to their horses which they had been forced by construction to leave in what became known as Death Alley left four citizens dead and three wounded. Four of the Dalton gang were dead and the fifth, Emmett Dalton, was badly wounded and captured. The Daltons had gotten their immortality, but at a price.
Quote from: Alexandru H. on September 14, 2009, 01:47:08 PM
I have an easy question for Americans.
Name a famous guy, ex-king of two different Kingdoms, that encountered the Jersey Devil while living in America.
Are you Viking? No? Then STFU.
Quote from: The Brain on September 14, 2009, 02:10:47 PM
Are you Viking? No? Then STFU.
You didn't give him time to answer the first question.
Duude, you mean they were not fictional? WTF? I was taking the piss.
but... a broken clock and all that...
OK, the more USAian history.
The Clovis Culture is a name given to a group of early americans living about 12 to 13 thousand years ago and are sometimes associated with the disappearance of megafauna in north america. They are a source of a lot of "funny" theorizing by both palentologists, anthropologists and historians since they sort of exist in the boundry layer between those fields. Clovis cuture sites have one clear identifying feature. What is that feature and what makes it characteristically clovis.
Quote from: Viking on September 14, 2009, 03:02:22 PM
Clovis cuture sites have one clear identifying feature. What is that feature and what makes it characteristically clovis.
Is it the "Clovis Points" of the arrowheads (which, IIRC, are generally a bit more rounded than later triangle-shaped ones)?
Quote from: ulmont on September 14, 2009, 03:10:08 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 14, 2009, 03:02:22 PM
Clovis cuture sites have one clear identifying feature. What is that feature and what makes it characteristically clovis.
Is it the "Clovis Points" of the arrowheads (which, IIRC, are generally a bit more rounded than later triangle-shaped ones)?
The arrow- and spearheads are the identifying feature. However, the rounded shape of the clovis points isn't the main feature. Rounded points are found in layers from other periods in the US and in France (leading to the hypothesis that clovis man sailed across the atlantic). The rounded shape of the arrow- and spearheads is not the feature. The are of course rounded as you say.
I still need to know how the archeologists tell the American Clovis points from the French Soultrean points (and other American points).
A notch on each side?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 14, 2009, 06:22:38 PM
A notch on each side?
Bingo the flute (nice technical term that) was used to wedge the point into a arrow or spear which was then fastened using animal gut which was tied around the fluted area fixing both the head and the body.
Yi is up.
I got nuffin, puffin. Pass.
In 1902, French author Emile Zola was mysteriously murdered. Nobody was ever charged with the crime. What unusual method was used to kill Zola?
Stopped up chimney. CO2 was the culprit. :D
And I was pretty sure that no one was ever charged because it was never really determined that he'd been murdered. :unsure:
I'm fairly sure I'm right (unless I'm getting him mixed up with Flaubert; both died relatively young), so I'll just go with that and ask my question.
Where does the name of The Corded Ware Culture come from, and what does it represent?
Quote from: merithyn on September 15, 2009, 05:20:41 PM
I'm fairly sure I'm right (unless I'm getting him mixed up with Flaubert; both died relatively young), so I'll just go with that and ask my question.
Where does the name of The Corded Ware Culture come from, and what does it represent?
Isn't it a neolithic culture hanging around central Europe. I think the name refers to their pottery. Possibly Pre-Indo-Europeans.
Quote from: merithyn on September 15, 2009, 05:20:41 PM
I'm fairly sure I'm right (unless I'm getting him mixed up with Flaubert; both died relatively young), so I'll just go with that and ask my question.
Where does the name of The Corded Ware Culture come from, and what does it represent?
If we go by the Kurgan hypothesis of the Indo-European expansion, the Corded Ware represent the early western branching off of the Indo-European peoples from the Caspian Steppe into Eastern, Central and eventually Western Europe, with the Yamna culture representing late Proto-Indo-Europeans or early Indo-Iranians who stayed in the Urheimat. So they would probably be the Germans, Proto-Celts-Latins, maybe the Balto-Slavs as well, maybe Albanian. I think it is generally accepted that Greek, Armenian maybe some other Paleo-Balkan languages wouldn't be in that group and were later additions, as they are very closely related to the Indo-Iranians. They share almost the entire Chariot-related vocabulary and have pretty similar words/concepts as far as their religion goes (both have words for "prepare for horse-sacrifice"), and linguistically are pretty close.
It is a really fascinating period of history, helps to explain why almost every culture of Eurasia of the period was doing almost exactly the same thing, or why the Celts, Slavs, Armenians and Mongols have such closely related artistic styles. The Horse, The Wheel and Language is a fascinating read.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 15, 2009, 05:27:15 PM
If we go by the Kurgan hypothesis
That there can be only one? :P :lmfao:
Quote from: ulmont on September 15, 2009, 05:32:54 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on September 15, 2009, 05:27:15 PM
If we go by the Kurgan hypothesis
That there can be only one? :P :lmfao:
The Anatolian and Armenian hypothesis are also thrown around, but don't make a whole lot of sense as Anatolian peninsula had some really weird native languages possibly related to modern Caucasian languages when the Hittites came in there, while the Kurgan hypothesis has the Indo-Europeans sharing a border with the Uralic (and, a ways away, the Altaic) peoples for most of their early history, which I think is reflected in the relative closeness of the Uralic and Indo-European families and in certain elements of their ancient vocabulary (for instance, the Uralic term for Slave is derived from the word Aryan).
Something very, very similar happened with the Comanche, for instance. They started off as an obscure people in California related to the Aztecs somehow, they adopted the horse before everyone else, and before you know it they are raiding as far as Central Mexico and Austin, Texas. In this model, the Indo-Europeans were originally closely related to the Uralic (and, if you go back far enough, maybe the Altaic) peoples, but they started migrating South, came into contact with Caucasian and Semitic peoples who influenced their language, adopted the chariot and domesticated the horse before everyone else, and before you know it they are in Ireland and Central China. With the horse, the Steppe is basically a big ocean that doesn't need pricey ocean going vessels, and it tens to also breed fantastically hearty, well organized warriors with access to way more horses than settled peoples, and rewards extremely cutthroat cultures that have to learn to adopt every strength and assimilate every conquered people.
Quote from: The Brain on September 14, 2009, 01:37:11 PM
horribly overrated movie Boondock Saints
It's hard for a movie to be overrated when the studio that produced it didn't think it worth releasing.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 15, 2009, 05:38:05 PM
Quote from: ulmont on September 15, 2009, 05:32:54 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on September 15, 2009, 05:27:15 PM
If we go by the Kurgan hypothesis
That there can be only one? :P :lmfao:
The Anatolian and Armenian hypothesis are also thrown around, but don't make a whole lot of sense
You fail: teh Joke. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_%28Highlander%29
Quote from: ulmont on September 15, 2009, 05:45:25 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on September 15, 2009, 05:38:05 PM
Quote from: ulmont on September 15, 2009, 05:32:54 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on September 15, 2009, 05:27:15 PM
If we go by the Kurgan hypothesis
That there can be only one? :P :lmfao:
The Anatolian and Armenian hypothesis are also thrown around, but don't make a whole lot of sense
You fail: teh Joke. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_%28Highlander%29
He's from the Pontic-Caspian steppe, he probably got his name from the Hypothesis, or where the hypothesis' name comes from, the Indo-European/Hunnish burial mounds of the area that are fairly typical across all the Kurganized (Indo-Europeanized) cultures of Eurasia, and those where were effected by them.
Raz got it, though Queeqeg gets serious points for thoroughness. :blink:
Spellus dissed the Bell-Beaker People by ignoring them, so he sucks.
Quote from: merithyn on September 15, 2009, 06:06:33 PM
Raz got it, though Queeqeg gets serious points for thoroughness. :blink:
How did he get it? He said where they were, not where they come from, got their ethnicity wrong (said they were pre-Indo European), and said they were Neolithic when they were mostly in the Copper and Bronze age.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 15, 2009, 06:26:18 PM
Quote from: merithyn on September 15, 2009, 06:06:33 PM
Raz got it, though Queeqeg gets serious points for thoroughness. :blink:
How did he get it? He said where they were, not where they come from, got their ethnicity wrong (said they were pre-Indo European), and said they were Neolithic when they were mostly in the Copper and Bronze age.
He got the pottery thing. ^_^
But you're right on the rest. Consider yourself the next question asker.
Quote from: PDH on September 15, 2009, 06:10:00 PM
Spellus dissed the Bell-Beaker People by ignoring them, so he sucks.
Wasn't the Bell-Beaker culture a break off of Corded Ware, and presumably a mix of Indo-Europeanized peoples (proto-Celts, Italics) and those highly influenced by Indo-European culture (probably the Etruscans, the non-Indo-European Iberians)?
Quote from: merithyn on September 14, 2009, 08:43:30 PM
Stopped up chimney. CO2 was the culprit. :D
And I was pretty sure that no one was ever charged because it was never really determined that he'd been murdered. :unsure:
Yes sorry, you were right. IIRC a bedroll was stuffed in the top of his chimney, so little doubt it was done intentionally.
Quote from: Caliga on September 15, 2009, 09:03:01 PM
Quote from: merithyn on September 14, 2009, 08:43:30 PM
Stopped up chimney. CO2 was the culprit. :D
And I was pretty sure that no one was ever charged because it was never really determined that he'd been murdered. :unsure:
Yes sorry, you were right. IIRC a bedroll was stuffed in the top of his chimney, so little doubt it was done intentionally.
Not according to a newspaper article of the time. It was a faulty stove pipe.
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9801EFDF1E3DEE32A25753C3A96F9C946397D6CF (http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9801EFDF1E3DEE32A25753C3A96F9C946397D6CF)
Okay, during his civil war King Steve of England had a mercenary Fleming as his main commander. What was the of the famed mercenary?
:huh:
Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2009, 12:02:35 AM
Okay, during his civil war King Steve of England had Mercenary Flem as his main commander. What was the of the famed mercenary?
You really oughta proofread.
Better?
:lol:
I assume the ____ of the mercenary is not Mercenary Flem then.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2009, 12:39:32 AM
Better?
It's not.
Better would be by using this phrase:
"Okay, during his civil war King Stephen of England had a Fleming mercenary as his main commander. What was the name of the famed mercenary?"
It's a trick question, Belgium doesn't exist, and neither does Flemingia.
Quote from: Alexandru H. on September 16, 2009, 02:05:18 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2009, 12:39:32 AM
Better?
It's not.
Better would be by using this phrase:
"Okay, during his civil war King Stephen of England had a Fleming mercenary as his main commander. What was the name of the famed mercenary?"
Okay, that's a good question. Lets go with that.
I would propose a new rule.
No person names. It's almost impossible for someone without proper and exhaustive knowledge of 12th century England to know such a name. A question like this ("What was XX's position during King Stephan's reign prior to him becoming Count of Kent?") can be more easily deduced...
Quote from: merithyn on September 15, 2009, 10:32:51 PM
Not according to a newspaper article of the time. It was a faulty stove pipe.
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9801EFDF1E3DEE32A25753C3A96F9C946397D6CF (http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9801EFDF1E3DEE32A25753C3A96F9C946397D6CF)
I guess I did not RC. ;)
Quote from: Alexandru H. on September 16, 2009, 06:59:18 AM
I would propose a new rule.
No person names. It's almost impossible for someone without proper and exhaustive knowledge of 12th century England to know such a name. A question like this ("What was XX's position during King Stephan's reign prior to him becoming Count of Kent?") can be more easily deduced...
I object because, as a libertarian, I hate excessive regulation. :)
Quote from: Alexandru H. on September 16, 2009, 06:59:18 AM
I would propose a new rule.
No person names. It's almost impossible for someone without proper and exhaustive knowledge of 12th century England to know such a name. A question like this ("What was XX's position during King Stephan's reign prior to him becoming Count of Kent?") can be more easily deduced...
Dude, you asked the question! I do happen to know the answer...
Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2009, 07:35:27 AM
Dude, you asked the question! I do happen to know the answer...
:lol: Nice.
There are formal rules and then there are informal rules. I don't know if we have a formal rule about for instance no dates/years but the informal rule is enough.
At one point there was the something corollary which stated you are not to ask questions such as:
Q. How many Union soldiers were killed at Gettysburg on July 2nd, 1863?
A. 3,218.
Quote from: Caliga on September 16, 2009, 01:00:36 PM
At one point there was the something corollary which stated you are not to ask questions such as:
Q. How many Union soldiers were killed at Gettysburg on July 2nd, 1863?
A. 3,218.
We still have that. The Timmy Rule.
Honestly, we just need to have question-givers stop trying to impress everybody with their arcane knowledge.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 16, 2009, 03:32:17 PM
Honestly, we just need to have question-givers stop trying to impress everybody with their arcane knowledge.
Yes, when American posters try that it just gets very awkward.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 16, 2009, 03:32:17 PM
Honestly, we just need to have question-givers stop trying to impress everybody with their arcane knowledge.
:huh:
I thought that was the whole point of a thread listed as "Trivia"...
Nah, the point of trivia is for the people *answering* to impress people. For that to happen, there needs to be some likelihood that people will actually know the answers.
I think it's perfectly acceptable to ask a question that makes people say, "I didn't know that, that's kinda cool."
What was the belgian guy's name?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 16, 2009, 03:40:41 PM
Nah, the point of trivia is for the people *answering* to impress people. For that to happen, there needs to be some likelihood that people will actually know the answers.
Yes, but the likelihood must be fairly small.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 16, 2009, 03:45:06 PM
I think it's perfectly acceptable to ask a question that makes people say, "I didn't know that, that's kinda cool."
It is. The possible outcomes of a non-fail question is 1) a correct answer that is impressive 2) no correct answer but an interesting explanation by the guy who asked 3) neither 1 nor 2 but at least some interesting points were made by the guessers 4) other (boobs etc).
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2009, 03:49:38 PM
What was the belgian guy's name?
That's a very vague question.
Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2009, 04:04:28 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2009, 03:49:38 PM
What was the belgian guy's name?
That's a very vague question.
I assume he is referring to the current question about King Stephen's Flemish mercenary - which I am ashamed to say I do not know the answer to, although I will guess at Eustace de Warrenne.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 16, 2009, 04:10:37 PM
I assume he is referring to the current question about King Stephen's Flemish mercenary - which I am ashamed to say I do not know the answer to, although I will guess at Eustace de Warrenne.
I know. :P
Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2009, 04:35:23 PM
I know. :P
Of course you do, I was just being :bowler:
:sneaks away:
Quote from: Agelastus on September 16, 2009, 04:10:37 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2009, 04:04:28 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2009, 03:49:38 PM
What was the belgian guy's name?
That's a very vague question.
I assume he is referring to the current question about King Stephen's Flemish mercenary - which I am ashamed to say I do not know the answer to, although I will guess at Eustace de Warrenne.
I was talking about Tin-Tin. ;)
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2009, 04:52:31 PM
I was talking about Tin-Tin. ;)
Not Poirot!? Well I'll be :boff:
Quote from: Caliga on September 16, 2009, 07:07:27 AM
Quote from: merithyn on September 15, 2009, 10:32:51 PM
Not according to a newspaper article of the time. It was a faulty stove pipe.
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9801EFDF1E3DEE32A25753C3A96F9C946397D6CF (http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9801EFDF1E3DEE32A25753C3A96F9C946397D6CF)
I guess I did not RC. ;)
RC? :unsure:
Quote from: merithyn on September 16, 2009, 06:36:31 PM
Quote from: Caliga on September 16, 2009, 07:07:27 AM
Quote from: merithyn on September 15, 2009, 10:32:51 PM
Not according to a newspaper article of the time. It was a faulty stove pipe.
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9801EFDF1E3DEE32A25753C3A96F9C946397D6CF (http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9801EFDF1E3DEE32A25753C3A96F9C946397D6CF)
I guess I did not RC. ;)
Read Carefully, I'm guessing.
RC? :unsure:
IIRC = if I recall correctly
ERGO
RC = recall correctly
:cool:
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2009, 05:07:42 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on September 16, 2009, 04:56:03 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2009, 04:52:31 PM
I was talking about Tin-Tin. ;)
Not Poirot!? Well I'll be :boff:
Poirot is fictional :contract:
So what - isn't that true of Belgium when you get right down to it. :P
RC = Royal Crown. Stop being lazy gits.
OMGITMETTTWWSIWJUTFIFNO.
Quote from: Caliga on September 16, 2009, 06:46:04 PM
IIRC = if I recall correctly
ERGO
RC = recall correctly
:cool:
(Bare)(back) = (having sex without a condom on) (a penis)
ERGO
Slimback = having a small penis
Okay, this total loss of focus indicates nobody knows the answer. It was Bill of Ypres. Floor's open you numbskulls. :rolleyes:
OK, an easy one to get things moving...
Back in the first days of oceanic steam ships, one of the hottest arguments matched screw propellers against paddle wheels, but the Royal Navy settled the argument conclusively and once for all. How?
Note: Shouldn't that be Guillaume d'Yprés?
My keyboard only writes in American.
Quote from: Alatriste on September 17, 2009, 01:13:50 AM
OK, an easy one to get things moving...
Back in the first days of oceanic steam ships, one of the hottest arguments matched screw propellers against paddle wheels, but the Royal Navy settled the argument conclusively and once for all. How?
Note: Shouldn't that be Guillaume d'Yprés?
They held a race in the channel in the 1840s. The screw propeller ship won, but the navy was expecting to pick the screw propeller anyway since the propeller had the advantage of not being veunerable to enemy gunnery by being inside the ship and below the waterline.
Quote from: Alatriste on September 17, 2009, 01:13:50 AM
OK, an easy one to get things moving...
Back in the first days of oceanic steam ships, one of the hottest arguments matched screw propellers against paddle wheels, but the Royal Navy settled the argument conclusively and once for all. How?
Note: Shouldn't that be Guillaume d'Yprés?
They used Paddle Wheel factories as target practice.
Quote from: Alatriste on September 17, 2009, 01:13:50 AM
OK, an easy one to get things moving...
Back in the first days of oceanic steam ships, one of the hottest arguments matched screw propellers against paddle wheels, but the Royal Navy settled the argument conclusively and once for all. How?
Note: Shouldn't that be Guillaume d'Yprés?
They tied a paddle wheeler and a screw ship stern-to-stern and then tried to see which would pull the other along with both ships at full power - presumably they had identical steam plants.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 17, 2009, 05:18:52 AM
They tied a paddle wheeler and a screw ship stern-to-stern and then tried to see which would pull the other along with both ships at full power - presumably they had identical steam plants.
Good enough.
In fact what the British did was build HMS Rattler, equipped with screw propeller but otherwise identical to the paddle wheelers of the Prometheus class, and conduct a series of trials and races. Rattler won fair and square... actually and as you say, those RN steampunk nerds even decided to chain both ships (Rattler and Alecto) and hold a tug-of-war contest. Initially Alecto seemed to be winning, but that was because her captain (in a quite unsportsmanlike way, I say) had had their machines ready while Rattler didn't. In the end Rattler towed Alecto 2,5 miles in an hour.
http://www.pdavis.nl/ShowShip.php?id=137
Cheers Alatriste.
A nice simple one.
Who was the only known woman to be married to both Syphax of the Masaesyli and Massinissa of the Massylii?
Cleopatra!
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on September 19, 2009, 12:19:41 PM
Cleopatra!
No! :D
But I really didn't think this was such a difficult question...there have been a number of plays, poems and operas about this apparently charming young lady. :( The name was even used for one of the female members of the Breckinridge family.
Myra?
Quote from: Agelastus on September 19, 2009, 01:18:26 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on September 19, 2009, 12:19:41 PM
Cleopatra!
No! :D
But I really didn't think this was such a difficult question...there have been a number of plays, poems and operas about this apparently charming young lady. :( The name was even used for one of the female members of the Breckinridge family.
Sophon somerthing? Sophonissibia?
Quote from: Queequeg on September 19, 2009, 03:36:18 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on September 19, 2009, 01:18:26 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on September 19, 2009, 12:19:41 PM
Cleopatra!
No! :D
But I really didn't think this was such a difficult question...there have been a number of plays, poems and operas about this apparently charming young lady. :( The name was even used for one of the female members of the Breckinridge family.
Sophon somerthing? Sophonissibia?
Sophonisba.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 19, 2009, 03:36:18 PM
Sophon somerthing? Sophonissibia?
Slightly misspelt, but close enough - you're up Queequeg.
Sorry Sahib - he was first and for a name like that I can't hold the spelling against him.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 19, 2009, 04:18:14 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on September 19, 2009, 03:36:18 PM
Sophon somerthing? Sophonissibia?
Slightly misspelt, but close enough - you're up Queequeg.
Sorry Sahib - he was first and for a name like that I can't hold the spelling against him.
In my generosity I was going to concede to him anyway -_-
The first Chinese dynasty to expand exert total control over China proper and eventually into what is now Central China, this dynasty is the origin of the word "China" and was famous for its totalitarian policies, especially in regards to philosophical works. However, early in its history, this state was regarded as semi-barbarous by other Chinese states, as it was a bulwark against incursions by this nomadic people, and mixed with them, and eventually this Chinese dynasty began the introduction of Steppe art and technology into China.
Name
1) The dynasty
2) The nomadic people
First should be easy, and I'd except reasonably close relatives of the second.
Qin certainly, but it's too early for the Hsiung-nu.
I need to think... :(
I've looked it up, and I am pissed at myself. :mad:
Quin and Yue-Chi?
Quote from: Queequeg on September 19, 2009, 07:04:40 PM
The first Chinese dynasty to expand exert total control over China proper and eventually into what is now Central China, this dynasty is the origin of the word "China" and was famous for its totalitarian policies, especially in regards to philosophical works. However, early in its history, this state was regarded as semi-barbarous by other Chinese states, as it was a bulwark against incursions by this nomadic people, and mixed with them, and eventually this Chinese dynasty began the introduction of Steppe art and technology into China.
Name
1) The dynasty
2) The nomadic people
First should be easy, and I'd except reasonably close relatives of the second.
The answer is Nurhachi, first emperor of Manchu dynasty.
The diamond, Jaron. The deal was for the diamond! <_<
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 19, 2009, 08:43:39 PM
The diamond, Jaron. The deal was for the diamond! <_<
:goodboy:
Quote from: Jaron on September 19, 2009, 08:37:27 PM
The answer is Nurhachi, first emperor of Manchu dynasty.
You are literally thousands of years off.
I believe there was a dynasty named the Chin.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 20, 2009, 02:09:07 AM
I believe there was a dynasty named the Chin.
Qin=Chin.
Need answer to second, far less obvious question.
Turks?
Xiongnu. Quite an easy question. :)
Quote from: Queequeg on September 20, 2009, 02:20:45 AM
Qin=Chin.
Need answer to second, far less obvious question.
I believe Caliga has given the correct answer, even if misspelled. Right?
alexandru H.
Hsiung-Nu and Xiongnu are one and the same - and incorrect, as I realised when I posted my answer (the date is too early, and the geographical location is marginally wrong.
Agelastus is right, and Xiongnu is wrong.
So I'm right? :huh:
Quote from: Caliga on September 21, 2009, 07:57:42 PM
So I'm right? :huh:
Hmm.
Well.
Technically,
no, but this is a pretty obscure topic and I'm giving you credit as the few sources we have compare them to the Yue-Zhi/Chi and that's impressively obscure.
I was looking for the Rong, or more generally the Wusun. Indo-European Central Asian nomads who introduced a lot of vocabulary (iirc, words for Horse and Apple) into ancient Chinese and had a big impact on their material culture and military (the chariot, cavalry). Most evidence I've seen suggest that the Wusun were Indo-Iranian, but that's open to debate. I would have accepted Saka too, mostly as it appeals to my EB fetish.
Ancient Chinese histories speak of red haired, large men with odd noses and deep faces, and it is entirely likely that this was true. Always thought that was neat.
Yep, you're up Caliga. Although it appears I need to do some more research, as the Yue-zhi (who later became the Kushans, probably) seemed to be the absolutely correct answer to me. At 05.47AM UK time, I am off to do said research.
So where's our next question? ;)
The inhabitants of Taumako Island in the Solomons chain are renowned for having what special skill?
They practice penile subincision, so as to have sex and ejaculate from the base of the penis, outside the vagina?
(as practiced by many primitive societies to avoid malthusian population pressure)
Quote from: miglia on September 23, 2009, 07:16:38 AM
They practice penile subincision, so as to have sex and ejaculate from the base of the penis, outside the vagina?
(as practiced by many primitive societies to avoid malthusian population pressure)
Eeeeeeek! No, but thanks for the mental image. :x
Quote from: Caliga on September 23, 2009, 07:11:04 AM
The inhabitants of Taumako Island in the Solomons chain are renowned for having what special skill?
Prehensile penises?
Or boobs?
Making awesome boomerangs?
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on September 23, 2009, 07:37:03 AM
Quote from: Caliga on September 23, 2009, 07:11:04 AM
The inhabitants of Taumako Island in the Solomons chain are renowned for having what special skill?
Prehensile penises?
Or boobs?
No, no... and those sound like mutations to me, not skillz. -_-
Hmmmm....
Advanced breath control techniques allowing them to dive deeper to collect pearls?
Nope. Good guess, though.
They're cargo-cultists, and they build landing strips?
Nope.
They can hear frequencies outside the usual range for humans.
Quote from: Caliga on September 23, 2009, 07:11:04 AM
The inhabitants of Taumako Island in the Solomons chain are renowned for having what special skill?
Trick question?
Is it boob related?
OK I'll make a guess.
They can sell snow to the eskimos. The skill was only discovered by chance in 1997 and has little to no impact on their everyday lives.
If they still have the skill how the fuck is it history?
L2T
Quote from: The Brain on September 23, 2009, 12:17:53 PM
If they still have the skill how the fuck is it history?
L2T
<_<
By virture of still having this skill, the islanders are collectively a living relic, so to speak. -_-
Quote from: Razgovory on September 23, 2009, 12:05:19 PM
Is it boob related?
No.
I knew this was obscure but I figured someone would guess it eventually. If nobody has it by tonight I'll give the answer and cede control of the floor.
Quote from: Caliga on September 23, 2009, 03:12:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 23, 2009, 12:05:19 PM
Is it boob related?
No.
I knew this was obscure but I figured someone would guess it eventually. If nobody has it by tonight I'll give the answer and cede control of the floor.
They still shrink heads?
Are these the folks who raise pigs with tusks growing through their jaws?
Quote from: Caliga on September 23, 2009, 03:11:53 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 23, 2009, 12:17:53 PM
If they still have the skill how the fuck is it history?
L2T
<_<
By virture of still having this skill, the islanders are collectively a living relic, so to speak. -_-
They can name all 50 states?
Quote from: Caliga on September 23, 2009, 03:11:53 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 23, 2009, 12:17:53 PM
If they still have the skill how the fuck is it history?
L2T
<_<
By virture of still having this skill, the islanders are collectively a living relic, so to speak. -_-
Hmmm.
Traditional style boat-making?
Riding to work on dinosaurs?
Hey, the answer to Caliga's question really is rather cool. Somebody's on the right lines, but I won't say who... :)
Yes, I again got impatient and looked it up. :Embarrass:
Navigate by sticking their hands in the sea?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 23, 2009, 04:35:29 PM
Navigate by sticking their hands in the sea?
I think I'm going to give you credit for getting it (Malthus was close too).
The island, despite being in Melanesia, is a Polynesian outlier, and the inhabitants are the only Polynesians who still know how to navigate via traditional Polynesian methods, which do involve things like feeling the water, smelling the air, and other less 'mystical' practices like bird and cloud observation and so forth. In the past few decades there has been a revival in interest in their techniques and Polynesians from elsewhere have traveled to the island to learn from the 'masters'.
You *think* you'll give it to me? I'll nailed it motherfucker. :mad:
No tengo pregunta. El piso esta abierto.
Quote from: miglia on September 23, 2009, 07:16:38 AM
They practice penile subincision, so as to have sex and ejaculate from the base of the penis, outside the vagina?
(as practiced by many primitive societies to avoid malthusian population pressure)
:x
I think it'd be easier to just pull out than to cut a hole in my wiener
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on September 23, 2009, 08:57:16 PM
Quote from: miglia on September 23, 2009, 07:16:38 AM
They practice penile subincision, so as to have sex and ejaculate from the base of the penis, outside the vagina?
(as practiced by many primitive societies to avoid malthusian population pressure)
:x
I think it'd be easier to just pull out than to cut a hole in my wiener
You won't know til you try it :contract: :P
The Duke of Wellington famously called this man the "greatest living soldier." Who was Wellington speaking of?
Quote from: Kleves on September 23, 2009, 10:04:30 PM
The Duke of Wellington famously called this man the "greatest living soldier." Who was Wellington speaking of?
Bonaparte?
Quote from: Zoupa on September 23, 2009, 10:14:29 PM
Bonaparte?
Nope. IIRC, he called Napoleon a "mere butcher" or something similar after Waterloo.
Ney?
Blucher?
Blucher was my guess as well.
Nope. Not anyone from the Napoleonic Wars, in fact.
Washington?
Marlborough?
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on September 24, 2009, 02:46:54 AM
Marlborough?
Wellington was referring to the greatest
living general, so no.
If it's linked with Washington... is it Burgoyne?
Quote from: Kleves on September 23, 2009, 10:04:30 PM
The Duke of Wellington famously called this man the "greatest living soldier." Who was Wellington speaking of?
It's not a Frenchman nor an Indian, Wellington didn't rate any General he fought. Blücher has been guessed and honestly if he had compared Charles Hapsburg or Kutuzov to himself he would have been able to rate many a french Marshall higher. Post 1815 and Pre Wellington's death, since that is the period where he wouldn't rate himself and would be asked. So greatest Military achievement between Waterloo and the Crimean War, wogs don't count, and I'm not sure when Wellington died.
So, Bolivar, Radetsky, Scott. Pickings are pretty slim actually. Radetsky beat Italian rebels, Bolivar led a rebellion against a country that no longer really existed.
Winfield Scott?
I think Viking won.
Quote from: HVC on September 23, 2009, 09:44:03 PM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on September 23, 2009, 08:57:16 PM
Quote from: miglia on September 23, 2009, 07:16:38 AM
They practice penile subincision, so as to have sex and ejaculate from the base of the penis, outside the vagina?
(as practiced by many primitive societies to avoid malthusian population pressure)
:x
I think it'd be easier to just pull out than to cut a hole in my wiener
You won't know til you try it :contract: :P
Or you could ask a member of the community of westerners who have "gone native", so to speak, and have tried it, and even made websites about it.
http://www.bme.com/news/people/A10101/subint.html (not quite safe for work)
That's a little weird.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 24, 2009, 05:45:52 AM
I think Viking won.
Given the lengthy deductive stuff posted, he probably Googled it and that was all an attempt to obfuscate that fact. ^_^
He's right, though--I Googled it myself. I really don't think anyone would have guessed it, so I'm cool with that. :)
Quote from: Caliga on September 24, 2009, 06:56:15 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 24, 2009, 05:45:52 AM
I think Viking won.
Given the lengthy deductive stuff posted, he probably Googled it and that was all an attempt to obfuscate that fact. ^_^
He's right, though--I Googled it myself. I really don't think anyone would have guessed it, so I'm cool with that. :)
I'm insulted. :cry:
I remember reading that somewhere (about Scott). I wonder where.
Ok it seems I am up.
Back in the days when Homeopathy was actually cutting edge medicine and the balance of the black and yellow bile, blood and phlegm were the basis for diagnosis and treatment in medicine Edward Jenner observed that one group of people did not get Smallpox as often and were more likely to survive it if contracted. Which group of people was this and why did Jenner (correctly) surmise they were immune?
Dairy farmers, because they handled cows alot?
Milkmaids, because of exposure to cowpox.
Pftt. They beat me to it.
Farmhands because they handled both cows and dairy maids? :perv:
V
Quote from: Maximus on September 24, 2009, 07:19:11 AM
Milkmaids, because of exposure to cowpox.
Yeah, I think that's right. I knew it was something like this.
Quote from: Maximus on September 24, 2009, 07:19:11 AM
Milkmaids, because of exposure to cowpox.
Bingo. Direct contact with cows put them in contact with cowpox which gave them immunity to smallpox. Which led him to create a smallpox vaccine based on cowpox.
None of that is actually true, of course. Jenner just said that so he could play doctor with young milkmaids.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on September 24, 2009, 07:36:46 AM
None of that is actually true, of course. Jenner just said that so he could play doctor with young milkmaids.
meh, he didn't need that.. his favourite pickup line was "Have you seen my hot air balloon anywhere?" Jenner had game y'all.
Prior to his invention of the diesel engine, Rudolph Diesel built an external combustion engine using something other than water vapour as the gas. What did he use, and what happened to this engine? Either answer will suffice.
Quote from: Maximus on September 24, 2009, 07:59:52 AM
Prior to his invention of the diesel engine, Rudolph Diesel built an external combustion engine using something other than water vapour as the gas. What did he use, and what happened to this engine? Either answer will suffice.
Alcohol and it exploded?
Edit: and just for caliga... my rationalisation. The boiler fluid had to be a fluid with a reasonably low boiling point. I'm assuming that this fuid has a lower boiling point than water (to make the engineering of the boiler easier and cheaper), stable at room temperature and was available in the late 1800s. So ethanol, petroleum etc.etc. of the various candidates ethanol is my preferred as it is a single compound so it boils at one temperature (as opposed to petroleum which will boil at many), boils at 78 degC (iirc) and can be distilled reasonably easily and cheaply into a pure form so as to avoid fowling in the boiler tubes.
Edit2: by Alcohol I mean Ethanol (C2H5OH)
You have 1 right, the other is not.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 24, 2009, 08:22:25 AM
You have 1 right, the other is not.
Ethanol and it was destroyed when local drunks raided it for hootch?
but seriously my next 4 guesses.
Octane - it exploded
Heptane - it exploded
Hexane - it exploded
Pentane - it exploded
Nope - Yes
but it's not my question.
natural gas?
Quote from: Viking on September 24, 2009, 08:37:34 AM
but seriously my next 4 guesses.
Octane - it exploded
Heptane - it exploded
Hexane - it exploded
Pentane - it exploded
Well obviously it exploded, it was a external combustion engine. :P Looking for something a little more detailed than that.
It wasn't an alkane gas.
Hydrogen?
Coal tar?
Nope. I'll give it to Viking since he got the explosion part. He used ammonia. The explosion nearly killed him, he was in the hospital for months and suffered permanent eye damage. Afterward he turned his attention toward internal combustion.
Ok,
The Ptolmaic view of the "solar" system obviously had the earth in the middle and with the heavenly bodies orbiting the earth. While this works fine for the "stationary" sun it breaks down for the moon (since in reality remember the moon orbits the earth every month but transits the sky every night/day). It gets worse for mars, venus, jupiter, saturn and mercury; which the ancients were very much aware of.
How did the Ptolmaic system explain this. I'm just looking for the name, if you can add a comprehendable explanation of how it worked, so much better.
I recently read an article in a history magazine about the evolution of the view of the solar system which touched on the subject and the increasingly difficult calculations court astronomers had to go through to properly predict the course of the planets.
As I don't have the article here (I borrowed said magazine to a coworker) I notice my memory isn't too keen, but I go out on a limb. They reasoned that the celestial bodies were attached to spheres around which they revolved while the spheres itself would also follow an (independent) motion?
Epicycles
Syt can have it.
Some more trivia: epicycles didn't fully explain the movements of the planets, either, so they added epicycles within epicycles. That also didn't work, and by the time Copernicus came around, the Ptolemaic model had gotten quite complex with a large number of epicycles.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on September 25, 2009, 06:26:55 AM
Some more trivia: epicycles didn't fully explain the movements of the planets, either, so they added epicycles within epicycles. That also didn't work, and by the time Copernicus came around, the Ptolemaic model had gotten quite complex with a large number of epicycles.
More trivia. Copernicus used them himself when the real elliptical orbits of the planets observed from earth didn't fit the predictions of his circular heliocentric orbits. He called the epicyclets.
Quote from: Viking on September 25, 2009, 06:29:30 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on September 25, 2009, 06:26:55 AM
Some more trivia: epicycles didn't fully explain the movements of the planets, either, so they added epicycles within epicycles. That also didn't work, and by the time Copernicus came around, the Ptolemaic model had gotten quite complex with a large number of epicycles.
More trivia. Copernicus used them himself when the real elliptical orbits of the planets observed from earth didn't fit the predictions of his circular heliocentric orbits. He called the epicyclets.
Johannes Kepler FTW!
Quote from: Viking on September 24, 2009, 04:22:26 AM
Winfield Scott?
A bit late but: yep, you got it. Wellington avidly followed Scott's progress on a map mounted in his study. When Scott broke away from his supply lines after Vera Cruz, Wellington predicted that the Mexicans would make short work of Scott and his army. When Scott not only survived, but won a series of crushing victories and captured Mexico city, Wellington was moved to declare him the world's greatest living soldier.
Probably a softball, but here it goes:
Which country contributed the 2nd highest peak number of troops to the Vietnam war, and the 3rd highest to the 2nd Iraq war? Note that I'm looking for foreign countries, so South Vietnam and Iraq aren't counted for this.
Australia?
Quote from: Syt on September 25, 2009, 09:42:02 AM
Australia?
Being part of the ANZAC, that seems to make sense.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on September 25, 2009, 09:40:22 AM
Probably a softball, but here it goes:
Which country contributed the 2nd highest peak number of troops to the Vietnam war, and the 3rd highest to the 2nd Iraq war? Note that I'm looking for foreign countries, so South Vietnam and Iraq aren't counted for this.
South Korea (if Australia proves to be wrong, which was my first guess).
QuoteAustralia?
Nope.
That's what I had thought, too.
QuoteSouth Korea (if Australia proves to be wrong, which was my first guess).
That's it. 50,000 ROK Marines were sent to Vietnam to assist the Americans. From what I've read, they were quite effective, and according to my uncle who served in Vietnam with the USMC, you did not mess around with the ROK MC.
They also sent 3,200 troops to northern Iraq for peacekeeping and reconstruction. UK had ~40,000 at peak in Iraq, and Australia, 2,000.
During the 1860s the Royal Prussian Army was equipped with breech loading rifles. Now, despite having quick loading personal weapons with decent range the drill was to fire from the hip. Why?
Quote from: Viking on September 25, 2009, 11:46:48 AM
During the 1860s the Royal Prussian Army was equipped with breech loading rifles. Now, despite having quick loading personal weapons with decent range the drill was to fire from the hip. Why?
Does it have something to do with the cavalry? I suppose horsemen would shoot like that while on horseback...
Quote from: Viking on September 25, 2009, 11:46:48 AM
During the 1860s the Royal Prussian Army was equipped with breech loading rifles. Now, despite having quick loading personal weapons with decent range the drill was to fire from the hip. Why?
The seal on the breach was inadequate, meaning you risked losing an eye every time the rifle was fired. I believe this was a design flaw with the Dreyse needle gun.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 25, 2009, 04:54:49 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 25, 2009, 11:46:48 AM
During the 1860s the Royal Prussian Army was equipped with breech loading rifles. Now, despite having quick loading personal weapons with decent range the drill was to fire from the hip. Why?
The seal on the breach was inadequate, meaning you risked losing an eye every time the rifle was fired. I believe this was a design flaw with the Dreyse needle gun.
Because it used paper cartridges (iirc) the breech block seal was damaged after a few shots. So this is right. Over to you.
What was Rome's secret "anti-elephant weapon" that saw its only known use at the battle of Beneventum against Pyrrhus of Epirus?
Quote from: Agelastus on September 25, 2009, 05:35:22 PM
What was Rome's secret "anti-elephant weapon" that saw its only known use at the battle of Beneventum against Pyrrhus of Epirus?
The Spiked Carts/Chariots that were supposed to intimidate/spear the Elephants, it didn't work. The Draught animals were petrified of the elephants and the whole scheme failed.
Quote from: Viking on September 25, 2009, 05:39:40 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on September 25, 2009, 05:35:22 PM
What was Rome's secret "anti-elephant weapon" that saw its only known use at the battle of Beneventum against Pyrrhus of Epirus?
The Spiked Carts/Chariots that were supposed to intimidate/spear the Elephants, it didn't work. The Draught animals were petrified of the elephants and the whole scheme failed.
Wrong weapon, wrong battle (that's Asculum, before he sashayed off to Sicily.) The one used at Beneventum was much simpler (assuming Dionysius is to be believed, which at least one prominent historian did.)
Large bronze horns they used to try and startle the elephants with blasts of sound.
Quote from: Viking on September 25, 2009, 05:17:06 PM
Because it used paper cartridges (iirc) the breech block seal was damaged after a few shots. So this is right. Over to you.
Paper cartridge in a breech loader? That sounds odd.
Quote from: Viking on September 25, 2009, 05:58:45 PM
Large bronze horns they used to try and startle the elephants with blasts of sound.
Not the one that springs to my mind; I'll have to re-research Beneventum.
I'm looking for something considerably more grotesque...
Elephant penis grappling hooks.
Is this the pigs?
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 25, 2009, 06:06:09 PM
Is this the pigs?
Yes...but you could add a bit more detail for the masses, please (if Scullard believed it who am I to argue?)
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 25, 2009, 06:06:09 PM
Is this the pigs?
I'm pretty sure the flaming pigs of RTW fame are fictional.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 25, 2009, 06:09:23 PM
Yes...but you could add a bit more detail for the masses, please (if Scullard believed it who am I to argue?)
I've no idea. I remember reading the Romans used pigs against elephants. I also played RTW, so I thought maybe they were fire pigs. I mentioned the Roman fire pigs to a classicist friend of mine and was promptly slapped down. I never read about the pigs again :sadblush:
Quote from: Viking on September 25, 2009, 06:10:27 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 25, 2009, 06:06:09 PM
Is this the pigs?
I'm pretty sure the flaming pigs of RTW fame are fictional.
Not according to Dionysius, who's one of our few sources for the war. H H Scullard believed it to be not merely possible but fairly likely as well.
Given the ineffectiveness of the Romans previous try (the anti-elephant ox-carts) I can also see them being willing to try anything at this point, so I must admit I consider that it very likely happened as well.
Basically, you take a pig, tar him up, light him up, and let him go (hopefully in the direction of elephants, who are reputedly scared of fire and small squealing things.)
Fairly gross, but at least you could eat the roast pig after the battle.
Sheilbh's up.
Quote from: Caliga on September 24, 2009, 06:56:15 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 24, 2009, 05:45:52 AM
I think Viking won.
Given the lengthy deductive stuff posted, he probably Googled it and that was all an attempt to obfuscate that fact. ^_^
He's right, though--I Googled it myself. I really don't think anyone would have guessed it, so I'm cool with that. :)
I totally knew this one, if only I'd paid attention to this thread. :(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_pig
Colour me unconvinced. But since you cite a source and you claim it was used only once (as opposed to fire and screaming javelineers).
I don't know if this is actually well known or not.
In the US it used to be the convention not to actively campaign to become President as it was unbecoming of the office. Rather your friends and supporters would campaign for you. Who was the first major candidate to campaign, stumping round the country?
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 25, 2009, 06:23:45 PM
I don't know if this is actually well known or not.
In the US it used to be the convention not to actively campaign to become President as it was unbecoming of the office. Rather your friends and supporters would campaign for you. Who was the first major candidate to campaign, stumping round the country?
Stephen Douglas did as he tried to save the country from Civil War. The exertion may have directly led to his premature death.
Quote from: Viking on September 25, 2009, 06:20:01 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_pig
Colour me unconvinced. But since you cite a source and you claim it was used only once (as opposed to fire and screaming javelineers).
Dionysius is, admittedly, not always the most reliable of historians. Moreover, I freely admit that many historians do not believe him.
However, H H Scullard, who wrote perhaps the definitive account of Elephants in ancient warfare ("The Elephant in the Greek and Roman World", Cornell University Press, Ithaca NY, 1974) does feel that they were probably used.
I actually did not know the Aelianus reference referred to by the Wikipedia article.
The idea is no more absurd than Hannibal's trick with the cattle from the second Punic War.
What antebellum senator from a slave state took a mulatto slave as his common law wife in a flagrant breach of law and custom?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 25, 2009, 06:32:28 PM
What antebellum senator from a slave state took a mulatto slave as his common law wife in a flagrant breach of law and custom?
Point of order. As far as I am aware, you are a citizen of the USA - what happened to the Yi rule?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 25, 2009, 06:32:28 PM
What antebellum senator from a slave state took a mulatto slave as his common law wife in a flagrant breach of law and custom?
Ooh, Viking is going to go all berserker on you.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 25, 2009, 06:38:19 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 25, 2009, 06:32:28 PM
What antebellum senator from a slave state took a mulatto slave as his common law wife in a flagrant breach of law and custom?
Point of order. As far as I am aware, you are a citizen of the USA - what happened to the Yi rule?
Not to mention bad grammar.
Edit: and don't go claiming that the CSA is a foreign country...
Quote from: Agelastus on September 25, 2009, 06:38:19 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 25, 2009, 06:32:28 PM
What antebellum senator from a slave state took a mulatto slave as his common law wife in a flagrant breach of law and custom?
Point of order. As far as I am aware, you are a citizen of the USA - what happened to the Yi rule?
I forgot about the Yi rule, I'll come up with another question.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 25, 2009, 06:28:00 PM
So if I know something it has to be well known? :mad:
:o
The question was answered in three minutes, which suggests it's well known. Not that Tim only has common knowledge
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 25, 2009, 06:44:32 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 25, 2009, 06:28:00 PM
So if I know something it has to be well known? :mad:
:o
The question was answered in three minutes, which suggests it's well known. Not that Tim only has common knowledge
No, that merely suggests that a person who knew the answer was on languish when the question was asked.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 25, 2009, 06:44:32 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 25, 2009, 06:28:00 PM
So if I know something it has to be well known? :mad:
:o
The question was answered in three minutes, which suggests it's well known. Not that Tim only has common knowledge
Ah, okay. :hug:
How did Miyamoto Musashi win his famous duel Sasaki Kojirō?
KI-AYIIII
With a quick-draw plus massive cut?
Edit: Google says "not so much."
gun?
All way off so far.
It's not well known.
I once again looked it up as I did not know.
All I can say is :lmfao:.
That Musashi guy, he is "da man". :lol:
Poison?
I'll give this another hour then give the answer.
Did he use his enormous sexual power?
Threw dust in his eyes?
In an attempt to use logic.
1) It's only a good question if he didn't use a sword.
2) Since I have heard of him and know he is a famous samurai famous for swordsmanship then he didn't cheat (though I did guess gun and poison).
So I'm guessing he used something humble and non-military to demonstrate his prowess. Possibly some form of agricultural instrument, like nunchucks (originally used for threshing wheat).
Pitchfork, no, Scythe, no, Staff, possible, Chopsticks, possible and cool.
Chopsticks?
You're on the right track.
Bamboo staff?
Actually, he carved a massive bokken (wooden sword) out of an oar. He arrived at the duel late by boat, coming in at the peak of the incoming tide. Kojirō, a famous master who carried an unusually long sword, was pissed and they had words. "You can't beat me with that stick" etc. They fought and it turned out Musashi had timed his arrival well, the sun was in Kojirō's eyes and Musashi smashed his head in. He then fled from Kojirō's disciples on the outgoing tide.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 25, 2009, 08:08:44 PM
Actually, he carved a massive bokken (wooden sword) out of an oar. He arrived at the duel late by boat, coming in at the peak of the incoming tide. Kojirō, a famous master who carried an unusually long sword, was pissed and they had words. "You can't beat me with that stick" etc. They fought and it turned out Musashi had timed his arrival well, the sun was in Kojirō's eyes and Musashi smashed his head in. He then fled from Kojirō's disciples on the outgoing tide.
What kind of duel is it when the loser's friends get to try and kill the winner?
Quote from: Viking on September 25, 2009, 08:11:33 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 25, 2009, 08:08:44 PM
Actually, he carved a massive bokken (wooden sword) out of an oar. He arrived at the duel late by boat, coming in at the peak of the incoming tide. Kojirō, a famous master who carried an unusually long sword, was pissed and they had words. "You can't beat me with that stick" etc. They fought and it turned out Musashi had timed his arrival well, the sun was in Kojirō's eyes and Musashi smashed his head in. He then fled from Kojirō's disciples on the outgoing tide.
What kind of duel is it when the loser's friends get to try and kill the winner?
Musashi is only regarded as a sword saint in retrospect, even he admits he was scum as a young man.
I think Tim should be considered Japanese for Yi Rule purposes.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 25, 2009, 09:24:13 PM
I think Tim should be considered Japanese for Yi Rule purposes.
An interest in anime and manga does not make him Japanese. :contract:
Quote from: Agelastus on September 26, 2009, 05:50:42 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 25, 2009, 09:24:13 PM
I think Tim should be considered Japanese for Yi Rule purposes.
An interest in anime and manga does not make him Japanese. :contract:
It does make him subhuman though.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 26, 2009, 06:03:01 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on September 26, 2009, 05:50:42 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 25, 2009, 09:24:13 PM
I think Tim should be considered Japanese for Yi Rule purposes.
An interest in anime and manga does not make him Japanese. :contract:
It does make him subhuman though.
Bollocks.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with
most anime or manga. :)
ban
Quote from: The Brain on September 26, 2009, 06:15:59 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on September 26, 2009, 06:14:35 AM
Quote from: The Brain on September 26, 2009, 06:12:50 AM
ban
Why, have you done something wrong?
You have no idea.
No idea what crimes you have committed?
Or no idea that you were making a pathetic stab at my support for
most anime and manga, a bugbear for several figures on this forum?
Quote from: Agelastus on September 26, 2009, 06:19:18 AM
Quote from: The Brain on September 26, 2009, 06:15:59 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on September 26, 2009, 06:14:35 AM
Quote from: The Brain on September 26, 2009, 06:12:50 AM
ban
Why, have you done something wrong?
You have no idea.
No idea what crimes you have committed?
Or no idea that you were making a pathetic stab at my support for most anime and manga, a bugbear for several figures on this forum?
They're only crimes if you get caught.
You seem very defensive about your taste crime. Care to explain?
Quote from: The Brain on September 26, 2009, 06:23:07 AM
They're only crimes if you get caught.
How true...
Quote from: The Brain on September 26, 2009, 06:23:07 AM
You seem very defensive about your taste crime. Care to explain?
Not particularly. I just know from experience that the ratio on this forum is about 5% "anime lovers", 15% "anime haters", and 80% "couldn't give a damn about either side but wish they would get a life"rs.
And calling someone "sub-human" due to his taste in entertainment is a tad extreme. If you told me that Tim only watched tentacle porn or read incest hentai, then you might have had a point with the "sub-human" comment, but, as I know very well from this and other forums, Tim is much more conventional in his tastes than that. ;)
Quote from: Agelastus on September 26, 2009, 06:37:24 AM
Quote from: The Brain on September 26, 2009, 06:23:07 AM
They're only crimes if you get caught.
How true...
Quote from: The Brain on September 26, 2009, 06:23:07 AM
You seem very defensive about your taste crime. Care to explain?
Not particularly. I just know from experience that the ratio on this forum is about 5% "anime lovers", 15% "anime haters", and 80% "couldn't give a damn about either side but wish they would get a life"rs.
And calling someone "sub-human" due to his taste in entertainment is a tad extreme. If you told me that Tim only watched tentacle porn or read incest hentai, then you might have had a point with the "sub-human" comment, but, as I know very well from this and other forums, Tim is much more conventional in his tastes than that. ;)
When the time comes I will personally herd your kind into the gas chambers. I guess that makes me one of the 15%.
Quote from: The Brain on September 26, 2009, 06:44:00 AM
When the time comes I will personally herd your kind into the gas chambers. I guess that makes me one of the 15%.
:lmfao:
I'd threaten to do the same, but I'm not feeling that silly this morning...let's continue this after I've had a few drinks this evening. :)
I think his numbers are suspect. I'd guess the majority are in the "mild dislike/disinterest in anime and may take the occasional pot-shot" category.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 26, 2009, 08:17:46 AM
I think his numbers are suspect. I'd guess the majority are in the "mild dislike/disinterest in anime and may take the occasional pot-shot" category.
They're at least as accurate as government statistics - UK ones anyway.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 26, 2009, 04:47:25 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 26, 2009, 08:17:46 AM
I think his numbers are suspect. I'd guess the majority are in the "mild dislike/disinterest in anime and may take the occasional pot-shot" category.
They're at least as accurate as government statistics - UK ones anyway.
Most British are innumerate anyway.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 26, 2009, 04:49:39 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on September 26, 2009, 04:47:25 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 26, 2009, 08:17:46 AM
I think his numbers are suspect. I'd guess the majority are in the "mild dislike/disinterest in anime and may take the occasional pot-shot" category.
They're at least as accurate as government statistics - UK ones anyway.
Most British are innumerate anyway.
I'm not even going to dispute this. I've seen the effects of our "everyone deserves an A" culture/drive of the last 20 or 30 years. I'm only glad that I was sent to a public school, not the local comprehensive, and that this was before they really started to drive standards down in the nineties and beyond.
I suggest if anyone wants to collect the actual statistics on this issue for Languish, they start a poll.
VIKING WHERE ARE YOU?
Timmy conceded the question to you, I believe. as you had the closest answer. Don't let Yi be proved right, please... :mad:
24 h rule. You ask a question.
A nice easy one to get us going then.
Who took over command of the Swedish/Protestant army at the battle of Lutzen after the death of the Swedish king, Gustavus Adolphus?
Horn.
Prince Bernhard?
Quote from: The Brain on October 03, 2009, 07:07:25 PM
Prince Bernhard?
Yep. Prince Bernhard of Saxe-Weimar, to be more precise.
You're up, Brain. :)
I should go to bed. Open floor.
Quote from: The Brain on October 03, 2009, 07:33:13 PM
I should go to bed. Open floor.
Damn you, so should I! I was only hanging around online until someone answered the question!
Although I may just decide to stay awake and watch the Japanese Grand Prix.
Quote from: Agelastus on October 03, 2009, 06:28:01 PM
VIKING WHERE ARE YOU?
Timmy conceded the question to you, I believe. as you had the closest answer. Don't let Yi be proved right, please... :mad:
well, I didn't get it right so I wasn't looking in on this thread... but since the floor is open.
The New Zealand Rugby team is called the All Blacks. The name is though to have been given due to the team playing in all black kit. Though there is a (probably wrong) myth about how the all blacks got their name based on a newspaper article about the team. What is that myth?
The article claimed the owner was going to replace everyone with African players?
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 04, 2009, 03:36:57 AM
The article claimed the owner was going to replace everyone with African players?
Given the racist attitude towards maoris having 15 Boba Fetts on the team would have been enough for that, but that is not the case.
They played in black face?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 04, 2009, 09:24:57 AM
They played in black face?
nope
Hint 1
The Newspaper description which started the myth could just as well be applied to the All Blacks today.
Hint 2
It was about their playing style.
They played like gorillas? :pinch:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 04, 2009, 09:33:29 AM
They played like gorillas? :pinch:
That is true, but that is not the answer.
Viking, I apologise, but I am going to give them a clue.
Having looked it up, I cannot answer the question, but as a hint, think about the reason I have posted a couple of times for my not being able to read the Guardian the one time I have bought it.
Quote from: Agelastus on October 04, 2009, 12:39:57 PM
Viking, I apologise, but I am going to give them a clue.
Having looked it up, I cannot answer the question, but as a hint, think about the reason I have posted a couple of times for my not being able to read the Guardian the one time I have bought it.
You dsylxeci P.O.S.!
So instead of a (kinda) history trivia question, we now have an Agelastus trivia question? :lol:
24 hrs
They played as if they were "all backs".
So I open up the floor.
Easy one: The HMS Victoria was a British battleship that was sunk in 1893 in the Mediterranean. What happened?
Ran aground?
Nope. Even more embarrassing.
Magazine explosion?
Admiral Tryon (commanding the Mediterranean Fleet from Victoria) mistook his turning radiuses, no-one had the guts to tell him he was wrong or turn without an order from him, and Admiral Markham (his second in command) rammed Victoria with his own battleship that was leading the other column.
Which, if I recall correctly, was Victoria's own sister ship! :lmfao:
Stupid, stupid combination, rams and a single forward firing turret.
It was rammed by another battleship during training maneuvers. HMS Camperdown perhaps?
Meh... Too late.
Quote from: Agelastus on October 05, 2009, 06:52:18 AM
Admiral Tryon (commanding the Mediterranean Fleet from Victoria) mistook his turning radiuses, no-one had the guts to tell him he was wrong or turn without an order from him, and Admiral Markham (his second in command) rammed Victoria with his own battleship that was leading the other column.
Which, if I recall correctly, was Victoria's own sister ship! :lmfao:
Stupid, stupid combination, rams and a single forward firing turret.
Googled it. :)
Agelastus has it!
That tale never ceases to amuse me. :lol:
And yes, it was the HMS Camperdown that did the ramming.
Quote from: Caliga on October 05, 2009, 06:54:15 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on October 05, 2009, 06:52:18 AM
Admiral Tryon (commanding the Mediterranean Fleet from Victoria) mistook his turning radiuses, no-one had the guts to tell him he was wrong or turn without an order from him, and Admiral Markham (his second in command) rammed Victoria with his own battleship that was leading the other column.
Which, if I recall correctly, was Victoria's own sister ship! :lmfao:
Stupid, stupid combination, rams and a single forward firing turret.
Googled it. :)
YOU BASTARD!!!!! :mad: :lol: :P :hug:
Actually, although I have several sources, the best account of the scandal I have ever read is from "The Rules of the Game, Jutland and British Naval Command" by Andrew Gordon. A book which just happens to grace my shelves, not that I needed to look it up - even in the detail above, which I note neglects to mention the name of Markham's flagship, as I cannot remember it (although I do remember that the Nile was second ship in Markham's column.)
It's a crying shame that Tryon was discredited by this accident. If he had lived and continued to influence the Royal Navy away from the rigid signals school exemplified by Jellicoe in WWI, then things might have gone very differently at Jutland.
Now I have to think of a question...
Ok, another easy one (and dammit, I need a broader selection of history books for inspiration, most of mine deal with Ancient Warfare or the Dreadnought era.)
Everyone knows the 300 Spartans died at Thermopylae (well, either 298 or 299 did, depending on whether Leonidas counted as one of the 300 or not.)
Anway, that's immaterial. The question is...
"Two other contingents stayed behind to die with the Spartans. From which Greek cities did they come?"
Thebes and... er, Corinth?
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 05, 2009, 07:10:17 AM
Thebes and... er, Corinth?
You've got one (Thebes, 400 men - alleged to have surrendered, but now considered likely to have been from the anti-Persian faction of the later-to-medize Thebes, and thus killed with the Spartans.)
The other is a less famous city, and the one I really want...
Argos?
Thespiae. I think. A thousand forming the rear guard.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 05, 2009, 07:23:20 AM
Thespiae. I think. A thousand forming the rear guard.
Ed's up. Although the usual figure given is 700.
Thespiae spent most of a hundred years having the majority of its adult male population killed in a single battle once a generation. Thermopylae's the most famous of three examples.
Anyway, over to you Ed.
Up for grabs. My brain is mush this morning.
Two Egyptian brothers discovered the Nag Hammadi codices im 1945. When their mother found them, what did she try to do with them and why?
Tried to burn them, thought they were witchcraft-related, or otherwise evil?
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 05, 2009, 07:56:07 AM
Tried to burn them, thought they were witchcraft-related, or otherwise evil?
Easier than I thought it would be. :blush: Correct.
I vaguely remember reading something about that.
I can't think of anything good: open floor.
I'll take it.
What did Isidor of Seville believed that the old romans used the ram for something weird. What did he believe that their use was?
Transporting the emperors around with?
Quote from: Caliga on October 05, 2009, 08:27:32 AM
Transporting the emperors around with?
No, not that weird. A weird nautical function.
Anal sex
Predicting the wind?
Quote from: Warspite on October 05, 2009, 08:56:22 AM
Quote from: Threviel on October 05, 2009, 08:40:43 AM
Quote from: Caliga on October 05, 2009, 08:27:32 AM
Transporting the emperors around with?
No, not that weird. A weird nautical function.
Fathoming?
meh, that just results in the possession by the ship of a wet angry ram.
Maybe it was used in a bizarre logical game with a wolf and a cabbage.
:lol:
Quote from: Warspite on October 05, 2009, 09:03:36 AM
Maybe it was used in a bizarre logical game with a wolf and a cabbage.
don't see how. The drenched and pissed off ram would beat the crap out of the human then the wolf and then stop for lunch.
Quote from: Viking on October 05, 2009, 09:11:24 AM
Quote from: Warspite on October 05, 2009, 09:03:36 AM
Maybe it was used in a bizarre logical game with a wolf and a cabbage.
don't see how. The drenched and pissed off ram would beat the crap out of the human then the wolf and then stop for lunch.
Not if the wolf has been used as a windvane in a storm.
Quote from: Warspite on October 05, 2009, 09:29:43 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 05, 2009, 09:11:24 AM
Quote from: Warspite on October 05, 2009, 09:03:36 AM
Maybe it was used in a bizarre logical game with a wolf and a cabbage.
don't see how. The drenched and pissed off ram would beat the crap out of the human then the wolf and then stop for lunch.
Not if the wolf has been used as a windvane in a storm.
I can see them ganging up and taking on the humans
Misreading the sources, Isidore suggested in naval battles that the Romans "rammed" their enemies, by forcing them to eat so much mutton their foes got loggy and didn't care about the battle. Then they rammed a corvus into their spine.
He thought the romans used it to protect against collision with underwater rocks. Open floor.
Johannes Kepler, like Newton, was a genius of terrific genius of immense importance. But he had a really really stupid wrong idea that he never gave up on. Much of his real genius came through trying (and failing) to prove his stupid wrong idea. What was that idea?
Alchemy?
um... was he the 'celestial sphere' guy (i.e. the universe is like a Discworld that revolves around the Earth)?
Quote from: Caliga on October 06, 2009, 06:48:23 AM
um... was he the 'celestial sphere' guy (i.e. the universe is like a Discworld that revolves around the Earth)?
elaborate
Not sure what more to say. The world is the center of the universe and the sun and planets are like on the inside of a sphere that revolves around the world, or something like that. It's a variation on the classical view of cosmology.
Quote from: Caliga on October 06, 2009, 07:10:32 AM
Not sure what more to say. The world is the center of the universe and the sun and planets are like on the inside of a sphere that revolves around the world, or something like that. It's a variation on the classical view of cosmology.
and do these spheres have anything to do with anything else?
Quote from: Viking on October 06, 2009, 07:12:34 AM
and do these spheres have anything to do with anything else?
Sorry, I can't remember anything more detailed than what I've already articulated.
Quote from: Caliga on October 06, 2009, 07:14:12 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 06, 2009, 07:12:34 AM
and do these spheres have anything to do with anything else?
Sorry, I can't remember anything more detailed than what I've already articulated.
Ok, Kepler's Idea has to do with nature of these spheres and how they relate to matter itself.
They made music...
Kepler thought the distance of the planets from the sun corresponded to ratios of the basic platonic shapes in 3-d, spheres. He thought this revealed gods geometric plan for the universe - of course there were only 6 known planets and that meshed with the 6 shapes...
Quote from: PDH on October 06, 2009, 08:46:22 AM
Kepler thought the distance of the planets from the sun corresponded to ratios of the basic platonic shapes in 3-d, spheres. He thought this revealed gods geometric plan for the universe - of course there were only 6 known planets and that meshed with the 6 shapes...
Uranus pretty much fucked up that plan.. but then again Kepler kept going for the perfect solids relationship to the heavenly bodies in their perfect spheres even after he formulated his laws of planetary motion which fixed the orbits as elliptical.
Quote from: Viking on October 06, 2009, 08:50:08 AM
Uranus pretty much fucked up that plan..
If I had a dollar for each time I heard that...
Quote from: PDH on October 06, 2009, 08:46:22 AM
Kepler thought the distance of the planets from the sun corresponded to ratios of the basic platonic shapes in 3-d, spheres. He thought this revealed gods geometric plan for the universe - of course there were only 6 known planets and that meshed with the 6 shapes...
Oh, right. :face: It's this or something close to it.
Platonic shapes? Sounds boring as fuck.
Oh, yeah, BTW, PDH is up.
no ideas, I am teaching freshmen...first with a reasonable question has the floor.
Quote from: PDH on October 06, 2009, 04:21:44 PM
first with a reasonable question has the floor.
There goes the thread. :lol:
I have an easy one.
Put down the names of the 7 Wonders of the Ancient World, ordering them by the dates of their destruction/dissapearance (I'm talking about total destruction, btw...). Bonus points if you know who managed to finish them.
Quote from: Alexandru H. on October 07, 2009, 02:03:06 AM
I have an easy one.
Put down the names of the 7 Wonders of the Ancient World, ordering them by the dates of their destruction/dissapearance (I'm talking about total destruction, btw...). Bonus points if you know who managed to finish them.
Hanging Gardens of Babylon - Left to decline during early classical
Mausoleum at Halicarnassus - Left to decline during mid classical
Temple of Artemis at Ephesus - Destroyed by christians during late classical
Statue of Zeus of Olympus - Destroyed by christians during late classical
Collossuss of Rhodes - Earthquake during late classical
Pharos of Alexandria - Earthquake during late middle ages
Great Pyriamids - Still there
Technically the temple that had been proclaimed as a wonder of the world was burned down by Goths in the 3rd century (not to mention that this one wasn't the original). What Ephesus rebuilt was a poor replica, which cannot be considered a wonder of the world.
And I seem to remember that parts of the Colossus and the Mausoleum held on until the early or middle ages.
Your floor.
Quote from: Viking on October 07, 2009, 04:48:44 AM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on October 07, 2009, 02:03:06 AM
I have an easy one.
Put down the names of the 7 Wonders of the Ancient World, ordering them by the dates of their destruction/dissapearance (I'm talking about total destruction, btw...). Bonus points if you know who managed to finish them.
Hanging Gardens of Babylon - Left to decline during early classical
Mausoleum at Halicarnassus - Left to decline during mid classical
Temple of Artemis at Ephesus - Destroyed by christians during late classical
Statue of Zeus of Olympus - Destroyed by christians during late classical
Collossuss of Rhodes - Earthquake during late classical
Pharos of Alexandria - Earthquake during late middle ages
Great Pyriamids - Still there
I checked I was wrong about order and about half the causes
but since I have the floor.
Next to what lake was the first Golden Retriever bred?
Lake Ontario?
Dog sex? Now that's history.
Lake Golden?
Loch Ness?
Lake Geneva?
Crystal Lake?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 07, 2009, 12:02:59 PM
Loch Ness?
Correct. Sir Dudley Marjoribanks Baron Tweedmouth bred the Golden Retriever at his estate Guisachan which is near Loch Ness.
Ancient Assyria had four different capitals at different times. Name at least two of them.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 07, 2009, 12:53:44 PM
Ancient Assyria had four different capitals at different times. Name at least two of them.
Nineveh (Mosul) and Arbela (Irbil).
Nineveh is correct; Arbela is not.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 07, 2009, 01:29:10 PM
Nineveh is correct; Arbela is not.
Okay, Nineveh and Nimrud.
Nineveh and Carchemish?
Also I imagine Ashur was one of them.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 07, 2009, 01:31:07 PM
Okay, Nineveh and Nimrud.
Yes. Ashur and Dur Sharrukin(Khorsabad) were the others.
I reckon I should think of a question then.
Meh. I can't think of anything clever. So uh, just name the Nine worthies. That's pretty easy.
Uhh
Abraham
Moses
David
Virgil
Cicero
Seneca
Arthur
Godfrey
St. Louis
Charlemagne
Probably got half those wrong, but I remember it was 3 bible, 3 classical, 3 medieval guys.
On the bright side you got about half right.
Alexander
Caesar
Marcus Aurelius
Moses
Solomon
Joshua
Lancelot
Roland
Richard the Lionheart
On the bright side you got about a third right.
Is it just the three of us playing this game?
I'm pretty sure Charlemagne is in there, and either Arthur or one of his knights. There's a famous Roman, maybe Caeser but I'm not certain. The Biblical ones I have no clue on, but I'd guess King David as one of them.
I think this question was asked here before, which was the only other time I've heard of this list, but I'll give a shot.
Abraham
Moses
Solomon
Alexander
Caesar
Virgil
Charlemagne
Arthur
Roland
It was asked here? Huh. Must have been a long time ago. I don't remember it and apperently nobody else does well enough either.
David
Solomon
Joshua
Alexander
Caesar
Hannibal
Charlemagne
Arthur
Godfrey
Quote from: Viking on October 08, 2009, 07:50:34 AM
David
Solomon
Joshua
Alexander
Caesar
Hannibal
Charlemagne
Arthur
Godfrey
Much closer! You are on the right track. Drop Solomon and Hannibal and we'll talk.
David
Gideon
Joshua
Alexander
Caesar
Cyrus
Charlemagne
Arthur
Godfrey
No.
The answer is
Alexander
Caesar
Hector
David
Joshua
Judas Maccabees
King Arthur
Charlemagne
Godfrey of Bullion
Floors open
What notable thing did the Japanese commoner Yamamoto Otokichi do in 1834?
Kill a samurai?
Does it have to do with tentacle rape?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2009, 01:44:40 PM
Does it have to do with tentacle rape?
I don't believe there was any tentacle raping, no.
He had three bowls of rice on Thursdays.
Quote from: Caliga on October 08, 2009, 01:33:30 PM
What notable thing did the Japanese commoner Yamamoto Otokichi do in 1834?
The Emperor.
Hint: He did not do this WITHIN Japan, despite being Japanese.
Quote from: Caliga on October 08, 2009, 01:33:30 PM
What notable thing did the Japanese commoner Yamamoto Otokichi do in 1834?
He made an appeal to the pope?
Quote from: Caliga on October 08, 2009, 02:45:07 PM
Hint: He did not do this WITHIN Japan, despite being Japanese.
Committed seppuku?
Quote from: Caliga on October 08, 2009, 02:45:07 PM
Hint: He did not do this WITHIN Japan, despite being Japanese.
Designed a dreadnought?
Hint to Caliga : don't ask a stupidly obscure question without providing even an inkling of who the person is within your post.
Quote from: Lucidor on October 08, 2009, 03:19:56 PM
Quote from: Caliga on October 08, 2009, 02:45:07 PM
Hint: He did not do this WITHIN Japan, despite being Japanese.
Designed a dreadnought?
In 1834? Yeah, that would have been worthy of note...
Uhmmm... if our friend Otokichi-kun was out of Japan while the country was still officially closed, then he had to be a sailor lost at sea and rescued by a western ship... Did he write a book on Japan? The first japanese-english dictionary, perhaps?
Quote from: Habbaku on October 08, 2009, 03:29:39 PM
Hint to Caliga : don't ask a stupidly obscure question without providing even an inkling of who the person is within your post.
When someone asks vague questions like this answers like "eat three bowls of rice" should be valid.
He bombed Pearl Harbor.
He was born?
Quote from: Alatriste on October 08, 2009, 03:31:06 PM
In 1834? Yeah, that would have been worthy of note...
Uhmmm... if our friend Otokichi-kun was out of Japan while the country was still officially closed, then he had to be a sailor lost at sea and rescued by a western ship... Did he write a book on Japan? The first japanese-english dictionary, perhaps?
After this post I remembered who he was...
Having looked it up, I do not believe he did anything notable in 1834. In 1835, however...
I'm really curious as to the answer Caliga is looking for for this question.
Edit: Oh, I get what Caliga is looking for...
Quote from: Alatriste on October 08, 2009, 03:31:06 PM
In 1834? Yeah, that would have been worthy of note...
Uhmmm... if our friend Otokichi-kun was out of Japan while the country was still officially closed, then he had to be a sailor lost at sea and rescued by a western ship... Did he write a book on Japan? The first japanese-english dictionary, perhaps?
This is extremely close. ^_^
Quote from: Caliga on October 08, 2009, 05:13:54 PM
Quote from: Alatriste on October 08, 2009, 03:31:06 PM
In 1834? Yeah, that would have been worthy of note...
Uhmmm... if our friend Otokichi-kun was out of Japan while the country was still officially closed, then he had to be a sailor lost at sea and rescued by a western ship... Did he write a book on Japan? The first japanese-english dictionary, perhaps?
This is extremely close. ^_^
He was the first Japanese to walk the Westen soil since the Sakoku policy was enabled by the Tokugawa Shogunate?
Quote from: Drakken on October 08, 2009, 05:41:02 PM
He was the first Japanese to walk the Westen soil since the Sakoku policy was enabled by the Tokugawa Shogunate?
He may well have been, but I dunno that for sure.
Quote from: Caliga on October 08, 2009, 05:42:48 PM
Quote from: Drakken on October 08, 2009, 05:41:02 PM
He was the first Japanese to walk the Westen soil since the Sakoku policy was enabled by the Tokugawa Shogunate?
He may well have been, but I dunno that for sure.
He was definitely not the first ever, Date Masamune had sent an embassy to the Pope in 1614, by the first vessel made by Japanese hands to travel around the world, the Date Maru.
Ok, I'm gonna give it to Alatriste, since he was very close and other people are bitching that this is way too hard.
He was a sailor on a cargo vessel loaded with rice that IIRC lost its rigging in a storm on a short-haul voyage in the Japanese archipelago.
The vessel drifted for 14 months all the way across the Pacific and ran aground in Oregon. Only him and some other dude were still alive. He was captured by Makah Indians and enslaved and then sold to white dudes.
I think he eventually became a Japanese ambassador or some shit like that.
Quote from: Caliga on October 08, 2009, 05:48:37 PM
Ok, I'm gonna give it to Alatriste, since he was very close and other people are bitching that this is way too hard.
He was a sailor on a cargo vessel loaded with rice that IIRC lost its rigging in a storm on a short-haul voyage in the Japanese archipelago.
The vessel drifted for 14 months all the way across the Pacific and ran aground in Oregon. Only him and some other dude were still alive. He was captured by Makah Indians and enslaved and then sold to white dudes.
I think he eventually became a Japanese ambassador or some shit like that.
Quote・ First Japanese in America (Preceded John Manjiro by 10 yrs and Joseph Heco by 30 yrs)
・ First Japanese in Canada
・ Payload of Setoyaki represented first trade between U.S. and Japan
・ Inspiration for Commodore Perry (opened trade with Japan)
・ Probable inspiration for Ranald MacDonald (first American in Japan), from Astoria Oregon 1840s
・ First Japanese to gain British Citizenship
・ First trilingual in Japanese, English and Chinese
・ First Japanese in Royal British Navy
・ First Japanese Christian (Protestant Episcopalian)
・ Translated Bible of John into Japanese
・ Opened Nagasaki Port on behalf of the British Crown in 1854
Some of the claims made for him seem..."iffy".
Quote from: Caliga on October 08, 2009, 05:48:37 PM
Ok, I'm gonna give it to Alatriste, since he was very close and other people are bitching that this is way too hard.
He was a sailor on a cargo vessel loaded with rice that IIRC lost its rigging in a storm on a short-haul voyage in the Japanese archipelago.
The vessel drifted for 14 months all the way across the Pacific and ran aground in Oregon. Only him and some other dude were still alive. He was captured by Makah Indians and enslaved and then sold to white dudes.
I think he eventually became a Japanese ambassador or some shit like that.
What did he do in particular in 1834?
Quote from: Agelastus on October 08, 2009, 06:01:37 PM
・ First Japanese Christian (Protestant Episcopalian)
Some of the claims made for him seem..."iffy".
:lol:
Wiki has ruled: Catholics aren't Christian. :contract:
Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2009, 06:04:46 PM
What did he do in particular in 1834?
Landed in Oregon.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 08, 2009, 06:10:21 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on October 08, 2009, 06:01:37 PM
・ First Japanese Christian (Protestant Episcopalian)
Some of the claims made for him seem..."iffy".
:lol:
Wiki has ruled: Catholics aren't Christian. :contract:
:D
While I would, in general, agree with your point, I am afraid I must point out that that list is NOT from Wiki...
http://www.jmottoson.com/Otokichi-Story.htm (http://www.jmottoson.com/Otokichi-Story.htm)
OK. A tricky one... What biting nickname did Gnaeus Pompey use for Lucullus? (Hint, because otherwise it would be almost impossible: a movie has made the joke even funnier for us modern people)
Quote from: Alatriste on October 09, 2009, 10:00:21 AM
OK. A tricky one... What biting nickname did Gnaeus Pompey use for Lucullus? (Hint, because otherwise it would be almost impossible: a movie has made the joke even funnier for us modern people)
Biggus Dickus?
Quote from: ulmont on October 09, 2009, 10:04:27 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on October 09, 2009, 10:00:21 AM
OK. A tricky one... What biting nickname did Gnaeus Pompey use for Lucullus? (Hint, because otherwise it would be almost impossible: a movie has made the joke even funnier for us modern people)
Biggus Dickus?
Evidently, nope. Come on, boys, how many movies based on the Graeco-Latin world has Hollywood made in recent years? It's easier than it seems...
By the way, just to make the waiting more interesting, biting nicknames seem to have been common in the I century B.C. When he was young Cicero called Pompey 'adulescens carnifex' i.e., 'Teen Butcher'.
Quote from: Alatriste on October 09, 2009, 03:42:48 PM
Quote from: ulmont on October 09, 2009, 10:04:27 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on October 09, 2009, 10:00:21 AM
OK. A tricky one... What biting nickname did Gnaeus Pompey use for Lucullus? (Hint, because otherwise it would be almost impossible: a movie has made the joke even funnier for us modern people)
Biggus Dickus?
Evidently, nope. Come on, boys, how many movies based on the Graeco-Latin world has Hollywood made in recent years? It's easier than it seems...
By the way, just to make the waiting more interesting, biting nicknames seem to have been common in the I century B.C. When he was young Cicero called Pompey 'adulescens carnifex' i.e., 'Teen Butcher'.
Cicero's nickname for Pompey I would have been able to identify; I didn't know the answer to your question until I looked it up.
It's funny, and your hint makes me chuckle as well, but I'll be very surprised (and impressed) if anyone on Languish knows it without looking it up.
I keep thinking about the guy who wrote an invective about some politician wherein he said he was going to rip the guy's dick off and shove it up his ass, but I think you must be looking for a concise phrase.
Hmmm.... "Pig Fucker"?
Was Lucullus the one who liked 12 year old girls?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 09, 2009, 09:31:56 PM
Was Lucullus the one who liked 12 year old girls?
Apparently.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 09, 2009, 09:31:56 PM
Was Lucullus the one who liked 12 year old girls?
The Romans were quite radical in their political campaigns - if we were to believe what we read, incest, arson and forgery of wills were the favorite pastimes of a fashionable young aristocrat - but yes, Lucullus was accused of that, amongst many other things...
Xerxes togatus?
Quote from: Maladict on October 10, 2009, 08:39:35 AM
Xerxes togatus?
Correct, Xerxes in a toga... which, if you have watched '300', would be a sight to kill for... at least for those so inclined.
What did the Venetians do that highly impressed Henry III of France when attending a state banquet in the city?
Survive the pressure cooker environment of their home world?
Quote from: Maladict on October 10, 2009, 12:35:02 PM
What did the Venetians do that highly impressed Henry III of France when attending a state banquet in the city?
They were polite enough to not try to assassinate him?
Washed their hands? Used napkins?
No.
Quote from: Agelastus on October 10, 2009, 01:12:31 PM
I admit to being very impressed.
I studied Lucullus' villas a couple of years ago, one of the articles actually had it as its title. :)
Quote from: The Brain on October 10, 2009, 12:36:11 PM
Survive the pressure cooker environment of their home world?
:lol:
Quote from: Maladict on October 10, 2009, 12:35:02 PM
What did the Venetians do that highly impressed Henry III of France when attending a state banquet in the city?
Avoided spitting on the floor?
Or ate with their courtesans, rather than their wives?
Quote from: Maladict on October 10, 2009, 12:35:02 PM
What did the Venetians do that highly impressed Henry III of France when attending a state banquet in the city?
Showed him one of the first examples of opera or ballet in history? Actually the first opera was, I think, created in the 1590s, so it's a bit late... but ballet could be a possibility.
No, all cold.
They were showing off their naval power.
Quote from: Agelastus on October 10, 2009, 01:12:31 PM
Quote from: Maladict on October 10, 2009, 08:39:35 AM
Xerxes togatus?
I admit to being very impressed.
Knew this one too - but then, I always liked Lucullus. "Tonight, PDH dines with PDH"
Quote from: PDH on October 10, 2009, 05:43:51 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on October 10, 2009, 01:12:31 PM
Quote from: Maladict on October 10, 2009, 08:39:35 AM
Xerxes togatus?
I admit to being very impressed.
Knew this one too - but then, I always liked Lucullus. "Tonight, PDH dines with PDH"
:D
I knew that one too...hadn't come across the Xerxes one though before this question.
Too hard, is it?
Quote from: Threviel on October 11, 2009, 05:35:17 AM
Build a ship at the Arsenal?
Yes, they built a ship in the time it took the king to finish his meal.
So, is the floor open or not? I refuse to let this thread die off. :mad:
Open, by the looks of it.
On the eve of the battle of Cannae, one of Hannibal's junior officers expressed amazement at the size of the Roman Army facing the Carthaginians. How did Hannibal reply, according to legend?
Quote from: Agelastus on October 13, 2009, 11:37:42 AM
Open, by the looks of it.
On the eve of the battle of Cannae, one of Hannibal's junior officers expressed amazement at the size of the Roman Army facing the Carthaginians. How did Hannibal reply, according to legend?
"They look tiny because they are far away, dumbass."
Quote from: Agelastus on October 13, 2009, 11:37:42 AM
Open, by the looks of it.
On the eve of the battle of Cannae, one of Hannibal's junior officers expressed amazement at the size of the Roman Army facing the Carthaginians. How did Hannibal reply, according to legend?
I was asking because I had a question to ask. :mad:
We shall use their numbers against them?
Quote from: Drakken on October 13, 2009, 11:40:32 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on October 13, 2009, 11:37:42 AM
Open, by the looks of it.
On the eve of the battle of Cannae, one of Hannibal's junior officers expressed amazement at the size of the Roman Army facing the Carthaginians. How did Hannibal reply, according to legend?
I was asking because I had a question to ask. :mad:
Then you should have just asked it... :P
OK, OK, I'll be good..
The answer to my question was (roughly) "And yet, even more amazing, is that among all those vast numbers there is not one man named Gisco." (Gisco being the junior officer in question.)
Ask away, Drakken...
Quote from: Agelastus on October 13, 2009, 11:54:22 AM
Ask away, Drakken...
Victoria Bernadotte!!
isn't that the answer?
Quote from: Viking on October 13, 2009, 11:55:51 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on October 13, 2009, 11:54:22 AM
Ask away, Drakken...
Victoria Bernadotte!!
isn't that the answer?
No. :P
Allright, I'll throw my question. It's probably an easy one. :P
During the siege of Arai Castle in 1516, while the castle was stormed by the Hôjô assiegants, one of the defending commanders, Miura Yoshimoto, died but became legendary nonetheless due to one surhuman feat.
What was that feat?
Quote from: Drakken on October 13, 2009, 12:10:14 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 13, 2009, 11:55:51 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on October 13, 2009, 11:54:22 AM
Ask away, Drakken...
Victoria Bernadotte!!
isn't that the answer?
No. :P
Allright, I'll throw my question. It's probably an easy one. :P
During the siege of Arai Castle in 1516, while the castle was stormed by the Hôjô assiegants, retainer Miura Yoshimoto died, but he entered legend nonetheless for one surhuman feat.
What was that feat?
He decapitated himself.
Quote from: The Brain on October 13, 2009, 12:10:59 PM
Quote from: Drakken on October 13, 2009, 12:10:14 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 13, 2009, 11:55:51 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on October 13, 2009, 11:54:22 AM
Ask away, Drakken...
Victoria Bernadotte!!
isn't that the answer?
No. :P
Allright, I'll throw my question. It's probably an easy one. :P
During the siege of Arai Castle in 1516, while the castle was stormed by the Hôjô assiegants, retainer Miura Yoshimoto died, but he entered legend nonetheless for one surhuman feat.
What was that feat?
He decapitated himself.
Bingo. You have the floor.
My mind is blank. Open floor.
Who was the greatest pharaoh and conqueror among the Egyptian rulers, according to Diodorus Siculus?
Edit: I don't like questions that ask for names, but this one is easy.
Quote from: Alexandru H. on October 13, 2009, 02:38:16 PM
Who was the greatest pharaoh and conqueror among the Egyptian rulers, according to Diodorus Siculus?
Edit: I don't like questions that ask for names, but this one is easy.
Tutmosis II?
No.
First hint: is not an obscure guy.
Second hint (for the history-impaired): is not Tutankamon. :P
Ramses II The Great
Tutmosis Jones.
No.
He is mentioned as conquering all lands near the Pontus Euxinus, including Thrace, Syria, Crimeea...
I read this fairly recently but I'll be damned if I remember which guy it was.
Quote from: The Brain on October 13, 2009, 02:47:33 PM
I read this fairly recently but I'll be damned if I remember which guy it was.
If it helps you, Diodorus copied everything about the guy from Herodotus who had heard the story from an Egyptian priest and embelished it in the same way as the Semiramis story...
Not really, but thanks.
Quote from: Alexandru H. on October 13, 2009, 02:46:09 PM
No.
He is mentioned as conquering all lands near the Pontus Euxinus, including Thrace, Syria, Crimeea...
Pharoah Alexandros I conquered all that shit and more. OK, not Crimea.
Quote from: Viking on October 13, 2009, 02:52:52 PM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on October 13, 2009, 02:46:09 PM
No.
He is mentioned as conquering all lands near the Pontus Euxinus, including Thrace, Syria, Crimeea...
Pharoah Alexandros I conquered all that shit and more. OK, not Crimea.
The interesting thing is that Diodorus builds this pharaoh as some sort of Alexander wannabe. His father placed the sons of his noblemen near his own son during childhood, so they would form a loyalist corps of friends and warriors. He conquers this huge area and leaves behind colonists. He divides Egypt into nomes for the first time...
Oh, and even introduces the worship of Serapis for both Upper and Lower Egypt, an attempt similar to that of Alexander, that tried to religiously unite both regions through Amun...
Menes or Narmer?
Seti?
No to all of them.
Come on, he is well-known...
Akhenaten?
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 02:58:46 PM
Akhenaten?
In real history he was a real conqueror...
Quote from: Alexandru H. on October 13, 2009, 02:56:05 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 13, 2009, 02:52:52 PM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on October 13, 2009, 02:46:09 PM
No.
He is mentioned as conquering all lands near the Pontus Euxinus, including Thrace, Syria, Crimeea...
Pharoah Alexandros I conquered all that shit and more. OK, not Crimea.
The interesting thing is that Diodorus builds this pharaoh as some sort of Alexander wannabe. His father placed the sons of his noblemen near his own son during childhood, so they would form a loyalist corps of friends and warriors. He conquers this huge area and leaves behind colonists. He divides Egypt into nomes for the first time...
He's Ptolemaic then, since traditional Egyptian religion needs the Egyptian to be buried in Egypt. And not Ptolemy I since he was one of Alexander's Generals.
Quote from: Viking on October 13, 2009, 03:01:14 PM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on October 13, 2009, 02:56:05 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 13, 2009, 02:52:52 PM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on October 13, 2009, 02:46:09 PM
No.
He is mentioned as conquering all lands near the Pontus Euxinus, including Thrace, Syria, Crimeea...
Pharoah Alexandros I conquered all that shit and more. OK, not Crimea.
The interesting thing is that Diodorus builds this pharaoh as some sort of Alexander wannabe. His father placed the sons of his noblemen near his own son during childhood, so they would form a loyalist corps of friends and warriors. He conquers this huge area and leaves behind colonists. He divides Egypt into nomes for the first time...
He's Ptolemaic then, since traditional Egyptian religion needs the Egyptian to be buried in Egypt. And not Ptolemy I since he was one of Alexander's Generals.
He is not Ptolemaic, since he is mentioned first by Herodotus :lol:
thutmosis III
Amenhotep III
Seti
necho II
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 13, 2009, 03:02:19 PM
thutmosis III
Amenhotep III
Seti
necho II
You're getting close with one of them... not quite there, but very, very warm :)
Thutmosis I?
Amenhotep II?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 13, 2009, 03:06:02 PM
Thutmosis I?
Amenhotep II?
Warm with one of them... but come on? Great conqueror... I would easily place him in my top-5 Ancient Egypt rulers...
Amenhotep I is the only one left I think. :D
Don't know jack about him though.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 13, 2009, 03:11:29 PM
Amenhotep I is the only one left I think. :D
Don't know jack about him though.
WARM!!!
Btw, the fact that the ancient authors knew shit about Tuthmosis III or Ramses II was because only the older pharaohs had been deified and their acts taught in the priestly schools. The newer ones were basically forgotten until the 19th century...
Another hint: he was part of the greatest Egyptian dynasty ever, one in which architecture, literature and good taste achieved an extraordinary balance. Plus it was probably the most stable and reasonable line of kings that ever walked this Earth.
Must be the founder of the dynasty. But I can't recall the name.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 13, 2009, 03:16:29 PM
Must be the founder of the dynasty. But I can't recall the name.
The founder was Amenhotep I. :)
Ok, the answer is Sesostris III, the conqueror of Nubia and father of an equally-gifted pharaoh, as Amenhotep III.
The Twelfth Dynasty is probably one of the happiest periods in human civilization for a nation.
Still I don't think he conquered Thrace...
Hmm . . . pretty sure Middle Kingdom Egypt never got anywhere remotely near the Crimea. even the Levant is unlikely except possibly in a razzia.
It's not the point.
Herodot found out about Sesotris from the priest since Sesostris was basically a God by that time. He had heard about his great conquests but decided to place them even further in the same way he had arranged the Ninus-Semiramis story: every old civilization needed a Cyrus-like figure that united Asia. It was his signature: placing "Asia" as a beast in order to play the persian wars like a Gigantomachia-type of conflict.
Bocchoris got a similar treatment. He was a short-lived unimportant pharaoh that got the reputation of being the greatest law-giver of Egypt. Only in this case it wasn't the religious influence, but the greek trading tradition, that probably had dealt once with this guy...
Try asking a question about somebody other than the only mythical pharoah to go to romania.
Quote from: Viking on October 13, 2009, 03:40:18 PM
Try asking a question about somebody other than the only mythical pharoah to go to romania.
Wasn't the purpose.
Sesostris III is actually one of the most famous pharaohs. Between the Pyramide Triade and Tutmosis III is certainly the most-well known. Now, a real obscure question would have been about the first female pharaoh or the creator of the Labirinth... :P
Quote from: Alexandru H. on October 13, 2009, 03:43:01 PM
Wasn't the purpose.
Sesostris III is actually one of the most famous pharaohs. Between the Pyramide Triade and Tutmosis III is certainly the most-well known. Now, a real obscure question would have been about the first female pharaoh or the creator of the Labirinth... :P
Merneith, David Bowie Those are easy.
Quote from: Alexandru H. on October 13, 2009, 03:43:01 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 13, 2009, 03:40:18 PM
Try asking a question about somebody other than the only mythical pharoah to go to romania.
Wasn't the purpose.
Sesostris III is actually one of the most famous pharaohs. Between the Pyramide Triade and Tutmosis III is certainly the most-well known. Now, a real obscure question would have been about the first female pharaoh or the creator of the Labirinth... :P
Regent Schmegent. Hatshepshut is the first definitive female Pharoah. Daedalus.
Not really.
The first female pharaoh is Sobekneferu, the last representative of the 12th dinasty even if Greeks have invented an earlier one, called Nitocris (that killed all nobles responsible for the death of her brother).
The creator of the Labirinth is Amenhotep III, the son of Sesostris III and the father of Sobekneferu. The 12th dynasty has produced some great individuals... :)
Amenhotep III was a New Kingdom pharoah, hence not of the 12th dynasty.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 13, 2009, 05:06:25 PM
Amenhotep III was a New Kingdom pharoah, hence not of the 12th dynasty.
Yeah, my bad. I thought you said Amenamhat but went with the Amenhotep version from then on...
Quote from: Savonarola on October 13, 2009, 03:45:32 PM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on October 13, 2009, 03:43:01 PM
Wasn't the purpose.
Sesostris III is actually one of the most famous pharaohs. Between the Pyramide Triade and Tutmosis III is certainly the most-well known. Now, a real obscure question would have been about the first female pharaoh or the creator of the Labirinth... :P
Merneith, David Bowie Those are easy.
:lol:
Did that Pharoah who conquered Romania see mystical Ankhs on his wall?
Quote from: PDH on October 13, 2009, 06:18:46 PM
Did that Pharoah who conquered Romania see mystical Ankhs on his wall?
It isn't about Romania :mad:... Actually I never heard a local historian being interested in this. Oh, and fuck Romania! I'm not a fucking fanboy of a stupid state...
Quote from: Alexandru H. on October 13, 2009, 06:38:28 PM
Quote from: PDH on October 13, 2009, 06:18:46 PM
Did that Pharoah who conquered Romania see mystical Ankhs on his wall?
It isn't about Romania :mad:... Actually I never heard a local historian being interested in this. Oh, and fuck Romania! I'm not a fucking fanboy of a stupid state...
Are you claiming to be cured of Balkantardism then?
Quote from: Viking on October 13, 2009, 06:46:19 PM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on October 13, 2009, 06:38:28 PM
Quote from: PDH on October 13, 2009, 06:18:46 PM
Did that Pharoah who conquered Romania see mystical Ankhs on his wall?
It isn't about Romania :mad:... Actually I never heard a local historian being interested in this. Oh, and fuck Romania! I'm not a fucking fanboy of a stupid state...
Are you claiming to be cured of Balkantardism then?
Depends. If Balkantardism means nationalism aimed at growing the size of a state led by morons, it was not my disease. However, if Balkantardism means the attempt to demolish the current states and revert to a medieval-type community, then I'm all for it.
Oh yeah, Sesostris III, how could I have forgotten that guy!? Everyone knows who he is. :blink:
CALIGA RULE: Romanians are not allowed to ask questions without getting prior approval from Syt or Zanza.
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 07:40:29 PM
Oh yeah, Sesostris III, how could I have forgotten that guy!? Everyone knows who he is. :blink:
CALIGA RULE: Romanians are not allowed to ask questions without getting prior approval from Syt or Zanza.
1. I'm more German/Jewish than Romanian, but hey, whatever turns your balls! :rolleyes:
2. Sesostris III is one of the most famous pharaohs ever. Can't help it if Tutankamon is the default choice for most people when it comes to naming rulers of Ancient Egypt.
If nobody volunteers, here's another question:
In what year was Jesus born, according to Dionysius Exiguus? 1 BC or 1 AD?
Quote from: Alexandru H. on October 14, 2009, 08:07:48 AM
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 07:40:29 PM
Oh yeah, Sesostris III, how could I have forgotten that guy!? Everyone knows who he is. :blink:
CALIGA RULE: Romanians are not allowed to ask questions without getting prior approval from Syt or Zanza.
1. I'm more German/Jewish than Romanian, but hey, whatever turns your balls! :rolleyes:
2. Sesostris III is one of the most famous pharaohs ever. Can't help it if Tutankamon is the default choice for most people when it comes to naming rulers of Ancient Egypt.
If nobody volunteers, here's another question:
In what year was Jesus born, according to Dionysius Exiguus? 1 BC or 1 AD?
Tautology suggests 1AD
Quote from: Viking on October 14, 2009, 08:22:04 AM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on October 14, 2009, 08:07:48 AM
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 07:40:29 PM
Oh yeah, Sesostris III, how could I have forgotten that guy!? Everyone knows who he is. :blink:
CALIGA RULE: Romanians are not allowed to ask questions without getting prior approval from Syt or Zanza.
1. I'm more German/Jewish than Romanian, but hey, whatever turns your balls! :rolleyes:
2. Sesostris III is one of the most famous pharaohs ever. Can't help it if Tutankamon is the default choice for most people when it comes to naming rulers of Ancient Egypt.
If nobody volunteers, here's another question:
In what year was Jesus born, according to Dionysius Exiguus? 1 BC or 1 AD?
Tautology suggests 1AD
I'll pick the other one so we'll have all our bases covered.
Trick question. He didn't specifically mention the correct year. But judging by his earlier calculations, it's generally approved that he placed Jesus' birth in 1 BC (which is, of course, a funny paradox).
Rozgovory is up.
I'm glad it's approved. I had a good one, just give me a moment to remember it.
Damn those Volkdeutsche Judische Rumanians and their trick questions.
Oh yeah, it goes well with my last one.
Name the seven liberal arts.
Womyn's Studies
Afro-American Studies
Latin American Studies
Marxist Economics
Art Appreciation
Gender Studies
Philosophy
You forgot: Obamanomics. :)
rhetoric
logic
history
philosophy
something
something
something
Quote from: Caliga on October 14, 2009, 12:23:44 PM
You forgot: Obamanomics. :)
That is just a branch of the bipartisan science of voodoo economics, the art of conjuring money from thin air.
Sesostris III wasn't obscure at all. Wtf people.
Grammar
Rhetoric
Logic
Music
Astronomy
Mathematics
Divination
Edit: I am sure of Grammar, Rhetoric and Logic but the remaining 4 I'm not sure about.
Quote from: Viking on October 14, 2009, 01:05:19 PM
Grammar
Rhetoric
Logic
Music
Astronomy
Mathematics
Divination
Edit: I am sure of Grammar, Rhetoric and Logic but the remaining 4 I'm not sure about.
Theology not divination. :)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 14, 2009, 02:01:03 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 14, 2009, 01:05:19 PM
Grammar
Rhetoric
Logic
Music
Astronomy
Mathematics
Divination
Edit: I am sure of Grammar, Rhetoric and Logic but the remaining 4 I'm not sure about.
Theology not divination. :)
Same shit different bucket.
Still wrong though.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 14, 2009, 11:38:30 PM
Still wrong though.
Well, theology has no place in that list since the 7 liberal arts were a product of pagan, not Christian writers.
Grammar
Rhetoric
Logic
Music
Astronomy
Mathematics
Now, this looks right but I can't remember for the love of God the 7th...
Mathematics is not one of them. Though there are two that are considered in the field of mathematics.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 15, 2009, 02:55:00 AM
Mathematics is not one of them. Though there are two that are considered in the field of mathematics.
Aritmetics (sp?) and geometry?
Yeah, how could I forget the Greek obsession for geometry?
Quote from: Alexandru H. on October 15, 2009, 03:28:49 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 15, 2009, 02:55:00 AM
Mathematics is not one of them. Though there are two that are considered in the field of mathematics.
Aritmetics (sp?) and geometry?
Yeah, how could I forget the Greek obsession for geometry?
You got it.
Viking has the floor...
Quote from: Alexandru H. on October 15, 2009, 05:12:57 AM
Viking has the floor...
What me? Why answer the question if you are unwilling to ask one?
Anyway.
The question is.
"What was Johnson's nickname for Boswell?"
You got 5 out of 7. I got the last two with a big hint. <_<
bump
Because there has only been one famous Johnson in the entire history of man, right?
Way to go, Cal.
Heckuva job, Callie? :huh:
Quote from: Habbaku on October 16, 2009, 02:27:28 PM
Because there has only been one famous Johnson in the entire history of man, right?
Way to go, Cal.
There are many Johnsons, but only one Johnson. Just like there are many Alexanders, but only one Alexander.
And if you had any clue what the answer was you'd know which Johnson.
There's at least two, and they make shampoo.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Funemploymentality.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F01%2Fjohnson_johnson_baby_shampoo.jpg&hash=0c40606b287d3383f4c6790598dda981ff6195fa)
so nobody knows the answer?
Most of us don't even know the question.
Quote from: Maximus on October 16, 2009, 02:56:06 PM
Most of us don't even know the question.
"What was Johnson's nickname for Boswell?"
Quote from: Maximus on October 16, 2009, 02:56:06 PM
Most of us don't even know the question.
Somehow I'm involved in this, too, but I have no idea how. :huh:
Quote from: Caliga on October 16, 2009, 03:11:24 PM
Quote from: Maximus on October 16, 2009, 02:56:06 PM
Most of us don't even know the question.
Somehow I'm involved in this, too, but I have no idea how. :huh:
Me neither.
Bozy.
Quote from: Caliga on October 16, 2009, 02:31:45 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on October 16, 2009, 02:27:28 PMWay to go, Cal.
:blink:
Asking vague questions in this thread originated with you. It's nice to see Viking keep the spirit alive, but it makes for dull trivia.
I really don't know what the question is about though. Is it President Andrew Johnson, LBJ, Ben Johnson?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 16, 2009, 03:30:49 PM
I really don't know what the question is about though. Is it President Andrew Johnson, LBJ, Ben Johnson?
Samuel Johnson :bowler:
Quote from: Viking on October 16, 2009, 03:33:22 PM
Close enough. Bozzy.
What a thoroughly enlightening question and answer session. I've learned so very much.
Quote from: Habbaku on October 16, 2009, 03:33:56 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 16, 2009, 03:33:22 PM
Close enough. Bozzy.
What a thoroughly enlightening question and answer session. I've learned so very much.
The quality of the questions goes up and down.
Okay, not what did we answer?
Quote from: Habbaku on October 16, 2009, 03:30:23 PM
Asking vague questions in this thread originated with you.
:lol: Suuuure it did. btw someone actually got the vague question you're referencing, so it couldn't have been *that* vague. I should say in my defense that I try to intentionally ask questions I think people will guess with relative ease, but not be so easy as to be a joke. Obviously you can't always get it correct, since it's a judgment call as to when a question crosses the line from 'relatively obscure' to 'too obscure to be guessed'.
Quote from: Viking on October 16, 2009, 03:33:22 PM
Close enough. Bozzy.
In 1856, 18 year old chemist William Henry Perkins was experimenting with coal tar in order to produce synthetic quinine. What he discovered instead was the first artificial dye. What color ws the dye?
blue?
White.
Black is too obvious
Red
Quote from: Savonarola on October 16, 2009, 03:49:46 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 16, 2009, 03:33:22 PM
Close enough. Bozzy.
In 1856, 18 year old chemist William Henry Perkins was experimenting with coal tar in order to produce synthetic quinine. What he discovered instead was the first artificial dye. What color ws the dye?
Purple?
Quote from: ulmont on October 16, 2009, 03:57:17 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on October 16, 2009, 03:49:46 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 16, 2009, 03:33:22 PM
Close enough. Bozzy.
In 1856, 18 year old chemist William Henry Perkins was experimenting with coal tar in order to produce synthetic quinine. What he discovered instead was the first artificial dye. What color ws the dye?
Purple?
Yes; the French called the purplish dye "Mauve" and it became so popular in fashion the subsequent decade was called by some "The Mauve Decade." Perkins went on to make the first artificial dye factory and retired from that at age 35 in order to return to chemical research.
(while potentially apocryphal) "Who was the first to produce a standard of quality for Russian vodka, and what is he better known for?"
Yermak the cossack.
Ivan III?
Nyet re Ivan and cossack.
Pavlov the dog teaser.
The genetecist dude. Spacing on the name. Grigor something. Memel? Mendalov? Markov? Minimal? Manimal?
I would like to change my vote to Mendel.
Here's a super genius Mensa Mentat McArthur Foundation suggestion for improving the thread: if you ask a question then have to split before someone gets it, post the answer in white font.
I always screw that up.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 16, 2009, 07:28:02 PM
Here's a super genius Mensa Mentat McArthur Foundation suggestion for improving the thread: if you ask a question then have to split before someone gets it, post the answer in white font.
Having checked Wikipedia, it appears that you are on the right lines in suggesting a Russian scientist with a name beginning with "Mend", but you are thinking of the wrong one.
Then it must be Mendeleev.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 16, 2009, 07:21:32 PM
I would like to change my vote to Mendel.
Mendel was a Czech/German thought.
Yes, Mendeleev the periodic table guy, although others giving hints should be verboten.
King Arthur was believed to have been killed in this sixth century battle?
Quote from: Sahib on October 16, 2009, 09:33:49 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 16, 2009, 07:21:32 PM
I would like to change my vote to Mendel.
Mendel was a Czech/German thought.
Gregor mendel was out proving why Science and Religion shouldn't mix.
Quote from: ulmont on October 16, 2009, 09:34:51 PM
Yes, Mendeleev the periodic table guy, although others giving hints should be verboten.
Only because they were moaning that you had logged off.
[Well, one of them was...]
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 16, 2009, 09:52:05 PM
King Arthur was believed to have been killed in this sixth century battle?
Camlann?
Mount Baden?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 16, 2009, 09:52:05 PM
King Arthur was believed to have been killed in this sixth century battle?
I believe the quote for the year 537 in Gildas to be roughly "the field of Camlann, where Arthur and Medraut fell".
So presumably Caliga is correct.
Quote from: Agelastus on October 17, 2009, 06:27:01 PM
I believe the quote for the year 537 in Gildas to be roughly "the field of Camlann, where Arthur and Medraut fell".
So presumably Caliga is correct.
Yep, I am. -_-
Marco Polo described what island as being populated by Christians ruled over by an archbishop, who was himself subject to an archbishop living in Baghdad?
Quote from: Caliga on October 17, 2009, 07:26:16 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on October 17, 2009, 06:27:01 PM
I believe the quote for the year 537 in Gildas to be roughly "the field of Camlann, where Arthur and Medraut fell".
So presumably Caliga is correct.
Yep, I am. -_-
Marco Polo described what island as being populated by Christians ruled over by an archbishop, who was himself subject to an archbishop living in Baghdad?
Ceylon?
Nope.
It would only really make sense if the island was relatively easily accessible from the Persian Gulf...but this is Marco Polo, after all, and I don't recall the route of his travels going far enough south to encompass the Indian Ocean...
Serious answer, Bahrain?
Silly answer, Japan?
Japan's not an island, really, but a set of them. That would be my wild guess, as well, though.
My own, serious guess is Cyprus.
The seychelles.
Been a while, probably Madagascar.
That, or Fire.
Oops. I meant Socotra. I always get those confused.
Actually, it could be Formosa/Taiwan. It wasn't directly ruled by China at the time of Marco Polo, I think, and is a better choice for Marco Polo to be misinformed on than Japan. As Habbaku rightly pointed out, it is an archipelago, and the Chinese court would surely have known this at the time.
No to all. Raz's guess is the closest so far, in terms of location (I think).
edit: Actually sorry, didn't see his second post. Socotra is correct.
Quote from: Caliga on October 17, 2009, 07:52:40 PM
No to all. Raz's guess is the closest so far, in terms of location (I think).
edit: Actually sorry, didn't see his second post. Socotra is correct.
I don't want to think of a question. Floors open.
OK easy one: What was the nick-name of Austrian Christian Social Party leader Dolfuss and why?
This is the fascist leader who seized power and defeated the social democrats in a brief civil war.
Doofus. Because it sounds like his real name.
Doll Face. Because he was a strikingly pretty man.
Quote from: miglia on October 17, 2009, 08:08:14 PM
OK easy one: What was the nick-name of Austrian Christian Social Party leader Dolfuss and why?
I ... I don't know. Name's dollfuß, btw.
I looked it up and it's rather cute.
OK maybe not as easy as I thought.
Millimetternich, because he was really short (~150-155 cm)
Floor's open.
OK, a really dirty question: although the matter is - understandably - mentioned but rarely, soldiers quartered in barracks during the XVIII and XIX often had to pee in big tanks were urine was stored for weeks or even months. And there was a very good reason for that stinking obligation...
The urine was collected for further use in the gunpowder production. Saltpeter?
The urine was used in leathermaking?
But I think Syt has it.
So they could test for performance enhancing drugs.
Quote from: Syt on October 19, 2009, 03:36:09 AM
The urine was collected for further use in the gunpowder production. Saltpeter?
Bingo. Black gunpowder was roughly 3/4 saltpeter and one of the best sources - if no the best - was human urine. Even after guano replaced it in many applications, soldiers still had to endure this ordeal in order to save some money for the state. Pecunia non olet, they say...
Ok I will put the question forth before Syt is able to post. It's probably an easy one but I thought it's a fun thing.
Each year Romans would crucify several animals of a single species, while having animals of another species watch it as honored guests. What species were these, respectively, and what was the origin of this strange custom?
Wolves. Teat, founders, suckled at.
I guess.
I just remembered (even if I can't say where or when I read about this, perhaps Indro Montanelli, or some M. Didius Falco novel).
IIRC the Romans crucified dogs, and the honored guests were geese. They were commemorating the famous occasion in which Gauls tried to take the Capitolium by night climbing the hill and the dogs didn't bark while Juno's sacred geese, good, solid patriotic birds, made such a noise that the Romans woke up in time to repeal the invaders.
The Spaniard got it right.
Quote from: Alatriste on October 19, 2009, 06:59:59 AM
IIRC the Romans crucified dogs
:mad: Thank Hod my ancestors dismantled that Evil Empire.
Quote from: Caliga on October 19, 2009, 03:22:29 PM
Quote from: Alatriste on October 19, 2009, 06:59:59 AM
IIRC the Romans crucified dogs
:mad: Thank Hod my ancestors dismantled that Evil Empire.
They were tried and found guilty of treason. Instead of wiping them out completely, the SPQR in their clemency decided to spare them and instead crucify twelve of their descendants each year. As a warning to all the other traitorous dogs.
Is Cal up next year? pls pls pls
Open floor, ladies and gentlemen.
Quote from: Alatriste on October 19, 2009, 04:32:43 PM
Open floor, ladies and gentlemen.
I had a good one but I forgot. :Embarrass:
Quote from: Caliga on October 19, 2009, 03:22:29 PM
Quote from: Alatriste on October 19, 2009, 06:59:59 AM
IIRC the Romans crucified dogs
:mad: Thank Hod my ancestors dismantled that Evil Empire.
They were never fully dismantled - they all got tryout offers from the Philadelphia Eagles.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 19, 2009, 05:27:37 PM
They were never fully dismantled - they all got tryout offers from the Philadelphia Eagles.
Might as well be dismantled then... not like they're ever gonna win a Super Bowl in that case. :(
Oh I thought of it. At least I hope it's right. Who was the last American executed for treason against the British crown.
Hmmm. Lord Haw Haw?
Damn.
amirite? That was a guess. :huh:
Quote from: Caliga on October 19, 2009, 06:36:33 PM
amirite? That was a guess. :huh:
Apparently so.
I did not know William Joyce was born in the USA until I just checked. As I've said before, you really do learn something new every day. That's why I love this thread...
QuoteJoyce was captured by British forces in northern Germany just as the war ended, tried, and eventually hanged for treason on 3 January 1946. Joyce's defence team, appointed to him by the court, argued that, as an American citizen and naturalised German, Joyce could not have been convicted of treason against the British Crown. However, the prosecution successfully argued on the basis of a technicality that having lied about his nationality to obtain a British passport and to vote, Joyce owed allegiance to the King.
Better wait for Raz to confirm it, of course.
You are right as far as I know. I thought it was a cool question though. A man executed for treason by a country he was not even a citizen for. I don't think anyone in the US cared about this miscarriage of justice. It does say a lot about the special relationship between the US and UK that the US didn't try to save it's own citizen from British executioners.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 19, 2009, 07:06:23 PM
You are right as far as I know. I thought it was a cool question though. A man executed for treason by a country he was not even a citizen for. I don't think anyone in the US cared about this miscarriage of justice. It does say a lot about the special relationship between the US and UK that the US didn't try to save it's own citizen from British executioners.
It says more about our attitude toward Nazi mouthpieces.
The last territorial claim by the United Kingdom (to date) was made in 1955. What was that claim?
Suez canal zone?
EDIT: Or Antarctica.
I never got to ask my question. Fuck all y'all!
Quote from: Syt on October 20, 2009, 12:24:49 AM
I never got to ask my question. Fuck all y'all!
:console:
Rockall in the North Atlantic?
I remember as a kid seeing the British hoist a man down there to restake the claims against the evil Norwegian Empire to ensure that they would keep the rights to the "Island" and the seabed below
V
Quote from: Valdemar on October 20, 2009, 06:04:50 AM
Rockall in the North Atlantic?
I remember as a kid seeing the British hoist a man down there to restake the claims against the evil Norwegian Empire to ensure that they would keep the rights to the "Island" and the seabed below
V
on a related topic
There is a little rock (about 10 sq meters) in the ocean almost 200 nautical miles north of iceland that is called Kópasker that was weathering away, so the Icelandic government actually sent out an expedition with concrete to rebuild the little rock to keep the extra 200 nautical miles of our economic zone.
Quote from: Viking on October 20, 2009, 06:09:00 AM
Quote from: Valdemar on October 20, 2009, 06:04:50 AM
Rockall in the North Atlantic?
I remember as a kid seeing the British hoist a man down there to restake the claims against the evil Norwegian Empire to ensure that they would keep the rights to the "Island" and the seabed below
V
on a related topic
There is a little rock (about 10 sq meters) in the ocean almost 200 nautical miles north of iceland that is called Kópasker that was weathering away, so the Icelandic government actually sent out an expedition with concrete to rebuild the little rock to keep the extra 200 nautical miles of our economic zone.
And soon it will all belong to the European Empire. :(
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv66%2FEricDerKonig%2Ficelandeu.jpg&hash=2928bd83fbb63a65fd91ecd5e6c323837de5ccdb)
Love that pic. :D
Quote from: Valdemar on October 20, 2009, 06:04:50 AM
Rockall in the North Atlantic?
I remember as a kid seeing the British hoist a man down there to restake the claims against the evil Norwegian Empire to ensure that they would keep the rights to the "Island" and the seabed below
You are correct sir. But I think the reason for the annexation was to claim an EEZ around it with Iceland in mind, not Norway. I think the two countries even had a few naval confrontations over Rockall and the Rockall Bank (obviously no shots were fired. -_- )
Quote from: Caliga on October 20, 2009, 07:05:35 AM
Quote from: Valdemar on October 20, 2009, 06:04:50 AM
Rockall in the North Atlantic?
I remember as a kid seeing the British hoist a man down there to restake the claims against the evil Norwegian Empire to ensure that they would keep the rights to the "Island" and the seabed below
You are correct sir. But I think the reason for the annexation was to claim an EEZ around it with Iceland in mind, not Norway. I think the two countries even had a few naval confrontations over Rockall and the Rockall Bank (obviously no shots were fired. -_- )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars
shots were fired.. but then again shotguns don't really work against destroyers
Quote from: Caliga on October 20, 2009, 07:05:35 AM
Quote from: Valdemar on October 20, 2009, 06:04:50 AM
Rockall in the North Atlantic?
I remember as a kid seeing the British hoist a man down there to restake the claims against the evil Norwegian Empire to ensure that they would keep the rights to the "Island" and the seabed below
You are correct sir. But I think the reason for the annexation was to claim an EEZ around it with Iceland in mind, not Norway. I think the two countries even had a few naval confrontations over Rockall and the Rockall Bank (obviously no shots were fired. -_- )
OK :)
Well I can't think of one right now, so if Syt beats me to it he can have his go
V
Interesting... did not know that. But by shots I was more referring to salvos from battleships and the like (much to Neil's disappointment). ^_^
Right, I thought of one.
The REAL Don Juan d'Austria is buried in Spain in a Sarcophagues depicting him in full size.
By tradition the statue has a specific feature that represents a part of his court role, a part often used in his myth. What is that feature and what is it supposedly representing?
V
Penis, impregnating the queen.
Quote from: Caliga on October 20, 2009, 07:05:35 AM
Quote from: Valdemar on October 20, 2009, 06:04:50 AM
Rockall in the North Atlantic?
I remember as a kid seeing the British hoist a man down there to restake the claims against the evil Norwegian Empire to ensure that they would keep the rights to the "Island" and the seabed below
You are correct sir. But I think the reason for the annexation was to claim an EEZ around it with Iceland in mind, not Norway. I think the two countries even had a few naval confrontations over Rockall and the Rockall Bank (obviously no shots were fired. -_- )
EEZs didn't exist in the 50s. They started being touted around in the 70s and weren't regulated internationally until 1982.
Nope :)
V
Quote from: Caliga on October 20, 2009, 07:10:12 AM
Interesting... did not know that. But by shots I was more referring to salvos from battleships and the like (much to Neil's disappointment). ^_^
The Icies were pretty badass though, ramming the Brisith fishing ships and dragging hooks to cut the rope linking them to their nets.
:cool: Did they: fly Raven banners!
So whats the customary time period before I would have to give the answer?
V
Quote from: Valdemar on October 21, 2009, 03:04:39 AM
So whats the customary time period before I would have to give the answer?
V
24 hrs
Well? Inquiring minds want to know!
Sorry forgot it yesterday :)
Rings. His statue on the tomb has 11 fingerrings, supposedly one for each of his mistresses while at court (I assume not one time affairs :p)
Floor open :)
V
Who was the only person to decline the Nobel Peace Prize? Pretty easy I figure.
Answer:
Le Duc Tho. I think that's his name. The North Vietnamese dude who shared with Kissinger.
Le Duc Tho. Heard that on Jeopardy recently.
Le Duc Tho? I thought it was Jean Paul Sartre...
His was probably for literature. :unsure:
As Yi's hidden text says I got it and I don't have a question, open floor.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 22, 2009, 07:17:47 AM
Le Duc Tho. Heard that on Jeopardy recently.
I got it through the white text on Yi's post.
Bully for you.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 22, 2009, 08:55:19 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 22, 2009, 07:17:47 AM
Le Duc Tho. Heard that on Jeopardy recently.
I got it through the white text on Yi's post.
The white text is annoying; if I browse from my phone, the text is not hidden.
Quote from: ulmont on October 22, 2009, 09:32:21 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 22, 2009, 08:55:19 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 22, 2009, 07:17:47 AM
Le Duc Tho. Heard that on Jeopardy recently.
I got it through the white text on Yi's post.
The white text is annoying; if I browse from my phone, the text is not hidden.
It's not hidden for me on my PC.
I can read it against the blue background without high-lighting it
White text is verboten in the quiz thread.
Yea that's a little too easy to see.
How hard is it to not read the part that says answer? :rolleyes:
But OK, won't do it any more.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 22, 2009, 01:19:04 PM
How hard is it to not read the part that says answer? :rolleyes:
But OK, won't do it any more.
Is that the next question? That doesn't have much to do with history.
Who was the last military leader to conquer a country with an all-cavalry army, and when?
That was probably whoever was playing Europa Universalis last.
Quote from: miglia on October 22, 2009, 10:25:03 PM
Who was the last military leader to conquer a country with an all-cavalry army, and when?
Dino or regular?
The Baron Ungern von Sternberg, Mongolia, during the Russian Civil War?
Quote from: Alatriste on October 23, 2009, 12:17:34 AM
The Baron Ungern von Sternberg, Mongolia, during the Russian Civil War?
Correct. :thumbsup:
Who may or may not, by the way, have believed that he was a reincarnation of Genghis Khan.
You're up.
There's also a nice statue of the Mongolian national hero Sükhbaatar, considered second only to Genghis Khan, in the central Sükhbaatar square in Ulan Bataar, celebrating Sükhbaatars victory over Ungern-Sternberg.
OK, another bit of Napoleonic trivia, interesting I hope
When Murat became King of Naples one of his first concerns was improving the army in number and quality, since Joseph had entirely neglected it. One of his plans was issuing eagles to the regiments, after the French model, and he asked Napoleon his permission.
Napoleon absolutely hated the idea. The eagle was his personal emblem, and on top of that the reputation of the Neapolitans was abysmal; that Joseph had resorted to pressing thousands of convicts to get the number of men his brother demanded didn't help, but even before the French conquest the army of the Neapolitan Bourbons was one of the worst in Europe, if not the worst; they would quickly lose their eagles, that was a given. However, he didn't want to insult Murat telling him that... What alternative did the Emperor find?
He said they could have some other nice symbol instead?
They should use a trophy taken from the enemy in place of an eagle.
Quote from: miglia on October 23, 2009, 12:46:28 AM
There's also a nice statue of the Mongolian national hero Sükhbaatar, considered second only to Genghis Khan, in the central Sükhbaatar square in Ulan Bataar, celebrating Sükhbaatars victory over Ungern-Sternberg.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotos-h.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ak-snc1%2Fhs274.snc1%2F10135_664643546997_15602179_38302595_5669116_n.jpg&hash=fc3893aceecac8ebafc320432364a3d3a917e9fd)
:yes:
It's a cool place.
On the question: another bird, like a hawk or falcon?
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 23, 2009, 08:18:07 AM
:yes:
It's a cool place.
Yeah, definitely :) I was in Mongolia a couple of years ago, but only for a litte less than a week, sadly. One the coolest places I've been to.
Quote from: miglia on October 23, 2009, 07:28:18 AM
He said they could have some other nice symbol instead?
Yes... a rampant horse. What else coul he have chosen, Murat being Murat? (I considered asking which emblem did he choose, but that was too easy)
Incidentally, Murat did indeed build a bigger and better disciplined army, but as its campaigns in 1814 and 1815 and the defeat of Tolentino proved, the quality of the Neapolitan army still left much to be desired at the end of the Napoleonic Wars.
I bet they were well tailored at least.
Filipino polymath José Rizal became a martyr of the Philippine revolution in 1896 when he was executed by the Spanish. At the site of his execution there is today a park bearing his name. In the park you can also find statues of other Filipino heroes. One of these is Lapu-Lapu. What did Lapu-Lapu do to earn this inclusion?
Got executed by the Japanese?
Nope
The first king to convert to Christianity with his entire people.
Nope
Kill the filthy Magellan.
Correct. Lapu Lapu killed Magellan, and for this he is considered the first Filipino hero. The 40 ft statue of him in Rizal park was donated by South Korea, in gratitude of Filipino participation in the Korean war.
Open floor.
Who left her husband in the precise middle of the 19th century, unsatisfied with her destiny, before finally aligning with a head of state and urging him into a disasterous war?
Quote from: Lettow77 on October 25, 2009, 05:38:16 AM
Who left her husband in the precise middle of the 19th century, unsatisfied with her destiny, before finally aligning with a head of state and urging him into a disasterous war?
Varina Davis?
My guess was Lola Montez but she didn't divorce anyone June 15th 1849
Empress Carlotta?
An inspired guess, but no.
Edit: to caligula, anyway. You other two are merely wrong :P
24 hour rule.
In 1982 the biggest killing spree in modern history took place.
A police officer who had a falling out with his girlfriend got drunk and took weapons and grenades from the police armory. He killed the emergency operators to prevent emergency calls to come through, then descended onto the streets and started going from door to door, gaining entrance as police officer to kill the inhabitants.
After 8 hours he killed himself and three hostages with two grenades. The killing spree left 58 dead (including the perp) and 35 wounded.
In which country did the incident take place?
Japan?
Not Japan.
South Korea.
At first I thought New Zealand, but the circumstances aren't as you described. That one hit ~30, though.
So, Australia?
Just looked it up, and he's right, assuming wiki is correct.
Also, I was mixing up:
Port Arthur Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Bryant)
And this Kiwi guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramoana_massacre)
Yep, South Korea is correct. HVC has the floor. :)
For the record, it was Eliza Lynch, courtesan-turned-mistress of paraguayan ruler solano lopez. She was the woman behind the man, influencing his terrible ideas, until he declared war on uruguay, argentina and brazil at the same time.
It did not work, but he did manage to lose over two thirds of the male population of his country.
How much was combat deaths and how much emigration?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 27, 2009, 09:01:38 AM
How much was combat deaths and how much emigration?
It was a massa-cree.
Pretty much no emmigration at all. It helps that paraguay is landlocked, and was fighting all but one of it's neighbours.
Lopez was tilting at windmills- he actually dreamed of conquering South America. The only thing he won paraguay was polygamy-by-necessity in the postwar era, and mass graves.
The example, however, makes me review the South's demographic crisis in the war. Losing one fourth of all white males, roughly along the lines of france's losses in WW1 and Germany's in WW2, seems less inspiring. I had previously assumed that to be the breaking point for civilised peoples at war, but it transpires that the South had more blood to shed on the altar of independence but, to our eternal shame, was unwilling to do so against impossible odds.
The war all-but-over and you've lost. Why sacrifice your life on the altar of independence? For what good?
The CSA was a democracy and thus unable to enforce suicide on its population against their will. The USA was also a democracy, and the South was thus unwilling to fight to the death.
Oh, I know. I just wish it had- the South's sacrifices are enormous, without american paralell and admirable worthy of veneration, but paraguay's efforts on such an ill-gotten cause gave me pause.
Quote from: Lettow77 on October 27, 2009, 03:50:32 PM
Oh, I know. I just wish it had- the South's sacrifices are enormous, without american paralell and admirable worthy of veneration, but paraguay's efforts on such an ill-gotten cause gave me pause.
Paraguay fought for independence from it's neighbors by gaining access to the sea. The confederates fought to keep black pipple as slaves.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 27, 2009, 03:23:40 PM
The CSA was a democracy and thus unable to enforce suicide on its population against their will. The USA was also a democracy, and the South was thus unwilling to fight to the death.
I don't know if CSA could be classified as a democracy. I know South Carolina didn't have universal manhood sufferage. In fact it was rather restrictive. I don't know about the rest of the States.
Universal suffrage is required to be a democracy? If that is so, I am adamantly opposed to democracy as you style it.
Also, the notion that paraguay was fighting anything but an aggressive and unprovoked war is laughable.
Quote from: Lettow77 on October 27, 2009, 04:07:16 PM
Universal suffrage is required to be a democracy? If that is so, I am adamantly opposed to democracy as you style it.
Also, the notion that paraguay was fighting anything but an aggressive and unprovoked war is laughable.
Still can't stand biving blacks the vote, huh?
Quote from: Lettow77 on October 27, 2009, 04:07:16 PM
Universal suffrage is required to be a democracy? If that is so, I am adamantly opposed to democracy as you style it.
Also, the notion that paraguay was fighting anything but an aggressive and unprovoked war is laughable.
I didn't say universal suffrage. I'm not even talking about letting blacks vote. I'm talking about a system that wouldn't have let you vote.
I support not letting me vote. Voting should be restricted to 25+ year olds who contribute more money to the government than they withdraw.
Anyway, barrister, any reason your trolling? I cannot imagine your sincere.
(I was thinking that it'd be quite the clever coup to give homemakers generous tax incentives. By giving housewives government funds, and mothers even more, we encourage a positive lifestyle while at the same time running women into a defecit that denies them the right to vote in a discrete method, while allowing angry feminists to still feel they have suffrage.)
Quote from: BarristerStill can't stand biving blacks the vote, huh?
Quote from: Lettow77 on October 27, 2009, 04:39:26 PM
I support not letting me vote. Voting should be restricted to 25+ year olds who contribute more money to the government than they withdraw.
So I was right. :)
Quote from: Lettow
Anyway, barrister, any reason your trolling? I cannot imagine your sincere.
Because I couldn't believe that you'd be a fucking apologist for the afrikaaners and apartheid. But I guess you just are a racist.
Sorry you feel that way. I think government should be in the hands of those who pay for it- the people who have a stake in the country should be those who determine its destiny. Responsible government that has to be earned would turn the country around.
And, what has happened since apartheid is apartheid's best apologist.
Let's keep the thread on topic, shall we?
My apologies. The civil war hijack is an old standby.
It's HVC's turn but I don't think he's realized this yet
How long before someone doesn't ask a question until the floor is open?
Ca. 24 hours.
24 hours rule (since October 27, 2009, 12:29:15)
OK, the Napoleonic trivia loony strikes again.
Where did end the Napoleonic Wars? I mean the last combat between military units, because the very last shots belonged to a firing squad... probably Ney's in December 1815.
Hint: the place is not terribly original, but the participants and the date will surprise many, I think.
Grumbler would know.
I think it was in Naples, between Murat's kingdom and... someone else?
French Commerce raider against British ship somewhere out at sea.
Quote from: Viking on October 28, 2009, 04:39:41 AM
French Commerce raider against British ship somewhere out at sea.
That's likely, but I mean on land. that's the reason I wrote "combat between military units"... and I see I didn't define the question as clearly I should have: I'm asking about the last clash of land units in Europe itself (because when news of Napoleon's flight from Elba reached, say, Java, Mauritius or the Philippines Napoleon probably had abdicated again)
No ideas? Well, it was a difficult one.
More or less unofficially the siege of Huningue is generally accepted as the last action of the Napoleonic Wars.
Huningue (german Huningen) was an small fortress sited just across the Rhin from Basel, where Germany, France and Switzeland meet. As such, it was too much to the South to be of any importance after Waterloo. The allies sent to blockade the place a hot-podge of second line troops German (from Austria, Wurttemberg and Hesse-Darmstadt) and Swiss.
The Germans blockaded the place and stopped at that, just waiting for the French to come to their senses and surrender, but the Swiss... the Swiss weren't up to their usual standards. They were green, quite undisciplined troops from the army of the Confederation, almost a militia, and started pillaging the countryside. The French, incensed by the Swiss kicking them when they were down, retaliated bombing Basel from the ramparts.
During the ensuing weeks, and under the astonished eyes of the Germans, French and Swiss fought a nasty, bitter and totally pointless little war of pillage expeditions, trench raids, bombings and insulting letters (general Barbanegre, the French commander, even had the nerve to ask the Allies a truce in order to celebrate the Day of Saint Louis, in honour of Louis XVIII) until finally, Barbanegre got full honors of war for the garrison and the place surrendered on August 26th.
The defenders were saluted by the Archdukes Karl, Ferdinand and Johann, marshall Barclay de Tolly and count Hochberg (Baden) but very significantly no Swiss authority. In fact, Basel demanded and got from Louis XVIII that Huningue fortifications be razed.
French wiki includes a picture showing Barbanegre and his soldiers leaving Huningue between two rows of Austrian grenadiers. At least the Archdukes and Barclay (in green uniform) can be easily recognized (I very much doubt, however, that the French were allowed to leave waving an imperial tricolor flag... )
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Detaille_1.jpg
Open floor.
Okay, here's a semi-Napoleonic question. In 1810 the French Government award Nicolas Appert 12,000 Francs for doing what?
Invented a safe canning process to preserve food
inventing margarine!
Quote from: Lettow77 on October 29, 2009, 03:16:57 AM
Invented a safe canning process to preserve food
Okay. You got it. Or at least close enough.
Thank you. Open floor, though :)
What ship is this?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F7%2F73%2FE_Minas_Geraes_1910_altered.jpg&hash=363a2c17a65a198b20a5c5bb56754e81369a75c4)
Dude, while this pic was uploading the board showed me the file link which contains its name. :lol:
It's in the file name, no?
Uhmmm... it's a dreadnought with six double towers and secondary artillery in casemates (sited very low). It has anti torpedo nets and, judging by the amount of smoke, I would say it burns coal. And the lines seem British to me...
Being a dreadnought it was built after 1906, but I would say evidence (those casemates, for example) suggests a date some years before 1914. Between 1908 and 1910, perhaps?
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 29, 2009, 07:18:17 AM
It's in the file name, no?
Yes, it's in the file name, I couldn't be bothered to upload it somewhere else. :Embarrass:
The HMS Hideous.
I've used this ship in boardgames. Wasn't very useful. I mainly used it for the intrinsic destroyers which were considered part of the counter along with the capital ship itself.
Quote from: Threviel on October 29, 2009, 08:11:46 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 29, 2009, 07:18:17 AM
It's in the file name, no?
Yes, it's in the file name, I couldn't be bothered to upload it somewhere else. :Embarrass:
:console:
So now everyone knows the answer but nobody is going to answer the question.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 29, 2009, 09:35:48 AM
So now everyone knows the answer but nobody is going to answer the question.
Yes. Think of it as a basement.
Meh, open floor then. <_<
Though this particular effort failed in execution, I applaud the concept of pictorial questions. :cheers:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 29, 2009, 11:03:09 AM
Though this particular effort failed in execution, I applaud the concept of pictorial questions. :cheers:
We need a picture of a queen's ass and ask "on what throne did this sit?"
Let me try again, this time a sister-ship to that my great-grandfather served on.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.didispbweb.de%2Fpics%2Fpics6%2FBild3.jpg&hash=8303c5d43793e252aa01ab06ef93989a7064fb29)
The Bild3?
<_<
What is the origin of the word buccaneer?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 01, 2009, 02:25:32 PM
What is the origin of the word buccaneer?
The pigs they caught and ate on Haiti?
Quote from: Viking on November 01, 2009, 02:26:54 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 01, 2009, 02:25:32 PM
What is the origin of the word buccaneer?
The pigs they caught and ate on Haiti?
No, it was the way they cooked the pork, on the boucanier.
Quote from: Barrister on November 01, 2009, 02:35:56 PM
No, it was the way they cooked the pork, on the boucanier.
On a bucan I think. Close enough. Your go.
Despite the violation of the Yi rule, this should be fairly easy. And it should irritate Neil.
Name this vessel, Canada's last aircraft carrier.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg301.imageshack.us%2Fimg301%2F8058%2Fmaggie2ef6.jpg&hash=836db5a89a6bedead30507af9caa426d9fb93912)
(and no - the answer is not in the filename :P)
HMCS Warrior?
HMCS Margaret Thatcher!
Quote
(and no - the answer is not in the filename :P)
Darn!
Is it Hermes?
I'm pretty sure I'll recognize the name once I see it; I saw it on wikipedia not too long ago.
Well at least you guys got the HMCS part right...
The ship was decommissioned at least 10 years before Thatcher came into power, so no.
hmmm... I thought with all the navaltards on this forum that would be an easy question... :unsure:
One of the commissionaires that do building security in Whitehorse, who I've met, served on this vessel. :cool:
If I get the RN name but not the RCN name is that still right?
Colossus?
HMCS Margot Kidder?
Quote from: Viking on November 01, 2009, 07:21:27 PM
If I get the RN name but not the RCN name is that still right?
Colossus?
Sure, go nuts.
But while it was laid down as a RN vessel, it was only finished as a RCN vessel. So It's HMS name is very obscure.
Quote from: Viking on November 01, 2009, 07:21:27 PM
If I get the RN name but not the RCN name is that still right?
Colossus?
BTW, doing some research it's the same class as Colossus, but not the same ship.
Edit: err, nope. Similar, but the follow up class to Colossus, not the same class.
HMCS Obscure?
no really...
HMS Majestic?
Quote from: Viking on November 01, 2009, 07:37:58 PM
HMCS Obscure?
no really...
HMS Majestic?
Majestic class, but not HMS Majestic.
Quote from: Barrister on November 01, 2009, 07:39:26 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 01, 2009, 07:37:58 PM
HMCS Obscure?
no really...
HMS Majestic?
Majestic class, but not HMS Majestic.
Minotaur?
Pegasus?
Theseus?
Colossus?
Unicorn?
Quote from: Viking on November 01, 2009, 07:51:50 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 01, 2009, 07:39:26 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 01, 2009, 07:37:58 PM
HMCS Obscure?
no really...
HMS Majestic?
Majestic class, but not HMS Majestic.
Minotaur?
Pegasus?
Theseus?
Colossus?
Unicorn?
You already guessed Colossus.
None of the above.
Sorry guys, I didn't think it would be that tough.
Leviathan, Terrible, Hercules, Powerful? If that doesn't work then I'll start guessing the 1930s CVs, cause I can't think of any without opening my WiF kid and checking out the late war CVLs.
Quote from: Viking on November 01, 2009, 07:56:58 PM
Leviathan, Terrible, Hercules, Poweful?
Out of sheer brute-force guessing, I guess Viking gets it.
Laid down as HMS Powerful, but commissioned as HMCS Bonaventure, and only decommissioned in 1970.
The News of Napoleons death was a boon on the London Stock Market. However, some scoundrels had the news before the market did and made a killing on insider trading in government stocks. How did they get the information before anybody else and how were the scoundrels exposed?
Hint, Napoleon was not dead.
Quote from: Viking on November 02, 2009, 07:53:46 AM
Hint, Napoleon was not dead.
Did they claim to have used pigeons, and were exposed because pigeons couldn't have crossed the Atlantic from St. Helena?
Quote from: Alatriste on November 02, 2009, 08:41:37 AM
Quote from: Viking on November 02, 2009, 07:53:46 AM
Hint, Napoleon was not dead.
Did they claim to have used pigeons, and were exposed because pigeons couldn't have crossed the Atlantic from St. Helena?
Nope.
They read about it on drudgereport.com ? :)
Pigeons was my guess as well.
If not that, then they got the word from some sailor or officer (possibly drunk in a bar?).
No drudge report
But the bar bit is part of the story. But that is not how they knew that the news of napoleons death would reach the market.
I don't know if it refers to the same scoundrels, but Nathan Rothschild made a killing by having a network of couriers and spies in both camps. He received a report from one of his men before anyone else and made a kill at the London stock market (it was probably the quickest way to a great fortune anyone had managed to do in history).
The way he did it was classic: his agents began selling the British paper money creating a buzz within the other businessmen who thought Wellington had lost the battle. They began to sell the paper money, which were immediately bought, at a fraction of a price, by Rothschild's men. When the news of the battle reached the Stock Market, Rotschild was a very, very rich man...
Quote from: Alexandru H. on November 02, 2009, 10:29:15 AM
I don't know if it refers to the same scoundrels, but Nathan Rothschild made a killing by having a network of couriers and spies in both camps. He received a report from one of his men before anyone else and made a kill at the London stock market (it was probably the quickest way to a great fortune anyone had managed to do in history).
The way he did it was classic: his agents began selling the British paper money creating a buzz within the other businessmen who thought Wellington had lost the battle. They began to sell the paper money, which were immediately bought, at a fraction of a price, by Rothschild's men. When the news of the battle reached the Stock Market, Rotschild was a very, very rich man...
Allways facinating. But the event I refer to was in 1814.
You mean 1821, no?
Oh, I googled it... you're right, 1814... did not know about this event :)
In that case, they got the information quickly by making it up, they were exposed by Napoleon being alive? :lol:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 02, 2009, 10:41:34 AM
In that case, they got the information quickly by making it up, they were exposed by Napoleon being alive? :lol:
Hooray... Blackbeard gets it.
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1931133_1931132_1931126,00.html
Alright. The Song of Roland was based on which battle?
Ronceveaux?
Yeah. AKA Roncesvalles en espanol.
What black african realm has the honour of being part of a selected group of states, that include China, Carthage or Wales and what is the defining factor that made it possible to include it in that group?
Quote from: Alexandru H. on November 02, 2009, 11:05:13 AM
What black african realm has the honour of being part of a selected group of states, that include China, Carthage or Wales and what is the defining factor that made it possible to include it in that group?
Great Zimbabwe, having a city.
Quote from: Viking on November 02, 2009, 11:09:11 AM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on November 02, 2009, 11:05:13 AM
What black african realm has the honour of being part of a selected group of states, that include China, Carthage or Wales and what is the defining factor that made it possible to include it in that group?
Great Zimbabwe, having a city.
:P Nope
Something to do with dragons?
Mali, Rumoured to have discovered America Before Columbus?
Yeah, there are legends of transoceanic voyages, and in the case of Mali it was Mansa Musa I who supposedly ordered the exploratory voyages?
Correct. Mali Empire. And the interesting fact is that its ruler, Abubakari II (Mansa Musa was only interested in spending gold in Cairo) went in person towards the New World.
Her name was Hypatia. What was the honour given to the leader of the mob that tore her limb from limb?
Quote from: Viking on November 02, 2009, 03:57:39 PM
Her name was Hypatia. What was the honour given to the leader of the mob that tore her limb from limb?
Sainthood?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2009, 04:13:15 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 02, 2009, 03:57:39 PM
Her name was Hypatia. What was the honour given to the leader of the mob that tore her limb from limb?
Sainthood?
Ding Ding, you have the floor.
Quote from: Viking on November 02, 2009, 04:16:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2009, 04:13:15 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 02, 2009, 03:57:39 PM
Her name was Hypatia. What was the honour given to the leader of the mob that tore her limb from limb?
Sainthood?
Ding Ding, you have the floor.
It's a dirty floor I don't want it. Floor is open.
There is a substantial Mennonite community in Chihuahua, Mexico that was settled around the turn of the 20th century by Mennonites fleeing Canada because they feared they were going to be forced to stop speaking/educating their children in Plattdeutsch.
The Mexican government agreed to give them substantial land grants and leave them alone in terms of education/language under the condition that they provide what service to the Mexican people, which they are still famous for providing to this day?
Crafting combo sombrero/dipping cups?
Agricultural products.
Sainthood.
queso
Quote from: Maximus on November 02, 2009, 04:29:00 PM
queso
Correct. Queso menonita, to be specific. :bowler:
Quote from: Caliga on November 02, 2009, 04:24:33 PM
There is a substantial Mennonite community in Chihuahua, Mexico that was settled around the turn of the 20th century by Mennonites fleeing Canada because they feared they were going to be forced to stop speaking/educating their children in Plattdeutsch.
The Mexican government agreed to give them substantial land grants and leave them alone in terms of education/language under the condition that they provide what service to the Mexican people, which they are still famous for providing to this day?
What would early 20th century want from 16th century germans. Technology obviously. Teach at Mexican Universities?
BTW I believe that migration was considerably later, 1960s or so.
Quote from: Maximus on November 02, 2009, 04:32:54 PM
BTW I believe that migration was considerably later, 1960s or so.
Oh. :blush: Well that was asked from memory, and anyway you got it right.
I don't have anything. Open floor.
This is a semi-Timmy Rule infracting question, but I liked it so much I'm going to ask anyway.
What was the average rate of fire of the English fleet at the battle of Gravelines (Spanish Armada). For context rate of fire in Nelson's time was c. 3 rounds every five minutes for good crews.
Quote from: Caliga on November 02, 2009, 04:30:09 PM
Correct. Queso menonita, to be specific. :bowler:
Shouldn't that be queso menonito? :nerd:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2009, 04:47:12 PM
Shouldn't that be queso menonito? :nerd:
No hablo espanol. :mad:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2009, 04:47:12 PM
Quote from: Caliga on November 02, 2009, 04:30:09 PM
Correct. Queso menonita, to be specific. :bowler:
Shouldn't that be queso menonito? :nerd:
Nope. In Spanish the names of some peoples or collectives (usually from the Middle East) do end in -i or -ita. For example, israelí-israelita, sunní-sunnita, chií-chiita and mennoní-mennonita.
At least in Spain we use far more frequently the termination in -i, because -ita often sounds dated and odd (as you noticed) but both forms are grammatically correct.
Quote from: Viking on November 02, 2009, 10:43:47 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 02, 2009, 10:41:34 AM
In that case, they got the information quickly by making it up, they were exposed by Napoleon being alive? :lol:
Hooray... Blackbeard gets it.
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1931133_1931132_1931126,00.html
QuotePubs are often unreliable sources of gossip and never more so than with this tall tale involving one of history's most famous short men. In 1814, a uniformed officer who gave his name as Colonel du Bourg arrived at the Ship Inn in Dover, England, bringing news that Napoleon Bonaparte had been killed. This meant that England's long war with the Bourbons was over
Apparently he did his research in a pub...
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2009, 02:09:16 PM
I'll squeeze one in until Meri shows up.
Who was the first socialist elected to the US Congress?
Barak Obama or Victor Berger.
And No, I don't want the floor.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2009, 04:44:22 PM
This is a semi-Timmy Rule infracting question, but I liked it so much I'm going to ask anyway.
What was the average rate of fire of the English fleet at the battle of Gravelines (Spanish Armada). For context rate of fire in Nelson's time was c. 3 rounds every five minutes for good crews.
I don't know the rate, but I know it was appallingly low in comparison... and the rate of the Armada, far lower still!
I'm raising my standard and seizing the floor, mainly to bump the thread.
A funny question: to which nationality did actually belong Tsar Nicholas II assuming Peter the Great was 100% Russian, German princesses 100% German, etc? Or, in other words, how much Russian blood did late Romanovs have?
Quote from: Alatriste on November 05, 2009, 03:28:47 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2009, 04:44:22 PM
This is a semi-Timmy Rule infracting question, but I liked it so much I'm going to ask anyway.
What was the average rate of fire of the English fleet at the battle of Gravelines (Spanish Armada). For context rate of fire in Nelson's time was c. 3 rounds every five minutes for good crews.
I don't know the rate, but I know it was appallingly low in comparison... and the rate of the Armada, far lower still!
I'm raising my standard and seizing the floor, mainly to bump the thread.
A funny question: to which nationality did actually belong Tsar Nicholas II assuming Peter the Great was 100% Russian, German princesses 100% German, etc? Or, in other words, how much Russian blood did late Romanovs have?
Danish. Nicholas' mother was Danish.
Quote from: Viking on November 05, 2009, 03:40:47 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on November 05, 2009, 03:28:47 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2009, 04:44:22 PM
This is a semi-Timmy Rule infracting question, but I liked it so much I'm going to ask anyway.
What was the average rate of fire of the English fleet at the battle of Gravelines (Spanish Armada). For context rate of fire in Nelson's time was c. 3 rounds every five minutes for good crews.
I don't know the rate, but I know it was appallingly low in comparison... and the rate of the Armada, far lower still!
I'm raising my standard and seizing the floor, mainly to bump the thread.
A funny question: to which nationality did actually belong Tsar Nicholas II assuming Peter the Great was 100% Russian, German princesses 100% German, etc? Or, in other words, how much Russian blood did late Romanovs have?
Danish. Nicholas' mother was Danish.
Yes, he was actually a bit more than 50% Danish (Holstein-Gottorp is in Denmark) but... how much, or how little, Russian was the other 50%?
Note: You have already got the right answer, you can make your question if you wish.
The rest was German, IIRC - he was cousin to George IV or V, another mostly-German monarch.
The question.
Who did Hitler dictate Mein Kampf to?
His mother.
"That's very nice dear, but when are you going to settle down and get married? I'd like to have grandkids someday, you know."
Quote from: Viking on November 05, 2009, 04:19:28 AM
The question.
Who did Hitler dictate Mein Kampf to?
Hess?
As for the previous question, I knew that Nicholas II had not a blood of russian in him, mainly because of the 18th century female monarchs...
Just for fun (excluding brothers of previous Tsars, like Nicholas I, and with some rounding up)
Peter I 100% Russian
Peter II 50% Russian, 50% German
Peter III 50% Danish (Holstein-Gottorp), 25% Russian, 25% German
Paul I 62,25% German, 25% Danish, 12,5% Russian
Alexander I 81% German, 12,5% Danish, 6,25% Russian
Alexander II 90,5% German, 6,25% Danish, 3,1% Russian
Alexander III 95% German, 3,1% Danish, 1,6% Russian
Nicholas II 51,6% Danish, 47,5% German, 0,8% Russian
Of course, our initial premise is somewhat artificial, but the underlying truth is, Tsars were deeply involved in the power plays of Germany trough their ties with local aristocracy since a very early date, first in the protestant North and the Baltic (Holstein-Gottorp, Brunswick, Anhalt-Zerbst) but later, after the Seven Years War, also in Southern Germany (Baden, Wurttemberg)
Equally interesting is that the only marriage between "equals" was the marriage between the future Tsar Nicholas I (brother of Alexander I) and Princess Charlotte of Prussia in 1817, just after the Napoleonic Wars.
Quote from: Alexandru H. on November 05, 2009, 04:44:29 AM
Quote from: Viking on November 05, 2009, 04:19:28 AM
The question.
Who did Hitler dictate Mein Kampf to?
Hess?
It does read like it was one madman dictating to another madman doesn't it? He really needed a good editor.
Quote from: Alatriste on November 05, 2009, 03:28:47 AM
I don't know the rate, but I know it was appallingly low in comparison... and the rate of the Armada, far lower still!
Once an hour for the English, once a day for the Spanish.
Quote from: Alexandru H. on November 05, 2009, 04:44:29 AM
Quote from: Viking on November 05, 2009, 04:19:28 AM
The question.
Who did Hitler dictate Mein Kampf to?
Hess?
As for the previous question, I knew that Nicholas II had not a blood of russian in him, mainly because of the 18th century female monarchs...
Hess is correct.
Following the WW2 line...
Otto Skorzeny is generally regarded as the man that "saved" Mussolini from the clutches of italian troops by getting him from the Gran Sasso motel. But the real hero of the operation was a german high-ranking general that actually followed the movements of the italians and managed to pinpoint the location of Mussolini. What's his name?
Hint: it's not hard at all... :rolleyes:
Quote from: Razgovory on November 05, 2009, 07:44:00 AM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on November 05, 2009, 04:44:29 AM
Quote from: Viking on November 05, 2009, 04:19:28 AM
The question.
Who did Hitler dictate Mein Kampf to?
Hess?
It does read like it was one madman dictating to another madman doesn't it? He really needed a good editor.
I actually enjoyed the first volume. The second is more theoretical, but the first can be read as a story of the movement, in very broad terms... And it's not the worst book you can read, in the same vein Hitler's paintings are not the worst art you can encounter...
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 05, 2009, 09:02:45 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on November 05, 2009, 03:28:47 AM
I don't know the rate, but I know it was appallingly low in comparison... and the rate of the Armada, far lower still!
Once an hour for the English, once a day for the Spanish.
No wonder they lost.
Quote from: Alexandru H. on November 05, 2009, 11:22:40 AM
Following the WW2 line...
Otto Skorzeny is generally regarded as the man that "saved" Mussolini from the clutches of italian troops by getting him from the Gran Sasso motel. But the real hero of the operation was a german high-ranking general that actually followed the movements of the italians and managed to pinpoint the location of Mussolini. What's his name?
Hint: it's not hard at all... :rolleyes:
24 hour rule. BTW, I googled and looked in wiki to no avail, so I guess it's not that easy as you thought.
Quote from: The Larch on November 06, 2009, 07:02:05 AM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on November 05, 2009, 11:22:40 AM
Following the WW2 line...
Otto Skorzeny is generally regarded as the man that "saved" Mussolini from the clutches of italian troops by getting him from the Gran Sasso motel. But the real hero of the operation was a german high-ranking general that actually followed the movements of the italians and managed to pinpoint the location of Mussolini. What's his name?
Hint: it's not hard at all... :rolleyes:
24 hour rule. BTW, I googled and looked in wiki to no avail, so I guess it's not that easy as you thought.
Given the time frame, it was probably Albert Kesselring. It is either him or our old friend Erwin Rommel...
Quote from: Alatriste on November 06, 2009, 07:24:20 AM
Quote from: The Larch on November 06, 2009, 07:02:05 AM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on November 05, 2009, 11:22:40 AM
Following the WW2 line...
Otto Skorzeny is generally regarded as the man that "saved" Mussolini from the clutches of italian troops by getting him from the Gran Sasso motel. But the real hero of the operation was a german high-ranking general that actually followed the movements of the italians and managed to pinpoint the location of Mussolini. What's his name?
Hint: it's not hard at all... :rolleyes:
24 hour rule. BTW, I googled and looked in wiki to no avail, so I guess it's not that easy as you thought.
Given the time frame, it was probably Albert Kesselring. It is either him or our old friend Erwin Rommel...
Kesselring was Marshall for the whole theatre, I doubt he kept himself busy tracking small groups of people. My guess would have been a lower level guy.
Quote from: The Larch on November 06, 2009, 07:28:40 AM
Kesselring was Marshall for the whole theatre, I doubt he kept himself busy tracking small groups of people. My guess would have been a lower level guy.
Good point... Kurt Student?
Quote from: Alatriste on November 06, 2009, 07:43:50 AM
Quote from: The Larch on November 06, 2009, 07:28:40 AM
Kesselring was Marshall for the whole theatre, I doubt he kept himself busy tracking small groups of people. My guess would have been a lower level guy.
Good point... Kurt Student?
He did participate in the operation, but my understanding was that he joined it after Skorzeny took charge of it.
Ok, as wether it was Kesselring, Student or some other general, 24 hours still passed with no answer, I'll ask a new question myself.
From the mid XVIIIth century until the late XIXth or early XXth century, in the royal marriage market in Europe, German princesses were very much sought after due to a certain bias regarding their supposed better legitimacy to a higher ranking status amongst European nobility by a third party agent (besides the two houses that were celebrating the marriage, that is) that was the unofficial authority in these matters.
Question: Which was this agent?
Bonus question: Which was their bias?
Mega-bonus question: Why and when did this original agent (not their successors) cease to operate?
Seedy's Foster Home for Wayward Young Women.
Building character through flogging.
Asian mail order brides became readily available, so the original home was closed.
I forgot about this thread. :D
Alatriste was right though. Kurt Student. Did not join after the operations, as Nazi propaganda announced, but actually found out where Mussolini was kept. Good old Otto was there to provide the "Hitler's men" angle.
I said it was easy because the operation resembles in many ways the Eben-Emael success.
The Hapsburgs.
They dug the bushy armpits.
They lost face when they whored out their daughter to the Corsican tyrant.
Meyer Rothschild
Wanting to maintain the solvency of his debtors
Napoleonic Wars
No dice so far.
Clue: The agent in question issued a periodical publication (whose name is a correct answer on itself for the question) that was delivered to all European courts, and was based in a ducal court in the HRE.
Edit: And here's an interesting showing of their bias. It's a letter by Napoleon, complaning that the publication didn't include the people he ennobled, and kept including deposed rulers:
'Monsieur de Champagny, this year's XXX is badly done. I protest. There should be more of the French Nobility I have created and less of the German Princes who are no longer sovereign. Furthermore, the Imperial Family of Bonaparte should appear before all other royal dynasties, and let it be clear that we and not the Bourbons are the House of France. Summon the Minister of the Interior of XXX at once so that I personally may order these changes'.
I'd guess Who's Who, but that's obviously wrong since it doesn't have a Minister of Interior.
Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2009, 09:59:59 AM
I'd guess Who's Who, but that's obviously wrong since it doesn't have a Minister of Interior.
It's not that, but you're getting closer.
Ok, I seem to vaguely recall something...
Is it related to something called "Gotha"?
Edit: googled it and it seems I remembered correctly... of course, it was just a lucky hunch, I couldn't have told you anything more about it... :P
I was going to go with "Horse and Nobility Breeders Quarterly".
Quote from: Alexandru H. on November 07, 2009, 02:25:19 PM
Ok, I seem to vaguely recall something...
Is it related to something called "Gotha"?
Edit: googled it and it seems I remembered correctly... of course, it was just a lucky hunch, I couldn't have told you anything more about it... :P
Yup, the Almanach de Gotha, published in the ducal court of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg, called just "The Gotha" for shorts. :cheers:
Their bias was that they ranked German princely houses next to the current sovereigns of the different kingdoms of the time, thus making them equal in terms of prestige in the eyes of the readers, while simultaneously neglecting royal and high noble families from other parts of Europe, mainly Eastern Europe and the Russian Empire.
They ceased operations in 1944, when the Red Army entered Saxony, and burned their archives.
In 1377 Robert of Geneva led his troops into the italian town of Cesena where they procedeed to massacre most of its dwellers. For this act, he received the title of "Butcher of Cesena"... but that wasn't the only reward he got from his contemporaries. What did Robert of Geneva receive one year later, in 1378, and what did that "thing" came to be known as?
This had better not be one of those fantasy questions you've been asking.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2009, 09:30:52 AM
This had better not be one of those fantasy questions you've been asking.
Yeah, he received the Druid Sceptre, with 4+ Enchantment... :rolleyes:
Quote from: Alexandru H. on November 08, 2009, 09:34:14 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2009, 09:30:52 AM
This had better not be one of those fantasy questions you've been asking.
Yeah, he received the Druid Sceptre, with 4+ Enchantment... :rolleyes:
That "discoverer's of America question was in the Realm of Fantasy".
It wasn't... and Wiking managed to give the correct answer. So it was easy enough...
Quote from: Alexandru H. on November 08, 2009, 09:18:05 AM
In 1377 Robert of Geneva led his troops into the italian town of Cesena where they procedeed to massacre most of its dwellers. For this act, he received the title of "Butcher of Cesena"... but that wasn't the only reward he got from his contemporaries. What did Robert of Geneva receive one year later, in 1378, and what did that "thing" came to be known as?
Absolution for his crimes?
He certainly could have absolved himself after 1378...
Edit: I just taught about this...time period in my class...not going to claim the prize as I cheated by reading up on it last week.
Quote from: PDH on November 08, 2009, 01:15:48 PM
He certainly could have absolved himself after 1378...
Edit: I just taught about this...time period in my class...not going to claim the prize as I cheated by reading up on it last week.
That's why the Middle Ages are the best. :lmfao:
Quote from: Viking on November 08, 2009, 12:41:11 PM
Absolution for his crimes?
The French, the Spanish and the Scots certainly believed that ;)
Quote from: Viking on November 08, 2009, 12:41:11 PM
Absolution for his crimes?
The French, the Spanish and the Scots certainly believed that ;)
[/quote]
I was going to say Cardinal, but Anti-Pope?
Quote from: Viking on November 08, 2009, 01:23:45 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 08, 2009, 12:41:11 PM
Absolution for his crimes?
The French, the Spanish and the Scots certainly believed that ;)
I was going to say Cardinal, but Anti-Pope?
[/quote]
He became Pope... but why was his election so important?
Quote from: Alexandru H. on November 08, 2009, 01:28:17 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 08, 2009, 01:23:45 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 08, 2009, 12:41:11 PM
Absolution for his crimes?
The French, the Spanish and the Scots certainly believed that ;)
I was going to say Cardinal, but Anti-Pope?
He became Pope... but why was his election so important?
[/quote]
Because he became Clement VII, the first Anti-pope, while Urbain VI was
still murdering Cardinals sitting on Saint-Peter's throne. I always mix up those two. :blush:
So technically, Viking got it right.
By the 1880's Darwin and his theory of evolution were considered flawed. What was the flaw and how was it corrected?
Quote from: Drakken on November 08, 2009, 02:30:54 PM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on November 08, 2009, 01:28:17 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 08, 2009, 01:23:45 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 08, 2009, 12:41:11 PM
Absolution for his crimes?
The French, the Spanish and the Scots certainly believed that ;)
I was going to say Cardinal, but Anti-Pope?
He became Pope... but why was his election so important?
Because he became Clement VII, the first Anti-pope, while Urbain VI was
still murdering Cardinals sitting on Saint-Peter's throne. I always mix up those two. :blush:
So technically, Viking got it right.
[/quote]
He was by no means the first Anti-pope. He was actually among the last...
But since Viking guessed the main question... The election of the Butcher of Cesena gave birth to the Great Schism. France, Scotland, the Spanish kingdoms, Norway and Denmark sided with him while Italy, most of Germany, England, Poland and Hungary got behind Urban VI...
Quote from: Viking on November 08, 2009, 02:44:07 PM
By the 1880's Darwin and his theory of evolution were considered flawed. What was the flaw and how was it corrected?
He wasn't able to demonstrate what Mendel later showed to be true in how inheritance of traits works?
Bingo, Medelian inheritance was necessary to show how traits could be inherited. Previously inheritance was thought to be a mixture of the traits of the parents, red and white parents result in pink children etc.etc. Darwin's problem was that any mutation would be diluted through the generations.
But you got the order wrong. Mendel did his work in the 1860's just after Darwins publication, but he published it in a Brno Botany Journal in German. A copy of this paper (in German) was found among Darwin's papers after his death. But ti seems he never was able to read it. Mendel's work was suppressed by the local catholic church and ordered Mendel to stop his science.
A few strange things about Mendels paper and his experiments. It seems that he designed his experiments in such a manner that it seems that he knew the results beforehand. The 7 traits he selected for were all on different genes so could be selected for.
But volksdeutsche Vlad Tepes is correct, the re-discovery of Mendel's work and it's confirmation filled in the hole in Darwinian Evolution through Natural selection by demonstrating a mechanism which would prevent mutations from being diluted.
Naturally after 100 further years of work the Theory has been developed further and is only called "Darwin's Theory" by creationists.
Quote from: Viking on November 08, 2009, 03:11:01 PM
Naturally after 100 further years of work the Theory has been developed further and is only called "Darwin's Theory" by creationists.
:yeahright:
Not very classy of all those other biologists to try to steal credit imo.
Highschool memories FTW! :cool:
I leave the floor opened for someone else's questions
That of course wasn't the only flaw in this theory. One of the most problematic was that Lord Kelvin had calculated the life span of the sun. Since it could only last a few million years it was in conflict with Darwin's observations. This wasn't resolved until the discovery of Fusion.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2009, 04:03:12 PM
That of course wasn't the only flaw in this theory. One of the most problematic was that Lord Kelvin had calculated the life span of the sun. Since it could only last a few million years it was in conflict with Darwin's observations. This wasn't resolved until the discovery of Fusion.
Kelvin wasn't a big problem. His assumptions used for the age of the earth and sun. Anyway, Kelvin did his math in the 1890's, Lyell had an age of the earth in hundreds of millions of years based on sedimentation. Bequerelle had the age of the earth at 500 million in the 1890's as well. There were hypotheses which made the earth old enough. There were no hypotheses which explained how traits would not be diluted.
Since nobody wants to ask...
By the year 1000 most of the Muslim world (made in majority of Sunnis) was dominated by no less than 12 Shia dinasties. Only two important Sunni regimes stood proud while facing this dire situation.
Question A: What were these two dynasties?
Question B: Name three Shia dynasties of that period, while placing them geographically
Question C: What were the two great dynastical events of the 11th century that managed to end this period of glory for the Shia faith? (by dynastical I mean the emergence of two new dynasties)
Umayyid, Abbasid
Fatamids in Egypt
Safavids in Iran??
Mumble mumble mumble?
I like Yi's answers.
For C, I'd guess the emergence of the Ottomans is one.
The Timurids or some other mongol dynasty?
I don't think the Ottomans and Timurids were around in the 11th century.
That was actually my mistake. I shouldn't ask questions about the Muslim Middle Ages :lmfao:
I'd guess that the Seljuks are one and maybe the Zirids.
Pretty sure the Seljuks were Sunni.
Yeah my answers were just to part C.
Wait is our year 1000 or their year 1000?
I don't accept the Zirids as an answer :P... they were Fatimid puppets until the Fatimid Age of Troubles...
Now... let's see what's been correct so far
A. Spanish Ummayids (Admiral Yi) and ***
B. Fatimids in Egypt (Admiral Yi), *** and ***
C. Seljuks (garbon) and ***
For Razgovory... I'm pretty sure it's our year 1000... :)
The Ottomans were definitely around by 1620. ;)
Ayyubids for C.
Probably a North African dynasty for A. I don't know any of their names though.
And a Persian-located dynasty for B. Again, I can't name names there.
Ayyubids are a 12th century dinasty though...
Hints:
a) Afghanistan
b) Iraq and Morocco
C) Sahara
Answers...
A. Spanish Ummayids (Admiral Yi) and Ghaznavids
B. Fatimids in Egypt (Admiral Yi), Buyids in Iraq and let's say the Yemeni Rassids, even though there 9 more such dynasties
C. Seljuks (garbon) and Almoravids
Damn. I thought about guessing the Ghaznavids but then remained silent. -_-
The Almoravids? What shiites did they knock off? Can't be the Fatimids as they'd pretty much lost any influence out there.
Quote from: garbon on November 11, 2009, 11:19:29 AM
Damn. I thought about guessing the Ghaznavids but then remained silent. -_-
The Almoravids? What shiites did they knock off? Can't be the Fatimids as they'd pretty much lost any influence out there.
The Almoravids did knock a couple of Shiite smaller dynasties in Maghreb (even one in Spain) but that's not why they're important. They brought religious uniformity in Maghreb, which won't ever see another strong Shiite movement. In the same time, the Seljuks were destroying the Iraqian and Persian Buyids while a century later Saladin would demolish forever the last great Shiite Dynasty before the appearance of the Safavids...
So they had nothing to do with ending the period of glory...
Quote from: garbon on November 11, 2009, 01:22:50 PM
So they had nothing to do with ending the period of glory...
Until the emergence of Almoravids, Maghreb saw the rise of the Fatimids, the Maroccan Idrisids, all Shia... After the Almoravids, the Shia movement dissapeared completely from the whole North Africa and Spain (with the exception of Egypt), not to mention the rise of the islamic states from the region of Niger...
It was a truly important event...
The Fatimids power in the area was crippled before the Almoravids rose. Recall that the Zirids had already revolted and then the Fatimids in some way encouraged tribal marauders to run amok. They weren't lording over the area. The Idrisids tanked before the rise of the Almoravids.
I'm not saying that the Almoravids weren't relevant and that they didn't help with regards to enforcing their sunni rites, but your question was misleading. The great shiite powers were already gone by the time of Almoravids. They just ensured there wouldn't be another rise. That's a bit different from the Ayyubids and Seljuks who actually went around toppling "great" shiite states.
They enforced the Maliki version of Sunnism. If you check out all the future great intellectuals of North Africa, you shall see that they are all Maliki. Coupled with the nomadic invasions of the 11th century, Maghreb was forever changed into a land of nomads and religious zealots. We're not talking here about a new dynasty that defeats an old one, but a religious wind dressed in political and military clothes. Also let's not forget that the fall of the pagan Ghana empire is a side-effect of the Almoravids... and this fall helped to fuel a new age for African Islam...
Alexandru has violated the Caliga Rule. :mad:
Quote from: Caliga on November 12, 2009, 08:44:08 AM
Alexandru has violated the Caliga Rule. :mad:
It must be a stupid rule if I violated it.
Let me restate it for your convenience:
Romanians are to clear their history trivia questions with Germans before posting them. :)
Quote from: Caliga on November 12, 2009, 10:10:44 AM
Let me restate it for your convenience:
Romanians are to clear their history trivia questions with Germans before posting them. :)
I have German ethnicity. I really have no need for this rule.
Quote from: Alexandru H. on November 12, 2009, 10:55:01 AM
I have German ethnicity. I really have no need for this rule.
Well maybe... but your most recent question suggests to me that *we* have need for this rule. ^_^
Quote from: Caliga on November 12, 2009, 01:38:38 PM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on November 12, 2009, 10:55:01 AM
I have German ethnicity. I really have no need for this rule.
Well maybe... but your most recent question suggests to me that *we* have need for this rule. ^_^
So I can't ask questions about Eastern Europe, Arab World, Antiquity? Can I at least ask about Winsconsin and its glorious 50 year history?
Quote from: Alexandru H. on November 12, 2009, 01:43:17 PM
So I can't ask questions about Eastern Europe, Arab World, Antiquity? Can I at least ask about Winsconsin and its glorious 50 year history?
Yes. Trivia questions about TSR, cheese, breweries, and the Packers amuse me.
Quote from: Alexandru H. on November 11, 2009, 11:15:05 AM
Answers...
A. Spanish Ummayids (Admiral Yi) and Ghaznavids
B. Fatimids in Egypt (Admiral Yi), Buyids in Iraq and let's say the Yemeni Rassids, even though there 9 more such dynasties
C. Seljuks (garbon) and Almoravids
Werent the Samanids sunni?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 12, 2009, 02:09:41 PM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on November 11, 2009, 11:15:05 AM
Answers...
A. Spanish Ummayids (Admiral Yi) and Ghaznavids
B. Fatimids in Egypt (Admiral Yi), Buyids in Iraq and let's say the Yemeni Rassids, even though there 9 more such dynasties
C. Seljuks (garbon) and Almoravids
Werent the Samanids sunni?
They died in 999. ;)
I'm taking the floot, you bastards.
Fabricius, although only a servent, was ennobled by the Hapsburgs after he was tossed out of a window during the Defenstration of Prague. Appropriately, his title became "von Hohenfall". Why was this title so appropriate?
Nota bene: no answers from Germans/Austrians will be accepted. :contract:
Quote from: Kleves on November 12, 2009, 03:50:42 PM
I'm taking the floot, you bastards.
Fabricius, although only a servent, was ennobled by the Hapsburgs after he was tossed out of a window during the Defenstration of Prague. Appropriately, his title became "von Hohenfall". Why was this title so appropriate?
Nota bene: no answers from Germans/Austrians will be accepted. :contract:
Cause he fell out of a house?
Quote from: Kleves on November 12, 2009, 03:50:42 PM
I'm taking the floot, you bastards.
Fabricius, although only a servent, was ennobled by the Hapsburgs after he was tossed out of a window during the Defenstration of Prague. Appropriately, his title became "von Hohenfall". Why was this title so appropriate?
Nota bene: no answers from Germans/Austrians will be accepted. :contract:
Not sure if I am excluded or not... but his title "Hohenfall" would be a High Fall. Sick joke, that.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on November 12, 2009, 03:53:47 PM
Not sure if I am excluded or not... but his title "Hohenfall" would be a High Fall. Sick joke, that.
Got it in one. The Hapsburgs really know how to reward a fellow, eh? :D
Wow... LONG time since I've played the HQ.... so here goes.
Who was son of a king, his mother was a Churchill, and he soldiered as a French General?
PS - I'll try to be back on SATURDAY to check answers. Friday is impossible.
Gentlemen - it appears a clue is needed, so here goes.
The Duke of Marlborough was his uncle.
Maurice de Saxe?
I know he is the son of a king, at least...
Quote from: Alexandru H. on November 12, 2009, 01:43:17 PM
So I can't ask questions about Eastern Europe, Arab World, Antiquity? Can I at least ask about Winsconsin and its glorious 50 year history?
Just don't ask questions where you've selected the "correct" answers and we'll be good.
Ask anything you want within the rules. If no one gets it, no one gets it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 12, 2009, 02:09:41 PM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on November 11, 2009, 11:15:05 AM
Answers...
A. Spanish Ummayids (Admiral Yi) and Ghaznavids
B. Fatimids in Egypt (Admiral Yi), Buyids in Iraq and let's say the Yemeni Rassids, even though there 9 more such dynasties
C. Seljuks (garbon) and Almoravids
Werent the Samanids sunni?
As were the Ghaznavids and eventually the Seljuks.
I'm too drunk to debate right now, but something is fishy about this.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 15, 2009, 04:10:48 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 12, 2009, 02:09:41 PM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on November 11, 2009, 11:15:05 AM
Answers...
A. Spanish Ummayids (Admiral Yi) and Ghaznavids
B. Fatimids in Egypt (Admiral Yi), Buyids in Iraq and let's say the Yemeni Rassids, even though there 9 more such dynasties
C. Seljuks (garbon) and Almoravids
Werent the Samanids sunni?
As were the Ghaznavids and eventually the Seljuks.
I'm too drunk to debate right now, but something is fishy about this.
What's fishy about it? In 1000, you had only two great Sunni dynasties in the whole Muslim world.
Quote from: Alexandru H. on November 14, 2009, 05:06:09 PM
Maurice de Saxe?
I know he is the son of a king, at least...
No, but you're thinking along the right lines. He father was the English / Scottish / Irish king.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on November 16, 2009, 03:51:16 PM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on November 14, 2009, 05:06:09 PM
Maurice de Saxe?
I know he is the son of a king, at least...
No, but you're thinking along the right lines. He father was the English / Scottish / Irish king.
Logically, he can only be a Stuart. But I'm not sure who he was, since I have no idea who had a mother that wore the name of Churchill.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on November 16, 2009, 03:51:16 PM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on November 14, 2009, 05:06:09 PM
Maurice de Saxe?
I know he is the son of a king, at least...
No, but you're thinking along the right lines. He father was the English / Scottish / Irish king.
The closest I can think of is the James, Duke of Monmouth. He did soldier under the command of the French against the Dutch for a while and was the bastard of Charles II.
However, the Walters, the line of his mother Lucy, were of Welsh descent, not Churchills. Also, he is only the half-cousin of Queen Anne and, as far as I know, have no blood ties to the Malboroughs.
Quote from: Alexandru H. on November 16, 2009, 04:28:05 PM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on November 16, 2009, 03:51:16 PM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on November 14, 2009, 05:06:09 PM
Maurice de Saxe?
I know he is the son of a king, at least...
No, but you're thinking along the right lines. He father was the English / Scottish / Irish king.
Logically, he can only be a Stuart. But I'm not sure who he was, since I have no idea who had a mother that wore the name of Churchill.
Not only Charles fathered bastards, James did as well. However, they didn't achieve the notoriety of Monmouth, and where also eclipsed by their Jacobite brother and nephew.
Quote from: Drakken on November 16, 2009, 04:29:18 PM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on November 16, 2009, 04:28:05 PM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on November 16, 2009, 03:51:16 PM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on November 14, 2009, 05:06:09 PM
Maurice de Saxe?
I know he is the son of a king, at least...
No, but you're thinking along the right lines. He father was the English / Scottish / Irish king.
Logically, he can only be a Stuart. But I'm not sure who he was, since I have no idea who had a mother that wore the name of Churchill.
Not only Charles fathered bastards. James did as well.
Oh, I'm sure he was a bastard son of James.
Quote from: Alexandru H. on November 16, 2009, 04:33:13 PM
Quote from: Drakken on November 16, 2009, 04:29:18 PM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on November 16, 2009, 04:28:05 PM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on November 16, 2009, 03:51:16 PM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on November 14, 2009, 05:06:09 PM
Maurice de Saxe?
I know he is the son of a king, at least...
No, but you're thinking along the right lines. He father was the English / Scottish / Irish king.
Logically, he can only be a Stuart. But I'm not sure who he was, since I have no idea who had a mother that wore the name of Churchill.
Not only Charles fathered bastards. James did as well.
Oh, I'm sure he was a bastard son of James.
The Duke of Berwick, perhaps? I'll have to look it up (in my books), but it's the only one I can think of. I faintly remember that his mother was a Churchill, but I am not sure.
EDIT: Yep, James Fitzjames, Duke of Berwick was Maréchal de France.
If I'm right, floor's open.
Allright, I take that as "who say nothing consent". So I take the floor.
After Jacques Cartier sneaked away from Sieur de Roberval, left New France and returned to the metropole in 1542, what was the main reason why he wasn't entrusted with anymore exploration command afterwards, and rather ended his career instead in more or less forced retirement on his estates?
Oexmelin, keep out.
He was a Huguenot?
He go into conflict with somebody in the colony?
Quote from: Viking on November 17, 2009, 06:19:06 PM
He go into conflict with somebody in the colony?
No. Surely he did (and his relations with Roberval were at most cordial), but the main reason is even more down-to-earth than that.
As a clue, a famous French proverb was born out of it.
He insulted the King?
He got gas?
Can I answer this or is answering question about your own country also verboten?
Quote from: Caliga on November 18, 2009, 10:21:18 AM
He insulted the King?
You are getting closer. But how did he anger François Ier?
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 18, 2009, 10:22:50 AM
Can I answer this or is answering question about your own country also verboten?
I think you can answer the question. I haven't seen any rule forbidding it.
Could be wrong, though. :)
Answering is OK.
Quote from: Drakken on November 18, 2009, 10:23:45 AM
I think you can answer the question. I haven't seen any rule forbidding it.
Could be wrong, though. :)
Yep, the rule is only concerned with asking questions about your own country, not answering them.
Quote from: Drakken on November 18, 2009, 10:23:00 AM
You are getting closer. But how did he anger François Ier?
He didn't bow correctly or some shit like that? I think Edward de Vere is the one who farted in the monarch's presence (in his case it was Elizabeth I).
Quote from: Caliga on November 18, 2009, 10:28:12 AM
Quote from: Drakken on November 18, 2009, 10:23:45 AM
I think you can answer the question. I haven't seen any rule forbidding it.
Could be wrong, though. :)
Yep, the rule is only concerned with asking questions about your own country, not answering them.
Well then, I cheated the rule. :unsure:
But it concerns France, so I found a loophole. :Canuck:
Quote from: Caliga on November 18, 2009, 10:29:05 AM
Quote from: Drakken on November 18, 2009, 10:23:00 AM
You are getting closer. But how did he anger François Ier?
He didn't bow correctly or some shit like that? I think Edward de Vere is the one who farted in the monarch's presence (in his case it was Elizabeth I).
No. It has to do with why François Ier sent Cartier to explore the New World in the first place.
Cartier was convince at the time that his ships were carrying gold & diamonds. He didn't tell Roberval.
Francois wasn't pleased when he learned that what he had brought back were in fact worthless & really just quartz.
Quote from: Drakken on November 18, 2009, 10:29:48 AM
Well then, I cheated the rule. :unsure:
But it concerns France, so I found a loophole. :Canuck:
France != Quebec or Canada, so you didn't cheat. I ask questions about Britain all the time. :huh:
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 18, 2009, 10:31:25 AM
Cartier was convince at the time that his ships were carrying gold & diamonds. He didn't tell Roberval.
Francois wasn't pleased when he learned that what he had brought back were in fact worthless & really just quartz.
To be precise, his cargo load was composed of iron pyrite, hence nicknamed "fool's gold", and quartz, mica to be exact. François Ier had sent Cartier because he wanted to find gold and gems on his own, and Cartier made an ass of himself by bringing him useless junk instead.
This has lead to the French proverb "Faux comme diamants du Canada" (Fake as Canada's diamonds).
So the answer is correct.
Not too hard, I don't like being stock with the question.
On this day, in 1493, Christopher Columbus sighted for the first time an Island he would later name "San Juan Batista". What is that Island known as today?
Cuba?
Smaller.
Puerto Rico?
Right after I guessed Cuba I thought "but then again the capital of Puerto Rico is 'San Juan'" :blush:
Ok, gimme a sec to think of something.
Who did Francisco Pizarro defeat at the battle of Las Salinas in 1538?
Atahualpa?
His brother-in-arms?
Quote from: Alexandru H. on November 18, 2009, 11:34:47 AM
His brother-in-arms?
I'm really looking for a name here, but I'll give it to you if nobody knows it (it may be a bit obscure unless we have some people here really interested in Spanish colonial history).
Quote from: Caliga on November 18, 2009, 11:37:08 AM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on November 18, 2009, 11:34:47 AM
His brother-in-arms?
I'm really looking for a name here, but I'll give it to you if nobody knows it (it may be a bit obscure unless we have some people here really interested in Spanish colonial history).
I can tell his story but I have a bit of a problem with his name at this time. He was the guy that was given the south of Peru, went and conquered the area, then came back and expected to receive all the territory. But the king named Pizarro as the sole governor and he started the war against his ex-brother in arms...
Quote from: Alexandru H. on November 18, 2009, 11:38:48 AM
I can tell his story but I have a bit of a problem with his name at this time. He was the guy that was given the south of Peru, went and conquered the area, then came back and expected to receive all the territory. But the king named Pizarro as the sole governor and he started the war against his ex-brother in arms...
I can't remember if that's the exact story but yes, it's the general idea. Well, I probably need to run off to a lunch meeting in a few minutes, so I'll give it to you. The guy's name was Almagro btw.
Floor open.
Easy one, I think: 1835 was a year of peace for Great Britain. Why were so many Royal Navy crews receiving prize money?
Note 1: Nothing special about 1835, the question could apply to pretty much any year between 1815 and the War of Crimea (and even later, very probably), but I have a list of ship companies paid prize money dating from December 1835.
Note 2: there were actually two reasons... I will accept any of them as correct.
Captured slavers!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 19, 2009, 02:32:04 AM
Captured slavers!
Correct, that's one reason. But the other affected far more RN ships (and it's a lot funnier too)
The crews were scamming whoever pays out the money?
It took that long for the courts to pay money due from 1815?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 19, 2009, 03:45:32 AM
It took that long for the courts to pay money due from 1815?
Yes.
http://www.pbenyon.plus.com/Navy_List_1835/Prize_Money_1835.html
1815? The crews of HMS Caledonia and HMS Ruby received in 1835 the prize money for the capture of the french ship Amaranthe in 1808. 27 years before!
Perhaps even funnier is that the prize money awarded for the capture of a ship named Chesapeake in 1814 (not the frigate USS Chesapeake), also paid in 1835, was divided between the crews of 34 british ships.
Hooray.
Nothing. Open.
I knew about Almagro, even his name. But then, im sort of taking latin american history this semester.. :blush:
(By the way, the class has left me with a very favourable opinion of Argentin)
Quote from: Lettow77 on November 19, 2009, 04:41:12 AM
(By the way, the class has left me with a very favourable opinion of Argentin)
Can you get anymore stereotype? :D
V
Secessionists like Argentina now? Or is it that I mispelled it? Either way, the mold I am conforming to is a mystery to me.
Easy one:
It is perhaps the oldest noble family in Europe and when Napoleon asked if it was true that they stemmed from a famous person in antiquity, one of it's members is said to have replied "I don't know, but it has been a tradition in the family for thirteen or fourteen hundred years".
What's the name of the family and who does it stem from?
Bonus question: Who did this famous person in antiquity, in turn, stem from, according to legend?
Merovingians, from Clovis, who is supposedly a descendant of Jesus and Mary Magdalene.
Nope, this one is older
(the origin is older than "thirteen or fourteen hundred years")
The Swedes for some reason believed they stemmed from a biblical figure, can't recall which one.
V
Quote from: Lettow77 on November 19, 2009, 05:44:07 AM
Secessionists like Argentina now? Or is it that I mispelled it? Either way, the mold I am conforming to is a mystery to me.
If memory serves me correctly Argentina, with its white ranchowners and later extensive German influence, would be a country very much after the idolised model of the south you seem to prescribe to :)
V
Quote from: Valdemar on November 19, 2009, 08:02:12 AM
The Swedes for some reason believed they stemmed from a biblical figure, can't recall which one.
V
Well, from Noah ;) Just as the British royal house claims to stem from Odin, I believe. But that's not it.
IIRC some Italian noble family claimed to descend from good ol' Gaius Iulius Caesar himself (and hence, from the goddess Venus) but I can't remember which...
Ok, I'm going here with a hunch. The family is Italian and it claims that the founder was an important Roman figure.
Well yes, it's an Italian family and but it's not Caesar (think of another dictator)
Quote from: miglia on November 19, 2009, 08:05:59 AM
Quote from: Valdemar on November 19, 2009, 08:02:12 AM
The Swedes for some reason believed they stemmed from a biblical figure, can't recall which one.
V
Well, from Noah ;) Just as the British royal house claims to stem from Odin, I believe. But that's not it.
:D If you belive the bible we all stem from Noah, or his inlaws... they were the soul survivors :D
The British cannot stem from Odin.... he didn't have any human sons or daughters, only dieities :p
V
The Borgia, who claim descent from Tarquinius?
Borgias are not the ones I was thinking of (but would be of about the same age if their claim is true)
QuoteQuote from: Valdemar on November 19, 2009, 08:11:09 AM
Quote from: miglia on November 19, 2009, 08:05:59 AM
Quote from: Valdemar on November 19, 2009, 08:02:12 AM
The Swedes for some reason believed they stemmed from a biblical figure, can't recall which one.
V
Well, from Noah ;) Just as the British royal house claims to stem from Odin, I believe. But that's not it.
:D If you belive the bible we all stem from Noah, or his inlaws... they were the soul survivors :D
Yeah I know. The point was the geneology tracing back to him.
De Medicis, descent from Alexander?
Nope
Hint: The family took it's name after the roman dictator
I was looking for the Massimo family, stemming from Fabius Maximus, of the Fabii family which, according to Plutarch, stems from a union between Heracles and a nymph.
There seems to be a good chance that their claim of stemming from Fabius Maximus is genuine.
QuoteThe Massimo family also provided two Popes to the Catholic Church, both Saints - Pope Anastasius I (died 401) who denounced the Origenist heresy, and Pope Paschal I (died 824) who stood up to the Frankish kings.[3]
After the Dark Ages the family is recorded again in 1012 in the person of Leo de Maximis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massimo
Cool, that was a really neat question.... maybe a little too hard tho :P
Yeah, sorry, I would have given it to Alatriste or Alexandru but I couldn't decide who had the greater claim. I'll just leave an open floor.
Quote from: Valdemar on November 19, 2009, 08:11:09 AM
Quote from: miglia on November 19, 2009, 08:05:59 AM
Quote from: Valdemar on November 19, 2009, 08:02:12 AM
The Swedes for some reason believed they stemmed from a biblical figure, can't recall which one.
V
Well, from Noah ;) Just as the British royal house claims to stem from Odin, I believe. But that's not it.
:D If you belive the bible we all stem from Noah, or his inlaws... they were the soul survivors :D
The British cannot stem from Odin.... he didn't have any human sons or daughters, only dieities :p
V
I can trace to Odin. Heimskringla gives the Scandinavian Kings Holy Descent.
Heyerdahl proved that Odin was a human lord.
Quote from: The Brain on November 19, 2009, 02:04:44 PM
Heyerdahl proved that Odin was a human lord.
Heyerdahl was a crackpot.
Seven individuals are known to have formed a syndicate to finance an anti-pirate privateer expedition against the endemic piracy problem in Indian Ocean during King William III's reign. They have been unfortunate to have recruted the infamous privateer William Kidd.
Of these, three were :
a) Richard Coote, 1st Earl of Bellomont, governor of Massachussetts and New York
b) Edmund Harrison, wealthy London merchant and capital-bringer for the former
c) Thomas Livingston, archenemy of notoriously corrupt pirate-friendly New York governor Benjamin Fletcher
The remaining four people were in the deal with the express condition that their participation remained secret, which, for reasons known only to us in hindsight, was soon exposed due to Kidd's "winning ways" with the Royal Navy, the East India Company, and pretty much any English vessel he met on the way to the Indian Ocean. Who were these fellows (I'll accept two names), and why was their participation supposed to secret?
And they call my questions cryptic :lol:
Quote from: Alexandru H. on November 19, 2009, 07:28:30 PM
And they call my questions cryptic :lol:
How is it cryptic?
Of the four remaining, name at least two, plus the reason why they asked their backing to remain confidential in a venture which was supposed to be made in the Name of the King (Kidd had, after all, a formal commission issued with King William's personal signature).
Yeah, bad call, Alex.
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2009, 07:44:55 PM
Yeah, bad call, Alex.
By all means, I'm offering you the chance to respond.
There are three completely unknown people placed in that list. To find another four would be quite a feat... :lmfao:
Ok, I'm going with a stupid response: the king and the prime-minister were involved.
Quote from: Alexandru H. on November 19, 2009, 08:42:13 PM
By all means, I'm offering you the chance to respond.
There are three completely unknown people placed in that list. To find another four would be quite a feat... :lmfao:
Ok, I'm going with a stupid response: the king and the prime-minister were involved.
You laughed that no one could get your easy Egyptian question, you laugh now at Drakken's question. I'm beginning to think your manners are not very good.
Quote from: Alexandru H. on November 19, 2009, 08:42:13 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2009, 07:44:55 PM
Yeah, bad call, Alex.
By all means, I'm offering you the chance to respond.
There are three completely unknown people placed in that list. To find another four would be quite a feat... :lmfao:
Ok, I'm going with a stupid response: the king and the prime-minister were involved.
That's why I ask only for two on four. And my mention that Kidd's privateer commission was signed personally by the King was a clue. :)
Still, your response isn't that far off. While the King was not a direct financial backer and did not spend a personal dime on it (and there were no Prime Ministers until the Hanoverians), he did promote the idea of sending privateers in the Indian Ocean to alleviate the East India Company's constant requests for military intervention from London : He recognized the harm piracy was doing to Britain's prestige and trade in the region, but his personal crusade against Louis XIV meant he couldn't spare Royal Navy men-of-wars to send in such a far-away region.
Sadly, the pilot project would became a complete fiasco.
I'll throw a bone then: The reason why they wanted their identity to remain confidential is because all four of them were proeminent supporters of King William since the Glorious Revolution, and all four were among His Majesty's close personal friends.
So, only the names are needed.
Hmmmm, I guess this time the question was a little bit too hard for most. :(
Quote from: Drakken on November 20, 2009, 01:35:52 PM
Hmmmm, I guess this time the question was a little bit too hard for most. :(
What gave it away? :P
Well, it is hard to gauge difficulty of questions, I thought my question would be easy as well with the Napoleon link (seems to be a lot of people here with a special interest for the Napoleonic Wars)
Well then, I'll give you the answer.
The four individuals were ALL holders of Offices of the Realm at the time, proeminent Whigs, and first-time supporters of William since he set foot on England's soil.
They were:
a) Sir John Somers, Lord Keeper of the Great Seal
b) Charles Talbot, 1st Duke of Shrewsbury, Secretary of State
c) Sir Edward Russell, First Lord of the Admiralty
d) Henry Sydney, 1st Earl of Romney, Master-General of Ordnance
You can now understand why Kidd's antics became a huge political scandal in Parliament when the identity of these backers became known.
As an aside, when Kidd was brought back to London he was summoned before a Parliamentary committee to see if he could be used as a key witness for an eventual impeachment, in exchange for a Parliamentary pardon which would save his neck. Weirdly, while his inexcusable nigh-on piratic antics and the links with the backers were widely known, Kidd stauchily maintained he had committed no piracy despite clear evidence of the contrary, which made them consider him useless as an unreliable witness. Hence the word of one member of Parliament: "I had thought him only a knave. Now I know him to be a fool as well". :lol:
And I checked, it wasn't mentioned on Wiki in the bio of any of these great individuals. :cool:
I cede the floor.
Quote from: Alexandru H. on November 19, 2009, 08:42:13 PM
By all means, I'm offering you the chance to respond.
There are three completely unknown people placed in that list. To find another four would be quite a feat... :lmfao:
Ok, I'm going with a stupid response: the king and the prime-minister were involved.
Obscure is not the same as cryptic. Your questions are cryptic as the only correct answers are the ones chosen by you.
My bad, it was in Captain Kidd's bio on Wiki. :blush:
QuoteFour-fifths of the cost for the venture was paid for by noble lords, who were among the most powerful men in England: the Earl of Orford, The Baron of Romney, the Duke of Shrewsbury and Sir John Somers. Kidd was presented with a letter of marque, signed personally by King William III of England. This letter reserved 10% of the loot for the Crown, and Henry Gilbert's The Book of Pirates suggests that the King may have fronted some of the money for the voyage himself. Kidd and an acquaintance, Colonel Robert Livingston, orchestrated the whole plan and paid for the rest. Kidd had to sell his ship Antigua to raise funds.
Let's get this thread going again with an easy one.
Almost 95% of Bali's population adhere to a variety of Hinduism, and being in Bali reminds you of being in India in many ways. The island became Hindu after being made a colony of a vast Hindu empire. What's the name of the empire?
No-one? It was founded after the failed Mongol invasion of Java.
Khmer?
Nope
Balikpapan?
Nope
argh... yeah I do recall some Indonesian empire now that you mention it but it had a weird ass name.
um.... Suvaryaman or something?
Nope. You might be thinking of Srivijaya (which directly precedes this empire)
There's a regional air-carrier called Srivijaya Air btw, with a really shitty rep (though of course most Indonesian carriers have a shitty rep)
Hindu? I thought the Balinese were Buddhist.
Nope. He's right about them being Hindu (it does seem strange... total outlier).
Yep, only Hindu island in the region. Bali is 95% hindu and 95% of Indonesia's hindus live on Bali (or something like that). The central government in Jakarta recently drove through a so-called "anti-pornography law" which has been used to arrest women on charges of prostitution for not wearing veils and will outlaw the showing of female skin in traditional balinese dancing, for example. The governor of Bali said he'd prefer Bali to secede rather than be subject to the law. They don't like the javanese very much, especially not since muslims from java took to the habit of blowing themselves up in their night clubs. But the Balinese were very prominent in the struggle for freedom from the dutch so they do have some patriotic feeling for Indonesia.
Still no-one? It's a playable country in Eu3.
Quote from: Caliga on December 14, 2009, 10:43:46 AM
um.... Suvaryaman or something?
I think that's the leader of the Khmer in Civ 4.
Majapahit?
Correct!
(They made Bali their base after they were driven off Java)
Been over a month. I'm jumping in:
During the eighth century, a standard of calligraphy was set using the script from the Saint Martin of Tours monastery. What was it called?
Carolingian?
Frankish?
I thought it was Carolingian Miniscule
Times Old Roman
The worst defeat for the Royal Navy during the Napoleonic Wars (an entire squadron was either sunk or captured) occurred where?
Quote from: Caliga on January 19, 2010, 06:21:52 AM
The worst defeat for the Royal Navy during the Napoleonic Wars (an entire squadron was either sunk or captured) occurred where?
Mauritius, If I'm not wrong.
Quote from: Alatriste on January 19, 2010, 06:54:54 AM
Mauritius, If I'm not wrong.
Not Jack Aubrey's fault, he wasn't there!
Quote from: Alatriste on January 19, 2010, 06:54:54 AM
Mauritius, If I'm not wrong.
You are indeed not wrong. The Battle of Grand Port, to be specific. You're up.
An easy one. Galleys stank to heaven, so much it was said that even in the darkest night a galley couldn't approach unnoticed because the nose discovered it where the eyes couldn't.
Most countries usually let the thing stand but the Venetians actually tried to clean their galleys at regular intervals (perhaps because they used more free oarsmen) and they had a very efficient and cheap method. What did they do?
Sank them. Too easy.
They sank them to clean them out?
Put them under a waterfall?
burned them and replaced the burned bit?
Some sort of system for washing them out with seawater, without sinking the boat?
Capsized them in shallow water?
Nope, Yi is right. They sank them in shallow waters, if possible where flowing currents would push the filth away.
Floor open.
What was the worst single shipwreck in American history?
For a bonus, what was the worst single shipwreck in history?
Oddly enough they had some very peculiar similarities.
Do you mean in terms of loss of life?
In all of history it was that one at the end of WWII where a Soviet sub sunk a German liner in the Baltic overloaded with refugees and injured soldiers... I think it was called the Wilhelm Gustloff or something.... IIRC 9,000 died.
In the US I'm guessing it was that one right after the end of the civil war where a steamship blew up on the Mississippi near Memphis. I can't remember the loss of life there, but I think the ship was called USS Sultana.
Quote from: Caliga on February 03, 2010, 06:14:39 AM
Do you mean in terms of loss of life?
In all of history it was that one at the end of WWII where a Soviet sub sunk a German liner in the Baltic overloaded with refugees and injured soldiers... I think it was called the Wilhelm Gustloff or something.... IIRC 9,000 died.
In the US I'm guessing it was that one right after the end of the civil war where a steamship blew up on the Mississippi near Memphis. I can't remember the loss of life there, but I think the ship was called USS Sultana.
Correct on all accounts.
The loss of life on the Sultana was a few more than on the Titanic. It was loaded with soldiers and ex-POWs headed home after the war which was similar to the German ship loaded with soldiers and others.
I like the naval theme and shall continue with it.
What extraordinary feat is the British submarine HMS Venturer noted for, which no other submarine had ever achieved before nor has achieved since?
Sinking an enemy submarine.
Quote from: The Brain on February 03, 2010, 01:14:11 PM
Sinking an enemy submarine while both submarines were submerged.
I fixed that for you!
Correct. There is speculation that US-Soviet subs have collided, but the Venturer is the only sub that destroyed an enemy sub with a torpedo while both were submerged.
Whatever. I'm shooting from the hip here.
THE LADIES KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT
Quote from: The Brain on February 03, 2010, 03:58:37 PM
Whatever. I'm shooting from the hip here.
Your guess (while very close) didn't quite cut the mustard because there were other instances during WWII of subs sinking each other when at least one was surfaced. I think one of the giant Jap sub carriers was sunk by a US submarine, and I believe a Japanese sub actually sunk a US sub on another occasion.
Quote from: Caliga on February 03, 2010, 04:03:08 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 03, 2010, 03:58:37 PM
Whatever. I'm shooting from the hip here.
Your guess (while very close) didn't quite cut the mustard because there were other instances during WWII of subs sinking each other when at least one was surfaced. I think one of the giant Jap sub carriers was sunk by a US submarine, and I believe a Japanese sub actually sunk a US sub on another occasion.
Why do you want to discuss my failure at length? Is this a Kentucky thing?
Quote from: Caliga on February 03, 2010, 12:35:42 PM
I like the naval theme and shall continue with it.
What extraordinary feat is the British submarine HMS Venturer noted for, which no other submarine had ever achieved before nor has achieved since?
Good Grief, I feel old...I remember asking that question on the old board. :(
Slavery was more or less officially established in Virginia in 1654, when land owner Anthony Johnson convinced a court that his black indentured servant John Casor was his for life. The court ruled in Johnson's favor. Johnson eventually became very wealthy and began importing black slaves from Africa.
What makes the above even more interesting?
Oh I know this one!
It's : irony.
:yes:
L.
Anthony went by the nickname "Magic."
Quote from: Octavian on February 10, 2010, 09:12:02 AM
Slavery was more or less officially established in Virginia in 1654, when land owner Anthony Johnson convinced a court that his black indentured servant John Casor was his for life. The court ruled in Johnson's favor. Johnson eventually became very wealthy and began importing black slaves from Africa.
What makes the above even more interesting?
He was the first Englishman to own African slaves?
:hmm:
Anthony Johnson was black?
[Answer based on the, ahem, "interesting" responses so far to this question.]
Yes, he was black - a good way to show how slavery at first wasn't especially «racialized», but a more transitory status, based on circumstances. It took more or less 30-40 years before being a slave became associated with being black, and before black slave owners were ousted / chased / re-enslaved in Virginia.
History really is full of little ironies.
What was the traditional title used by rulers of all Sumer to legitimise their rule?
Leader of the Free World.
King of Kings?
Chairman of the Board?
HNIC?
Quote from: Agelastus on February 10, 2010, 03:04:41 PM
History really is full of little ironies.
What was the traditional title used by rulers of all Sumer to legitimise their rule?
Ensi?
Pelosi?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 10, 2010, 03:38:59 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on February 10, 2010, 03:04:41 PM
History really is full of little ironies.
What was the traditional title used by rulers of all Sumer to legitimise their rule?
Ensi?
No, but kudos to you for giving me the first answer from the right period. :hug:
Viking
No. But you are on the right lines.
Quote from: Agelastus on February 10, 2010, 04:23:21 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 10, 2010, 03:38:59 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on February 10, 2010, 03:04:41 PM
History really is full of little ironies.
What was the traditional title used by rulers of all Sumer to legitimise their rule?
Ensi?
No, but kudos to you for giving me the first answer from the right period. :hug:
Viking
No. But you are on the right lines.
King?
King?
Quote from: Viking on February 10, 2010, 04:27:11 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on February 10, 2010, 04:23:21 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 10, 2010, 03:38:59 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on February 10, 2010, 03:04:41 PM
History really is full of little ironies.
What was the traditional title used by rulers of all Sumer to legitimise their rule?
Ensi?
No, but kudos to you for giving me the first answer from the right period. :hug:
Viking
No. But you are on the right lines.
King?
King?
Since I have a headache, and may not be online much longer, the part you had right (assuming you were saying it in English, of course) was "King of.....".
Hmmm. I only know two titles in Sumeria. Lugal and Ensi. Well, there is also En. I don't know how they all relate to each other. In fact I don't think there is an agreement on which has precedence over the other.
Is the answer you are looking for "king of Kish"?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 10, 2010, 05:13:29 PM
Hmmm. I only know two titles in Sumeria. Lugal and Ensi. Well, there is also En. I don't know how they all relate to each other. In fact I don't think there is an agreement on which has precedence over the other.
Is the answer you are looking for "king of Kish"?
Lugal, Ensi and En (and Nam-Lugal) for example are all equivalent to our usage of King or President, effectively. "King of Kish" was a title used to claim that their rule over all of Sumeria (hence all the other Lugals or Ensis) was legitimate. It pops up in inscriptions as well as the "Kings list". This is presumed to have come from an early primacy of Kish, or possibly because in some way control of Kish granted title to Nippur, Sumer's "Holy City". It's an interesting example of a title changing meaning while remaining the same.
And indeed, "King of Kish" was what I was looking for. You're up, Raz.
I have no question. Anyone but viking.
Quote from: Agelastus on February 10, 2010, 12:51:24 PM
:hmm:
Anthony Johnson was black?
[Answer based on the, ahem, "interesting" responses so far to this question.]
Not only was he black but he himself was a former slave or rather indentured servant
OK, when the Nazis invaded Denmark several important German scientists exiled there had to flee in a hurry. Two of them, Max Laue and James Franck, left in the Niels Bohr Institute their Nobel Prize gold medals and assumed they had been stolen.
However, one of their fellows scientists foiled the Nazis. He not only managed to make sure they wouldn't find the medals in their searches, but from 1940 to 1945 he always had them on his desk... and nobody noticed!
How did he hide the gold medals in plain sight?
Quote from: Alatriste on February 11, 2010, 07:33:48 AM
How did he hide the gold medals in plain sight?
Dissolve them in aqua regia or similar?
Edit: I see wiki confirms my thought (I must have read that somewhere earlier).
Open floor.
So he did. The Swedish Academics must have been quite surprised when they received the precipitated gold recovered from the acid with the petition to recast the original medals!
Easy.
Immediate successor of the founder of the Sassanian dynasty and famous victor over the Emperor Valerian, Shapur brought order to late-Parthian anarchy and established a more centralized regime, that broke with the Parthian army's traditions and developed Persian infantry and siege weapons. Also famous for supporting Mani, the Mainchean prophet, is given a favorable mention in the Talmud, and utilized capture Roman Engineers in part of a massive construction project.
Quote from: Queequeg on February 11, 2010, 08:09:46 AM
Easy.
Immediate successor of the founder of the Sassanian dynasty and famous victor over the Emperor Valerian, Shapur brought order to late-Parthian anarchy and established a more centralized regime, that broke with the Parthian army's traditions and developed Persian infantry and siege weapons. Also famous for supporting Mani, the Mainchean prophet, is given a favorable mention in the Talmud, and utilized capture Roman Engineers in part of a massive construction project.
Is this a question?
Quote from: Syt on February 11, 2010, 08:20:18 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on February 11, 2010, 08:09:46 AM
Easy.
Immediate successor of the founder of the Sassanian dynasty and famous victor over the Emperor Valerian, Shapur brought order to late-Parthian anarchy and established a more centralized regime, that broke with the Parthian army's traditions and developed Persian infantry and siege weapons. Also famous for supporting Mani, the Mainchean prophet, is given a favorable mention in the Talmud, and utilized capture Roman Engineers in part of a massive construction project.
Is this a question?
No.
Am I right?
It's a "Name this famous person" question.
QuoteImmediate successor of the founder of the Sassanian dynasty and famous victor over the Emperor Valerian, Shapur brought order to late-Parthian anarchy
Are we looking for "Shapur"?
Yes.
I thought it was obvious enough that "this person" was to be replaced with "Shapur", a la Jeopardy.
I'm confused and cede the floor.
I'm confused and I wasn't even on the floor.
I'm not confused but I have no good questions to ask.
This person published ideas on free trade, market forces, and relationship between society and economics that closely resembled Adam Smith's ideas in The Wealth of Nations, several years before Adam Smith. Who was it?
Quote from: Queequeg on February 11, 2010, 08:43:31 AM
Yes.
I thought it was obvious enough that "this person" was to be replaced with "Shapur", a la Jeopardy.
I don't think it was that obvious. You managed to ask the most confusing question and the easiest at the same time. With out it actually being a question.
Aweseome question Squeelus. I've got one just for you: Horatio Nelson commanded the British fleet at the battle of Trafalgar.
"This person"?
Quote from: Solmyr on February 11, 2010, 10:35:09 AM
This person published ideas on free trade, market forces, and relationship between society and economics that closely resembled Adam Smith's ideas in The Wealth of Nations, several years before Adam Smith. Who was it?
Anders Chydenius.
Quote from: The Brain on February 11, 2010, 12:53:29 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on February 11, 2010, 10:35:09 AM
This person published ideas on free trade, market forces, and relationship between society and economics that closely resembled Adam Smith's ideas in The Wealth of Nations, several years before Adam Smith. Who was it?
Anders Chydenius.
Correct, you are on.
Open floor.
Which one of Napoleon's marshals was half-English and was the sole Marshal of France (at the time) to speak English?
I was tempted to say MacDonald, but IIRC, he is from an old jacobite family, i.e., not properly English, and probably didn't speak the language.
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 11, 2010, 03:29:03 PM
I was tempted to say MacDonald, but IIRC, he is from an old jacobite family, i.e., not properly English, and probably didn't speak the language.
Correct - MacDonald was 3rd generation French, and spoke no English. It's a tricky one.
Here's a hint - he was to command the Imperial Guard on the 1815 campaign, but took ill and didn't go as planned.
(EDIT) Looked it up as I wasn't sure - MacDonald's father was Scot - for some reason I thought he was from an earlier line of emigrants
Marshal Crenshaw
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 11, 2010, 03:40:50 PM
Marshal Crenshaw
:P His surname was French, as his mother was English.
Adolphe Édouard Casimir Joseph Mortier :)
Kevin
Quote from: Eochaid on February 11, 2010, 04:13:36 PM
Adolphe Édouard Casimir Joseph Mortier :)
Kevin
Oui. Well done. An under-rated commander. You're up.
A famous slave, I was also a martial artist. Today, I am a national hero
Kevin
Quote from: Eochaid on February 11, 2010, 06:38:59 PM
A famous slave, I was also a martial artist. Today, I am a national hero
Kevin
Toussaint l'Ouverture
Quote from: citizen k on February 11, 2010, 06:42:30 PM
Quote from: Eochaid on February 11, 2010, 06:38:59 PM
A famous slave, I was also a martial artist. Today, I am a national hero
Kevin
Toussaint l'Ouverture
Nope
Kevin
Frederick "Black Belt" Douglass
Quote from: Eochaid on February 11, 2010, 06:38:59 PM
A famous slave, I was also a martial artist. Today, I am a national hero
Kevin
Dolph isn't a slave.
Quote from: Eochaid on February 11, 2010, 06:38:59 PM
A famous slave, I was also a martial artist. Today, I am a national hero
Kevin
Spartacus.
Clue: he died at the age of forty
Kevin
Some Brazilian Capoeira dude?
The term martial art is pretty broad. Technically my answer is correct. Also Theseus was a slave, is credited with being a great martial artist (wrestler) and was a hero. Also he probably didn't exist.
I looked it up. Even guessing I'd get the right answer by hiring monkeys with typewriters quicker.
auilrhtquhkla siruaurghluirvhn
My money is on Throbby.
I'm a Brazilian Capoeira dude!
Answer was Zumbi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumbi)
Kevin
*bump*
I ran across this in a book I'm reading on Elisha Kane, arctic explorer, but I know I'd read about this somewhere else, so hopefully it isn't too obscure...
In the mid 19th century the Fox Sisters (Leah, Kate and Maggie) became quite famous (or infamous) spirit mediums, able to communicate with the dead through a series of 'unearthly' raps or knocks that would appear to come from all over their room. The Fox sisters would conduct seances for a whole host of the upper crust of New York and US eastern seaboard society, and even made it across to England to do the same. The Fox sisters also helped spark a whole Spiritualist movement, with hundreds of imitators and admirers (and a similar number of sceptics and detractors).
Eventually however Maggie Fox did admit that she and her sisters were frauds, and they all died penniless.
The question is - how did the Fox Sisters create that rapping sound that they claimed came from the spirit world?
They had a cleverly constructed space under the table just big enough for their colored servant Shawn Corey Carter.
They knocked on the tables from beneath with their knees?
Quote from: Caliga on February 16, 2010, 03:37:00 PM
They knocked on the tables from beneath with their knees?
Nope. Even in the 1850s people woulc have figured that out.
Quote from: Barrister on February 16, 2010, 04:47:13 PM
Quote from: Caliga on February 16, 2010, 03:37:00 PM
They knocked on the tables from beneath with their knees?
Nope. Even in the 1850s people woulc have figured that out.
that makes them much smarter than the people in the 1920's when Harry Houdini was exposing precisely that.
but my guess is "using a spitball"
Quote from: Viking on February 16, 2010, 04:53:10 PM
but my guess is "using a spitball"
I'm pretty sure that's wrong, but can you explain what that is?
They used space aliens instead of ghosts.
Completely wild guess but;
Running hot water through metal pipes in the walls. The pipes expand until the pressure overcomes the static friction causing the pipes to "hop" in their mountings. the reverberations travel along the pipes making it sound like the "knocking" is coming from all parts of the room.
Quote from: Maximus on February 16, 2010, 06:55:49 PM
Completely wild guess but;
Running hot water through metal pipes in the walls. The pipes expand until the pressure overcomes the static friction causing the pipes to "hop" in their mountings. the reverberations travel along the pipes making it sound like the "knocking" is coming from all parts of the room.
Did houses have running water in the 1850s?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 16, 2010, 07:01:58 PM
Did houses have running water in the 1850s?
The technology existed, and if it was uncommon that would make it more likely people wouldn't recognize the sound.
Looked it up. :lol:
I am eagerly awaiting a correct guess.
Quote from: Barrister on February 16, 2010, 04:47:13 PM
Nope. Even in the 1850s people woulc have figured that out.
Ok, guess #2: They kept The Fat Boys hidden behind a curtain.
Quote from: Maximus on February 16, 2010, 06:55:49 PM
Completely wild guess but;
Running hot water through metal pipes in the walls. The pipes expand until the pressure overcomes the static friction causing the pipes to "hop" in their mountings. the reverberations travel along the pipes making it sound like the "knocking" is coming from all parts of the room.
No. They did their readings for years, in a whole variety of rooms, theatres, private dwellings, etc. Not to mention in different countries.
This wasn't meant to be a Spellus-level hyper-obscure question, so I'll post the answer in a few hours if no one gets it. Mostly I just wanted to bump the History Trivia thread.
They had one of those annoying chat clients running in the background.
From Wikipedia:
QuoteMargaret told her story of the origins of the mysterious "rappings" in a signed confession given to the press and published in New York World, October 21, 1888.[5] In it, she explained the Hydesville Events.
She also expanded on her career as a medium after leaving the homestead to begin her Spiritualist travels with her older sister, Mrs. Underhill:
"Mrs. Underhill, my eldest sister, took Katie and me to Rochester. There it was that we discovered a new way to make the raps. My sister Katie was the first to observe that by swishing her fingers she could produce certain noises with her knuckles and joints, and that the same effect could be made with the toes. Finding that we could make raps with our feet - first with one foot and then with both - we practiced until we could do this easily when the room was dark. Like most perplexing things when made clear, it is astonishing how easily it is done. The rapping are simply the result of a perfect control of the muscles of the leg below the knee, which govern the tendons of the foot and allow action of the toe and ankle bones that is not commonly known. Such perfect control is only possible when the child is taken at an early age and carefully and continually taught to practice the muscles, which grow stiffer in later years. ... This, then, is the simple explanation of the whole method of the knocks and raps."[18]
She also notes:
"A great many people when they hear the rapping imagine at once that the spirits are touching them. It is a very common delusion. Some very wealthy people came to see me some years ago when I lived in Forty-second Street and I did some rappings for them. I made the spirit rap on the chair and one of the ladies cried out: "I feel the spirit tapping me on the shoulder." Of course that was pure imagination."[19]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_sisters
So, they made their fortune as spiritualists by cracking the knuckles in their toes.
Since I just seized an open floor, the floor is open for any other comer.
An easy one then.
What was the last battle in which Rome's Praetorian Guard fought?
Quote from: Agelastus on February 17, 2010, 07:44:47 AM
An easy one then.
What was the last battle in which Rome's Praetorian Guard fought?
Milvian bridge?
Quote from: Octavian on February 17, 2010, 08:02:02 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on February 17, 2010, 07:44:47 AM
An easy one then.
What was the last battle in which Rome's Praetorian Guard fought?
Milvian bridge?
Correct.
You're up.
In the imperial Roman army an Evocati was?
Quote from: Octavian on February 17, 2010, 08:31:45 AM
In the imperial Roman army an Evocati was?
A retired veteran recalled to the colours in an emergency, I believe.
Quote from: Agelastus on February 17, 2010, 08:33:19 AM
Quote from: Octavian on February 17, 2010, 08:31:45 AM
In the imperial Roman army an Evocati was?
A retired veteran recalled to the colours in an emergency, I believe.
I don't know if the emergency bit was right. They were often just high ranking veterans who were asked to re-enlist by the Consul/Emperor, and often later on became Centurions.
Queenfag is right regarding the emergency however Agelastus was close enough and thus wins the floor.
OK then.
Name the Macedonian and Spartan kings who fought at the battle of Sellasia.
Alexander the Great and Leonidas.
Quote from: Agelastus on February 17, 2010, 02:34:46 PM
OK then.
Name the Macedonian and Spartan kings who fought at the battle of Sellasia.
There were no Greek royalty in the Silesian Wars. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Syt on February 17, 2010, 02:46:36 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on February 17, 2010, 02:34:46 PM
OK then.
Name the Macedonian and Spartan kings who fought at the battle of Sellasia.
There were no Greek royalty in the Silesian Wars. :rolleyes:
Since I have not mispelled anything, your comment makes no sense. Is this a European joke I am not getting?
Quote from: Agelastus on February 17, 2010, 02:50:32 PM
Since I have not mispelled anything, your comment makes no sense.
:bleeding:
Quote from: Agelastus on February 17, 2010, 02:50:32 PM
Quote from: Syt on February 17, 2010, 02:46:36 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on February 17, 2010, 02:34:46 PM
OK then.
Name the Macedonian and Spartan kings who fought at the battle of Sellasia.
There were no Greek royalty in the Silesian Wars. :rolleyes:
Since I have not mispelled anything, your comment makes no sense. Is this a European joke I am not getting?
:huh:
Quote from: Syt on February 17, 2010, 02:51:41 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on February 17, 2010, 02:50:32 PM
Quote from: Syt on February 17, 2010, 02:46:36 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on February 17, 2010, 02:34:46 PM
OK then.
Name the Macedonian and Spartan kings who fought at the battle of Sellasia.
There were no Greek royalty in the Silesian Wars. :rolleyes:
Since I have not mispelled anything, your comment makes no sense. Is this a European joke I am not getting?
:huh:
The weird man frightens me, Syt.
:unsure:
Quote from: The Brain on February 17, 2010, 02:51:30 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on February 17, 2010, 02:50:32 PM
Since I have not mispelled anything, your comment makes no sense.
:bleeding:
:Embarrass:
Quite right. Still doesn't mean I understand Syt's comment though.
Quote from: Agelastus on February 17, 2010, 02:53:30 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 17, 2010, 02:51:30 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on February 17, 2010, 02:50:32 PM
Since I have not mispelled anything, your comment makes no sense.
:bleeding:
:Embarrass:
Quite right. Still doesn't mean I understand Syt's comment though.
Syt, me and many others have been making jokes using that formula for many years. And we intend to keep doing it.
Quote from: Syt on February 17, 2010, 02:53:24 PM
:unsure:
I have no idea what Silesia has to do with a battle fought in 222BC, unless it is an obscure European joke or you are objecting to some aspect of my grammar. :huh:
If it is obvious, I will of course bang my head against a wall in shame.
I WILL NOT EXPLAIN MYSELF
Quote from: The Brain on February 17, 2010, 02:54:44 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on February 17, 2010, 02:53:30 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 17, 2010, 02:51:30 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on February 17, 2010, 02:50:32 PM
Since I have not mispelled anything, your comment makes no sense.
:bleeding:
:Embarrass:
Quite right. Still doesn't mean I understand Syt's comment though.
Syt, me and many others have been making jokes using that formula for many years. And we intend to keep doing it.
Ah, so it is a joke.
I'm disappointed. Given the overall excellent quality of the punning here, I had hoped for better.
The joke is obvious, but there is no need for headbanging.
One of the many Antigonid Antigonuses, and maybe Cleomenes?
Quote from: Queequeg on February 17, 2010, 03:22:10 PM
One of the many Antigonid Antigonuses, and maybe Cleomenes?
Well, you've got both first names right, although given the number of Antigonus's in that period, his full name would be kinda nice... :)
Hint, it begins with "D".
Quote from: Agelastus on February 17, 2010, 06:08:04 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on February 17, 2010, 03:22:10 PM
One of the many Antigonid Antigonuses, and maybe Cleomenes?
Well, you've got both first names right, although given the number of Antigonus's in that period, his full name would be kinda nice... :)
Hint, it begins with "D".
Demetrios?
Dosum? Dosom? He isn't a starting monarch in EB, so I'm not totally sure.
Quote from: Queequeg on February 18, 2010, 04:28:43 AM
Dosum? Dosom? He isn't a starting monarch in EB, so I'm not totally sure.
I'll let you have it. His name was Antigonus Doson (and the Spartan was Cleomenes III.)
You're up, Queequeg.
This back & forth between QueerConstantinople & Agelatus/Octavian as grown old.
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 18, 2010, 08:10:56 AM
This back & forth between QueerConstantinople & Agelatus/Octavian as grown old.
I'm sure Queerasfolk wil ask some obscure question now
Who are the two men vying for Socrates' attention in the Symposium? Both historical figures.
Quote from: Queequeg on February 18, 2010, 09:06:25 AM
Who are the two men vying for Socrates' attention in the Symposium? Both historical figures.
Alcibiades and Agathon.
L.
Yup.
That wasn't that hard, was it?
You are up, Pedrito.
A hurried one:
the lives of the three great greek tragedy writers were ideally linked to a famous battle; which battle was it, and how was it linked to the lives of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Eurypides?
L.
Marathon, they were all in it.
Quote from: Viking on February 18, 2010, 10:34:49 AM
Marathon, they were all in it.
I believe it was renamed to Snickers, actually.
I just finished eating a Snickers right before I opened this thread. COSMIC. :o
Anyway, my guess is Salamis.
Quote from: Caliga on February 18, 2010, 12:04:11 PM
Anyway, my guess is Salamis.
I know Aeschylus fought at Salamis and Sophocles was a
strategos so he might have been there as well. No idea how Euripides would be involved.
Good guesses Cal & Sav :)
In tradition, Aeschylus fought in the battle, Sophocles led the choir singing the paean that celebrated the victory, and (in some sources) Eurypides was born on the very island the day of the battle.
Your turn, sirs :bowler:
L.
The southernmost land battle of World War II was fought where?
Quote from: Caliga on February 18, 2010, 07:44:08 PM
The southernmost land battle of World War II was fought where?
Madagascar?
Quote from: Caliga on February 18, 2010, 07:44:08 PM
The southernmost land battle of World War II was fought where?
New Guinea?
Quote from: Viking on February 18, 2010, 07:56:56 PM
Quote from: Caliga on February 18, 2010, 07:44:08 PM
The southernmost land battle of World War II was fought where?
Madagascar?
Correct. I think the southernmost significant battle was fought at Diego Suarez bay on Madagascar.
Beeb's guess was good too... the Battle of Milne Bay was probably #2.
Name one place where the white man arrived before the present day indigenous people. I know of two.
Quote from: Caliga on February 18, 2010, 08:35:18 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 18, 2010, 07:56:56 PM
Quote from: Caliga on February 18, 2010, 07:44:08 PM
The southernmost land battle of World War II was fought where?
Madagascar?
Correct. I think the southernmost significant battle was fought at Diego Suarez bay on Madagascar.
Beeb's guess was good too... the Battle of Milne Bay was probably #2.
Diego Suarez is at the Northern tip of Madagascar. There'd have been fighting further south as the Vichy French defended the capital at Tananarive.
Quote from: Viking on February 18, 2010, 08:39:17 PM
Name one place where the white man arrived before the present day indigenous people. I know of two.
:hmm:
Cape Town?
Reached by the Dutch before the Bantu tribes, although I've always been somewhat dubious about the claim that the Khoisan peoples weren't living there at that time either.
Southern Greenland?
I believe the natives may have migrated south to the vicinity of the Viking settlements.
I think you are right about Greenland.
That would be my guess anyway.
Quote from: Agelastus on February 18, 2010, 08:47:24 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 18, 2010, 08:39:17 PM
Name one place where the white man arrived before the present day indigenous people. I know of two.
:hmm:
Cape Town?
Reached by the Dutch before the Bantu tribes, although I've always been somewhat dubious about the claim that the Khoisan peoples weren't living their at that time either.
Southern Greenland?
I believe the natives may have migrated south to the vicinity of the Viking settlements.
You got both.
In the cape there were Bantu peoples in the region, the main issue however was that they were not settled farmers. Bantu peoples did not have agriculture which suited the climate. The Dutch, however, did. Eventually European agriculture allowed Bantu settlement.
In Greenland the Thule people arrived in Greenland after the Vikings. They were probably driven by same climate changes which were one of the causes of the fall of norse settlement in greenland.
Since its about time I retired for the night/morning, and somebody ( :glare:) complained about me hogging the thread earlier, I yield the floor to Clandestino.
Open floor.
Quote from: Agelastus on February 18, 2010, 08:42:55 PM
Diego Suarez is at the Northern tip of Madagascar. There'd have been fighting further south as the Vichy French defended the capital at Tananarive.
Yeah, I know where it is, and while I think there was Vichy resistance at the capital I don't think it was serious... and I said "significant" battle in my followup (but admittedly not in the original question). To this day there are still partially sunken Vichy/British ships in Diego Suarez harbor. But in either case, Madagascar is definitely correct as even Diego Suarez is a bit further south than New Guinea. ^_^
Quote from: Agelastus on February 18, 2010, 08:59:43 PM
Since its about time I retired for the night/morning, and somebody ( :glare:) complained about me hogging the thread earlier, I yield the floor to Clandestino.
Not you, Spellus was.
2 week rule.
Which country had the first female foreign minister?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2010, 07:46:00 PM
2 week rule.
Which country had the first female foreign minister?
Israel?
Quote from: Barrister on March 02, 2010, 07:48:07 PM
Israel?
Nope.
Goldie was ambassador to the USSR after independence; did she ever hold foreign minister?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2010, 07:50:19 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 02, 2010, 07:48:07 PM
Israel?
Nope.
Goldie was ambassador to the USSR after independence; did she ever hold foreign minister?
She did. Just looked it up. 1956-1966.
I keep reading this thread title as "History Trivia Thread Rednecks".
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 02, 2010, 10:32:50 PM
I keep reading this thread title as "History Trivia Thread Rednecks".
I was just about to post that. Scary. :ph34r:
Ana Pauka of Rumania was the world's first female foreign minister. Appointed in 1948, purged shortly thereafter.
In 1794 Sweden, as part of a general crackdown on freedom of the press, banned two specific documents.
Which documents?
Thomas Paine's The Rights of Man, and the Declaration of Independence?
Quote from: frunk on March 03, 2010, 08:50:30 AM
Thomas Paine's The Rights of Man, and the Declaration of Independence?
One of them is correct
The Declaration of the Rights of Man (from Revolutionary France) and The US Declaration of Independence ?
Quote from: Viking on March 03, 2010, 12:16:20 PM
The Declaration of the Rights of Man (from Revolutionary France) and The US Declaration of Independence ?
Close!
The French constitution and the US Declaration of Independence.
The floor is yours!
Robert Stephenson's Rocket competed with it's rivals in a now famous trial, which it won. Name one of the two main design differences between the Rocket and it's competitors which helped it win.
New question please.
Quote from: Jaron on March 03, 2010, 02:51:23 PM
New question please.
If I asked a question about copper bottoms, flint locks or cotton gins this would go unremarked. But this is the most important machine in history, both individually and as a definition of class.
Okay.... if you're that passionate about it..
I'm going to guess detachable rockets and a better type of fuel
Quote from: Viking on March 03, 2010, 02:45:50 PM
Robert Stephenson's Rocket competed with it's rivals in a now famous trial, which it won. Name one of the two main design differences between the Rocket and it's competitors which helped it win.
Maglev.
nope on the fuel, rockets and maglev
It was a system of tubes?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 03, 2010, 03:23:33 PM
It was a system of tubes?
Ding ding, we have a winner. The tube design in the boiler increases the surface area between the fire box flue and the water making more steam more quickly. Giving more power for less mass.
However, this is not why the Rocket won. One of it's main competetors had technical problems with the older and more reliable plate design. It performed on par with the Rocket, despite the tubular boiler and the slanted cylinder (the other design feature), it was not the best train at the competition, it did however have the technology which, when developed properly, was the better one.
I don't want to think of a question cause I don't feel good. I would just like bask in the glory of knowing stuff about the industrial revolution. :cool:
What global climate event from the 19th century gave birth, indirectly, to two famous monsters plus to a well-known Christian sect?
Krakatoa?
Irish potato famine?
Related to volcanoes, yes...
The sect is very famous nowadays...
The monsters are WELL-known...
Tambora?
Yep, the famous 1816 year... When Frankenstein's monster and the Vampire were created in the same villa near Lake Geneva because of the bad weather... and when Joseph Smith was forced to move to greener pastures, the same ones that held the future Book of Mormon...
More Victorian technology. One of the sparks for the Indian mutiny of 1857 was the rumour that cow and pig fat was used in the new Enfield Rifle cartridges. What were the cartridges really greased with?
Didn't we have a discussion about that recently? Or did I dream it? Anyway I'm not touching that one.
Quote from: The Brain on March 04, 2010, 04:27:55 AM
Didn't we have a discussion about that recently? Or did I dream it? Anyway I'm not touching that one.
Did "we"? What conclusion did "we" come to?
Quote from: Viking on March 04, 2010, 04:38:24 AM
Did "we"? What conclusion did "we" come to?
Malthus and grumbler had a long back and forth not too long ago in Hod knows what thread about whether the British were actually planning to grease with lard and later changed to wax or whether they had always planned to grease with wax and lard was a pure fabrication. Can't remember the final verdict.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 04, 2010, 05:03:56 AM
Quote from: Viking on March 04, 2010, 04:38:24 AM
Did "we"? What conclusion did "we" come to?
Malthus and grumbler had a long back and forth not too long ago in Hod knows what thread about whether the British were actually planning to grease with lard and later changed to wax or whether they had always planned to grease with wax and lard was a pure fabrication. Can't remember the final verdict.
oh, that would explain why I didn't remember it...
But still, that doesn't change anything, what did they grease it with?
I think Grumbler said it was actually greased with sheep tallow. He sourced it, but I don't think Malthus believed it. In fact Grumbler put a persuasive argument forth that few if any new cartridges reached the rebelling areas.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 04, 2010, 07:34:23 AM
I think Grumbler said it was actually greased with sheep tallow. He sourced it, but I don't think Malthus believed it. In fact Grumbler put a persuasive argument forth that few if any new cartridges reached the rebelling areas.
He's right in that they never reached the area. If he's sourced it then I'd like to see the source. That's not what I have found.
Quote from: Viking on March 04, 2010, 07:49:35 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 04, 2010, 07:34:23 AM
I think Grumbler said it was actually greased with sheep tallow. He sourced it, but I don't think Malthus believed it. In fact Grumbler put a persuasive argument forth that few if any new cartridges reached the rebelling areas.
He's right in that they never reached the area. If he's sourced it then I'd like to see the source. That's not what I have found.
I believe he sourced actual books. What did you find?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 04, 2010, 07:51:36 AM
Quote from: Viking on March 04, 2010, 07:49:35 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 04, 2010, 07:34:23 AM
I think Grumbler said it was actually greased with sheep tallow. He sourced it, but I don't think Malthus believed it. In fact Grumbler put a persuasive argument forth that few if any new cartridges reached the rebelling areas.
He's right in that they never reached the area. If he's sourced it then I'd like to see the source. That's not what I have found.
I believe he sourced actual books. What did you find?
I had it from various sources previously, this is the one I checked before asking the question.
Spoiler Alert: the link below contains the answer. Do not click if you want to keep guessing.
http://books.google.no/books?id=i89IQJkIa3oC&pg=PA656&lpg=PA656&dq=linseed+oil+wax+india+1857&source=bl&ots=-_ZnqV93ZE&sig=e7vIQgCTM9HIzUBUVapUwlOZ610&hl=no&ei=AbCPS-2CO5Dd-QbDo93lCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false
the last appendix on the last page of "A history of the Sepoy war in India, 1857-1858, John William Kaye"
which includes the quote
QuoteI cannot doubt that the impression at head-quarters that the "patches" were greased with mutton fat was altogether a mistake.
Edit: to put the google book link on the correct page.
No answer?
I'm going to guess linseed oil.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 05, 2010, 08:05:36 AM
I'm going to guess linseed oil.
Close enough, it was Linseed Oil and Beeswax. Your floor.
You probably should have hidden the address of your link. :P
I got nuttin.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 05, 2010, 08:13:46 AM
You probably should have hidden the address of your link. :P
I got nuttin.
:blush:
I'll keep the floor
Where does the phrase "Red Herring" come from?
Quote from: Viking on March 05, 2010, 08:17:11 AM
I'll keep the floor
Where does the phrase "Red Herring" come from?
Didn't bandits in the olden days drag an old herring over their trail to lose sniffing dogs?
Quote from: Syt on March 05, 2010, 09:16:39 AM
Quote from: Viking on March 05, 2010, 08:17:11 AM
I'll keep the floor
Where does the phrase "Red Herring" come from?
Didn't bandits in the olden days drag an old herring over their trail to lose sniffing dogs?
Very very close, but what bandit can arrange for a herring before a job? Dogs?, yes, chasing?, yes, bandits?, no.
Different activity.
Pirates?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 05, 2010, 11:07:07 AM
Pirates?
No.
Who might, with the certainty that dogs will be chasing something, have the time, resources and inclination to procure a herring to distract them?
Quote from: Viking on March 05, 2010, 03:17:24 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 05, 2010, 11:07:07 AM
Pirates?
No.
Who might, with the certainty that dogs will be chasing something, have the time, resources and inclination to procure a herring to distract them?
Burglars?
Let's see. :hmm:
Irish slaves in Iceland would have access to herring, but no where to run to. Viking raiders would have access to herring, but would they be scared of some dogs? Conan the Barbarian and Cool Hand Luke had somewhere to run to but no access to herring.
I give up.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 05, 2010, 03:25:10 PM
Let's see. :hmm:
Irish slaves in Iceland would have access to herring, but no where to run to. Viking raiders would have access to herring, but would they be scared of some dogs? Conan the Barbarian and Cool Hand Luke had somewhere to run to but no access to herring.
I give up.
:lmfao:
Not a bad guess, I think.
Fox Hunting. The red herring is used to distract the dogs to make the hunt last longer.
I cede the floor.
What is the origin of the expression "hocus pocus?"
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 05, 2010, 09:33:48 PM
What is the origin of the expression "hocus pocus?"
The origin of that phrase is hard to transubstantiate.
he he
I believe there's an entire body of evidence.
Get a room.
I think PDH got it. IIRC it came from "hoc est corpus" but I forgot exactly how it transformed into "hocus pocus", when, or who was responsible.
English protestant satirists during Henry VIII's reign.
The British general Charles O'Hara had the dubious distinction of being the only man to surrender to what two other famous men?
Napoleon and Wellington?
You are 50% correct. ^_^
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on March 16, 2010, 07:39:29 PM
Napoleon and Wellington?
Why would a British general surrender to a British general? :huh:
Quote from: Agelastus on March 16, 2010, 07:50:53 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on March 16, 2010, 07:39:29 PM
Napoleon and Wellington?
Why would a British general surrender to a British general? :huh:
Napoleon and Washington?
Quote from: Viking on March 16, 2010, 07:53:46 PM
Napoleon and Washington?
Yep. Technically he surrendered to Benjamin Lincoln at Yorktown, since Washington refused to accept his surrender because he felt Cornwallis should be surrendering to him, not his lieutenant O'Hara (Cornwallis was pretending to be sick).... but Washington was the opposing commander.
Quote from: Agelastus on March 16, 2010, 07:50:53 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on March 16, 2010, 07:39:29 PM
Napoleon and Wellington?
Why would a British general surrender to a British general? :huh:
He surrenders to Napoleon, decides to fight for the French, then surrenders to the British?
Hadrian the style icon. What fad did he start?
The wearing of beards by Roman men?
Quote from: Caliga on March 17, 2010, 05:06:14 AM
The wearing of beards by Roman men?
booo hiss radical!!!
yes, his parochial ways proved a big hit in Rome and anywhere else he could execute men at will.
Several years ago, the New Zealand Special Service Medal-Erebus was created by the government of New Zealand to recognize personnel from several countries for what specific reason?
Quote from: Caliga on March 17, 2010, 09:01:23 AM
Several years ago, the New Zealand Special Service Medal-Erebus was created by the government of New Zealand to recognize personnel from several countries for what specific reason?
Giving good head.
Is that your final answer? :)
Recovering survivors/corpses/debris from that flight that crashed near Mt Erebus in Antarctica.
Quote from: Caliga on March 17, 2010, 09:16:27 AM
Is that your final answer? :)
If it's not correct then it should be.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on March 17, 2010, 09:17:26 AM
Recovering survivors/corpses/debris from that flight that crashed near Mt Erebus in Antarctica.
Nope. It crashed into Mt. Erebus, not near it. :P
Ok, you're up. ;)
open floor
Who was the youngest British general of World War I?
Bonus points if you know what happened to him.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 24, 2010, 01:31:22 AM
Who was the youngest British general of World War I?
Bonus points if you know what happened to him.
Roland Bradford, killed in late 1917 at the age of 25. Unfortunately, due to my appalling memory and not wishing this thread to die, I've just had to look that up in Peter Hart's book on the battle of the Somme. :Embarrass: :Embarrass: :Embarrass: :Embarrass: :Embarrass: :Embarrass: :Embarrass:
So, open floor.
I was looking for this thread.
What was de Toqueville supposed to be doing while he was meandering around the US?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 22, 2010, 06:20:29 PM
I was looking for this thread.
The easy way is to look on the forum stats page.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 22, 2010, 06:20:29 PM
What was de Toqueville supposed to be doing while he was meandering around the US?
Haven't a clue.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 22, 2010, 06:20:29 PM
I was looking for this thread.
What was de Toqueville supposed to be doing while he was meandering around the US?
Avoiding the less than healthy political scene in france?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 22, 2010, 06:20:29 PM
I was looking for this thread.
What was de Toqueville supposed to be doing while he was meandering around the US?
Mocking Americans in an outrageous French accent. :frog:
So damn close, both of you.
Agricultural research?
Escaping debt collectors?
I gotta sack soon.
He was investigating American prisons.
Quote from: Viking on April 22, 2010, 08:28:35 PM
Escaping debt collectors?
Like my future brother in law!
What is the derivation of the word strike, as in a labor stoppage?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 30, 2010, 12:27:09 PM
What is the derivation of the word strike, as in a labor stoppage?
I have heard two theories - 1) from lowering the sails of a ship, 2) tossing tools on the floor of the shop
Quote from: PDH on April 30, 2010, 12:30:24 PM
I have heard two theories - 1) from lowering the sails of a ship, 2) tossing tools on the floor of the shop
I was looking for 1.
Ask one if you got one Humbert.
What happened to IPv5?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 22, 2010, 09:19:45 PM
I gotta sack soon.
He was investigating American prisons.
Which had a good reputation in Europe.
I got nothing, floor is open.
Two teenagers, employed in 1970s by the Oakland A's in non-playing positions, went on to become millionaires in non-baseball jobs. Who are they?
I know one for sure and have a feeling I know the second but can't come up with it.
Well, one worked there from 1973 to 1980, the other from 1969 to 1971.
One was MC Hammer, right?
Quote from: Caliga on May 02, 2010, 06:08:23 AM
One was MC Hammer, right?
Yes. The other - hint - served cookies and lemonade to umpires between innings, though that was not this person's original function.
Famous Amos?
the bitch from Mrs. Fields (dunno her first name)?
Quote from: Caliga on May 02, 2010, 12:26:54 PM
the bitch from Mrs. Fields (dunno her first name)?
Indeed. Debbi Syvier, later Fields, was a ballgirl for the A's for two years, starting in 1969 at age 13.
Heh, cool. :cool: After you said the person sold cookies I just started running through the list of people with cookie companies.
Must not let this thread die.
What was the name of the first known Slavic state?
Quote from: Agelastus on May 27, 2011, 03:30:55 PM
Must not let this thread die.
What was the name of the first known Slavic state?
Depends on how you define "Slavic", Bulgar Khanate or Rus Khaganate.
Quote from: Agelastus on May 27, 2011, 03:30:55 PM
Must not let this thread die.
What was the name of the first known Slavic state?
Rus?
Quote from: Agelastus on May 27, 2011, 03:30:55 PM
Must not let this thread die.
What was the name of the first known Slavic state?
Dull ineptitude?
Quote from: Solmyr on May 27, 2011, 03:40:22 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on May 27, 2011, 03:30:55 PM
Must not let this thread die.
What was the name of the first known Slavic state?
Depends on how you define "Slavic", Bulgar Khanate or Rus Khaganate.
Wrong and wrong - and assuming you are talking about the second Bulgar Khanate (as the first was definitely not Slavic in its upper echelons) out by a couple of centuries in both cases as well.
Quote from: Agelastus on May 27, 2011, 03:52:43 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on May 27, 2011, 03:40:22 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on May 27, 2011, 03:30:55 PM
Must not let this thread die.
What was the name of the first known Slavic state?
Depends on how you define "Slavic", Bulgar Khanate or Rus Khaganate.
Wrong and wrong - and assuming you are talking about the second Bulgar Khanate (as the first was definitely not Slavic in its upper echelons) out by a couple of centuries in both cases as well.
Well, you didn't say the choice was limited to Slavic upper echelons. :p The Bulgar Khanate I meant was the one founded in modern Bulgaria in 681, and it did include local Slavic tribes.
Quote from: Solmyr on May 27, 2011, 03:54:31 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on May 27, 2011, 03:52:43 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on May 27, 2011, 03:40:22 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on May 27, 2011, 03:30:55 PM
Must not let this thread die.
What was the name of the first known Slavic state?
Depends on how you define "Slavic", Bulgar Khanate or Rus Khaganate.
Wrong and wrong - and assuming you are talking about the second Bulgar Khanate (as the first was definitely not Slavic in its upper echelons) out by a couple of centuries in both cases as well.
Well, you didn't say the choice was limited to Slavic upper echelons. :p The Bulgar Khanate I meant was the one founded in modern Bulgaria in 681, and it did include local Slavic tribes.
From what I can tell though, it's not considered a Slavic state in mainstream historiography. Slavs certainly didn't run it, and may not even have been a majority in it depending on which migration model you adhere to. It's not the answer I'm looking for, anyway.
I assume you are looking for an actual recognizable state, rather than a simple tribal union? If so, I am stumped. :blush:
Quote from: Solmyr on May 27, 2011, 04:04:32 PM
I assume you are looking for an actual recognizable state, rather than a simple tribal union? If so, I am stumped. :blush:
Well, the one I want would be more well known today if the Magyars hadn't happened along...
It first appears in Carolingian records...
And predates Bohemia and Poland...
[Do you think that is enough clues? ;)]
Samo's State/Kingdom/Realm
The problem with studying dark age Eastern Europe is the fact it's still ongoing.
Quote from: Sahib on May 27, 2011, 04:26:39 PM
Samo's State/Kingdom/Realm
:hmm:
That would be from Merovingian records, though...and it didn't survive the death of its' first and only ruler...I'd personally consider it marginal as a state, given its' impermanency and our lack of knowledge of its government structures.
Wikipedia's article on the state I am looking for does list Samo's realm as the first Slavic state, which disagrees with my own sources (including Heather's "Empires and Barbarians".)
:hmm:
No. I'm sticking by my guns; the state I'm after postdates Samo but predates Bohemia, Poland and the Rus etc.
Quote from: Agelastus on May 27, 2011, 04:47:32 PM
No. I'm sticking by my guns; the state I'm after postdates Samo but predates Bohemia, Poland and the Rus etc.
Great Moravia?
Quote from: Sahib on May 27, 2011, 05:04:45 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on May 27, 2011, 04:47:32 PM
No. I'm sticking by my guns; the state I'm after postdates Samo but predates Bohemia, Poland and the Rus etc.
Great Moravia?
Correct!
You're up, Sahib. :)
Well, at least I learned something today. I never heard of Great Moravia.
Quote from: Agelastus on May 27, 2011, 05:24:58 PM
Quote from: Sahib on May 27, 2011, 05:04:45 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on May 27, 2011, 04:47:32 PM
No. I'm sticking by my guns; the state I'm after postdates Samo but predates Bohemia, Poland and the Rus etc.
Great Moravia?
Correct!
You're up, Sahib. :)
:huh: That was my first thought, but I discarded it since Great Moravia was founded as a kingdom ca. 830, which is later than the Rus Khaganate.
Quote
You're up, Sahib. :)
Ok.
Name a person of Jewish descent who had the most impressive career in 1st century AD Roman government
Quote from: Solmyr on May 28, 2011, 04:48:54 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on May 27, 2011, 05:24:58 PM
Quote from: Sahib on May 27, 2011, 05:04:45 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on May 27, 2011, 04:47:32 PM
No. I'm sticking by my guns; the state I'm after postdates Samo but predates Bohemia, Poland and the Rus etc.
Great Moravia?
Correct!
You're up, Sahib. :)
:huh: That was my first thought, but I discarded it since Great Moravia was founded as a kingdom ca. 830, which is later than the Rus Khaganate.
Since the first reference to the Rus Khaganate is from 838, and historians don't seem to think it was founded much earlier (not to mention the fact that the "Rus" referred to at this period were almost certainly Scandinavians and not Slavs) I don't see the problem.
Quote from: Sahib on May 28, 2011, 06:49:59 AM
Quote
You're up, Sahib. :)
Ok.
Name a person of Jewish descent who had the most impressive career in 1st century AD Roman government
The historian Josephus?
Quote from: Sahib on May 28, 2011, 06:49:59 AM
Quote
You're up, Sahib. :)
Ok.
Name a person of Jewish descent who had the most impressive career in 1st century AD Roman government
While his jewish descent might be controversial, his grandfather did convert. Herod the Great. King of Judea, builder of the second temple, herodeum, caesarea and masada.
Quote from: Viking on May 28, 2011, 10:08:20 AM
Quote from: Sahib on May 28, 2011, 06:49:59 AM
Quote
You're up, Sahib. :)
Ok.
Name a person of Jewish descent who had the most impressive career in 1st century AD Roman government
While his jewish descent might be controversial, his grandfather did convert. Herod the Great. King of Judea, builder of the second temple, herodeum, caesarea and masada.
I'm thinking of someone who was actually a Roman official, not client kings or intellectuals.
Quote from: Sahib on May 28, 2011, 10:13:42 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 28, 2011, 10:08:20 AM
Quote from: Sahib on May 28, 2011, 06:49:59 AM
Quote
You're up, Sahib. :)
Ok.
Name a person of Jewish descent who had the most impressive career in 1st century AD Roman government
While his jewish descent might be controversial, his grandfather did convert. Herod the Great. King of Judea, builder of the second temple, herodeum, caesarea and masada.
I'm thinking of someone who was actually a Roman official, not client kings or intellectuals.
Then that is the question you should have asked :contract:
Paul was some kind of government official at one point, wasn't he?
Quote from: Viking on May 28, 2011, 11:48:57 AM
Quote from: Sahib on May 28, 2011, 10:13:42 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 28, 2011, 10:08:20 AM
Quote from: Sahib on May 28, 2011, 06:49:59 AM
Quote
You're up, Sahib. :)
Ok.
Name a person of Jewish descent who had the most impressive career in 1st century AD Roman government
While his jewish descent might be controversial, his grandfather did convert. Herod the Great. King of Judea, builder of the second temple, herodeum, caesarea and masada.
I'm thinking of someone who was actually a Roman official, not client kings or intellectuals.
Then that is the question you should have asked :contract:
He did mention roman government. i doubt you can stretch the descritption of client king far enough to say he's in the roman government.
Wags? I didn't know he worked for the Italian government.
Having spent twenty minutes googling and Wikipediaing do you mean Tiberius Julius Alexander?
Although regardless of whether or not that's right, we need a new question; who's up?
Wasn't that Herod Agrippa dude Jewish? He was pretty fun in I, Claudius.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 09, 2011, 08:44:15 PM
Wasn't that Herod Agrippa dude Jewish? He was pretty fun in I, Claudius.
I tried Herod the Great, apparently client kings don't count as part of Roman Administration. The Romans themselves might have been a bit surprised to hear that though...
Quote from: Viking on July 09, 2011, 08:48:15 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 09, 2011, 08:44:15 PM
Wasn't that Herod Agrippa dude Jewish? He was pretty fun in I, Claudius.
I tried Herod the Great, apparently client kings don't count as part of Roman Administration. The Romans themselves might have been a bit surprised to hear that though...
Do client kings use the cursus honororum? No? Then they're not part of the Roman administration in my book as well. :contract:
Reviving this thread.....
question is....
"Where is/was the Curzon Line?"
The question's kinda vague, don't you think? Are you looking country (Poland), general area (eastern Poland), some type of geographical boundary it was supposed to be (parts of the Bug River, I recall, along with chunks of West Ukraine)?
Runs through Belorussia and Lithuania I would imagine. It was the border suggested by Lord Curzon to settle the dispute between the Polacks and the Bolshois.
Habbaku gets it. The reason I used is/was was to enable people to basically use any sensible definition. I would have accepted any "historical" answer from "the line between soviet and nazi areas of poland under the molotov-ribbentropp pact" to "the post WWII border between poland and the USSR" to the border between modern Poland and Belarus and Ukraine.
I thought the name "Curzon" might send people off into a wild goose chase into India.
QuoteThe Curzon Line was put forward by the Allied Supreme Council[1] after World War I as a demarcation line between the Second Polish Republic and Bolshevik Russia and was supposed to serve as the basis for a future border. In the wake of World War I, which catalysed the Russian Revolution of 1917, the Russian Empire disintegrated in the ensuing Russian Civil War. Several countries, including Poland, used this occasion to declare their independence. Hostilities erupted when Polish and Bolshevik troops, approaching from opposing directions while taking over the territories of Ober Ost from the retreating German troops, met in the city of Masty.
The Allied Supreme Council tasked the Commission on Polish Affairs with recommending Polish eastern borders. The Allies forwarded it as an armistice line several times during the war, most notably in a note from the British government to the Soviets signed by Foreign Secretary George Curzon.
Wiccanpedia
Damn Wiccans.
Three of the four founding members of the Soviet Union were the Russian SFSR, Ukrainian SSR, and the Belorussian SSR, corresponding of course to Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus.
What was the fourth founding Soviet republic and what modern country does it correspond to?
Guess: it's a trick question, and the answer is the Crimean SSR, corresponding to no modern country.
Latvia?
No, that's not right. The Soviet Union was only declared after the Civil war. I think it is a trick question since I think the SSR is one of those that does not correspond to a modern state. Like TransCaucaus, Turkmenistan, or Far East.
It's a trick question, alright, but only because it doesn't correspond to one modern country. It was the Transcaucasian SSR--Georgia, Armenia, etc., in the Caucasus.
Of course, they didn't exactly prove to be all that loyal and the SSR was toppled relatively quickly (and then reestablished just as quickly, during the Civil War), but that's academic.
I am too tired to make a question up.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 10, 2011, 12:35:56 AM
The Soviet Union was only declared after the Civil war.
:hmm: You might be right; I wonder if I have my dates off a bit.
The Turkmen SSR definitely corresponds to a modern country. :huh:
I was wrong about Crimea, the SSR only lasted through 1919, and Crimea was an autonomous part of the Russian SFSR until it was united with the Ukrainian SSR in 54.
Hab is (as he well knows) correct. Although the Transcaucasus wasn't redivided until 36. The more you know!
Quote from: Ideologue on December 10, 2011, 12:43:47 AM
The Turkmen SSR definitely corresponds to a modern country. :huh:
I was wrong about Crimea, the SSR only lasted through 1919, and Crimea was an autonomous part of the Russian SFSR until it was united with the Ukrainian SSR in 54.
Hab is (as he well knows) correct. Although the Transcaucasus wasn't redivided until 36. The more you know!
The Turkmen SSR corresponds to about a five countries.
I don't think so. It joined (i.e., was organized) in 1924, and I believe its original borders correspond either exactly or substantially to Turkmenistan today. :unsure:
Ah, ok, you're thinking of the Turkestan ASSR, which was divided into the Turkmen and Uzbek SSRs (the latter ultimately subdivided itself).
I'll put forth a question then. How many Tsars of Russia were there in the 16th century (1500-1599)? List them all for bonus points.
Quote from: Solmyr on December 10, 2011, 06:49:23 AM
I'll put forth a question then. How many Tsars of Russia were there in the 16th century (1500-1599)? List them all for bonus points.
Trick question, none.
Quote from: Viking on December 10, 2011, 07:03:56 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on December 10, 2011, 06:49:23 AM
I'll put forth a question then. How many Tsars of Russia were there in the 16th century (1500-1599)? List them all for bonus points.
Trick question, none.
Wrong.
Quote from: Agelastus on July 09, 2011, 07:21:53 PM
Having spent twenty minutes googling and Wikipediaing do you mean Tiberius Julius Alexander?
Yes :)
Quote
I tried Herod the Great, apparently client kings don't count as part of Roman Administration. The Romans themselves might have been a bit surprised to hear that though...
Yeah I don't think Karzai is an American official either.
Quote from: Solmyr on December 10, 2011, 07:09:25 AM
Quote from: Viking on December 10, 2011, 07:03:56 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on December 10, 2011, 06:49:23 AM
I'll put forth a question then. How many Tsars of Russia were there in the 16th century (1500-1599)? List them all for bonus points.
Trick question, none.
Wrong.
hmm... I thought the Romanovs were the first to use "All the Russias" rather than Muscovy and Pjotr Veliki was the first to use "Russia".
but, if that isn't the answer then... Godunovs don't count, neither do false Dmitrys so...
Two, Ivans III and IV.
Quote from: Solmyr on December 10, 2011, 06:49:23 AM
I'll put forth a question then. How many Tsars of Russia were there in the 16th century (1500-1599)? List them all for bonus points.
300 billion.
Quote from: Viking on December 10, 2011, 08:14:39 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on December 10, 2011, 07:09:25 AM
Quote from: Viking on December 10, 2011, 07:03:56 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on December 10, 2011, 06:49:23 AM
I'll put forth a question then. How many Tsars of Russia were there in the 16th century (1500-1599)? List them all for bonus points.
Trick question, none.
Wrong.
hmm... I thought the Romanovs were the first to use "All the Russias" rather than Muscovy and Pjotr Veliki was the first to use "Russia".
but, if that isn't the answer then... Godunovs don't count, neither do false Dmitrys so...
Two, Ivans III and IV.
Nope, Russia/All the Russias was used as soon as the first Tsars were around. And I don't know why you wouldn't count the Godunovs. Also, answer is wrong regardless. :)
Nobody? The answer is four: Ivan IV, Simeon Bekbulatovich, Fyodor I, and Boris Godunov. This is counting all those who were crowned as Tsars. Ivan III and Vasily III used the title on occasion but were never crowned such, so it's a bit questionable for them.
In who's honor was alfredo sauce (:drool:) invented?
"who's"?
hooze?
Michael Corleone's brother?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 12, 2011, 08:54:31 AM
In who's honor was alfredo sauce (:drool:) invented?
Alfred the great?
No and no.
Douglas Fairbanks and Mary Pickford.
Quote from: Caliga on December 12, 2011, 09:25:00 PM
Douglas Fairbanks and Mary Pickford.
Yes.
Google? :hmm:
Nope, I knew that one... I learned about it once when I was reading about alfredo sauce. :)
According to wiki that's not correct. It was invented for the glorious benefit of his pregnant wife...in 1914...or something like that.
Oh. :blush:
24 hour rule, someone post a question.
In the first half of the 17th century the Dutch and English spent years fighting for control of the tiny Indonesian island of Run, since at the time it was the prime source of nutmeg and mace. As part of the Treaty of Breda in 1667, the English finally agreed to abandon claims to Run. In exchange, the Dutch agreed to relinquish their claims to which islands?
Wok and Kraal.
:sleep:
Long Island and Martha's Vineyard.
One of these is correct.... there are two more though (guess it would have been helpful to mention that there are 3 islands in total).
Ceylon, Long Island, and Rick Perry. I mean Diego Garcia. I don't know, I'm totally guessing.
I'm guessing it's somewhere in the Americas. The Long Island colony and probably some island in the Caribbean.
Quote from: Caliga on January 15, 2012, 09:11:54 PM
One of these is correct.... there are two more though (guess it would have been helpful to mention that there are 3 islands in total).
Long and Staten Islands as well as Manhattan along with the rest of New Netherlands?
Quote from: Viking on January 16, 2012, 12:36:14 AM
Long and Staten Islands as well as Manhattan along with the rest of New Netherlands?
Correct. In retrospect, what a shitty trade. :)
Quote from: Caliga on January 16, 2012, 06:19:25 AM
Quote from: Viking on January 16, 2012, 12:36:14 AM
Long and Staten Islands as well as Manhattan along with the rest of New Netherlands?
Correct. In retrospect, what a shitty trade. :)
:hmm:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F30.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_likogomZne1qb6ahco1_500.jpg&hash=87ef106a3ca4c6cd8852430a48e2525ff31c150b)
vs.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2008%2F11%2F06%2Fnyregion%2Fbarge-480.jpg&hash=cf156c603c5a63ce284080c8f434105a5a673ded)
Quote from: Caliga on January 16, 2012, 06:19:25 AM
Quote from: Viking on January 16, 2012, 12:36:14 AM
Long and Staten Islands as well as Manhattan along with the rest of New Netherlands?
Correct. In retrospect, what a shitty trade. :)
That question was questionable Yi rule wise.
Buut.. moving on
How many times was the Library of Alexandria destroyed and who destroyed it each time.
Quote from: Caliga on January 16, 2012, 06:19:25 AM
Correct. In retrospect, what a shitty trade. :)
When you lose wars you end up getting shitty trades. :secret:
I had a question for you guys, but Viking beat me to it. :(
I'll say destroyed only once, by no one as it was accidental fire, not arson.
For some reason I thought the Fatimids destroyed it.
3 times.
Once by the Romans
Once by the Muslims
And the recent fire happened earlier this year.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 16, 2012, 02:33:29 PM
Once by the Muslims
Most historians aren't sure about that one. It may have happened but there's absolutely no evidence from the time that it did.
The Romans did and the Byzantines did. Not sure who's the third.
didn't a pope destroy the library too? (or a sub library or soemthing)
My understanding was that it was destroyed twice by Romans: once by Julius Caeser, and once in the war suppressing the empire of Queen Zenobia. Then it was pillaged on order of the byzanteens for Christian reasons.
I also thought its last remains were destroyed on order of one of the Muslim Caliphs who said something like "either these books are consistent with the Koran and thus unnecessary, or they are not and thus blasphemous".
That makes 4 times ...
Quote from: Malthus on January 16, 2012, 03:24:09 PM
My understanding was that it was destroyed twice by Romans: once by Julius Caeser, and once in the war suppressing the empire of Queen Zenobia. Then it was pillaged on order of the byzanteens for Christian reasons.
I also thought its last remains were destroyed on order of one of the Muslim Caliphs who said something like "either these books are consistent with the Koran and thus unnecessary, or they are not and thus blasphemous".
That makes 4 times ...
Yes
Julius Caesar - Demolished when JC turned the Alexandrine War into a building project using Jewish Labor
Aurelian - Burned in the normal course of sacking the city
Orosius - Pillaged when depaganizing the Serapeum
Khalif Umar - Disbanded it for not containin Koranic Knowledge
Malthus gets it.
As I say the story of the Muslim destruction is very much contested. Here's Bernard Lewis's interpretation of the myth and a response:
QuoteIN RESPONSE TO:
Lost History of the Lost Library from the June 14, 1990 issue
To the Editors:
From Professor Hugh Lloyd-Jones's review of Luciano Canfora's book on the library of Alexandria [NYR, June 14], one learns, with astonishment, that the author, and perhaps even to some degree the reviewer, are still disposed to lend credence to the story of how the great library of Alexandria was destroyed by the Arabs after their conquest of the city in 641 AD, by order of the Caliph 'Umar.
This story first became known to Western scholarship in 1663, when Edward Pococke, the Laudian Professor of Arabic at Oxford, published an edition of the Arabic text, with Latin translation, of part of the History of the Dynasties of the Syrian-Christian author Barhebraeus, otherwise known as Ibn al-'Ibri. According to this story, 'Amr ibn al-'As, the commander of the Arab conquerors, was inclined to accept the pleas of John the Grammarian and spare the library, but the Caliph decreed otherwise: "If these writings of the Greeks agree with the book of God, they are useless and need not be preserved; if they disagree, they are pernicious and ought to be destroyed." The books in the library, the story continues, were accordingly distributed among the four thousand bathhouses of the city, and used to heat the furnaces, which they kept going for almost six months.
As early as 1713, Father Eusèbe Renaudot, the distinguished French Orientalist, cast doubt on this story, remarking, in his History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria published in that year, that it "had something untrustworthy about it." Edward Gibbon, never one to miss a good story, relates it with gusto, and then proceeds: "For my own part, I am strongly tempted to deny both the fact and the consequences." To explain this denial, Gibbon gives the two principal arguments against authenticity—that the story first appears some six hundred years after the action which it purports to describe, and that such action is in any case contrary to what we know of the teachings and practice of the Muslims.
Since then, a succession of other Western scholars have analyzed and demolished the story—Alfred J. Butler in 1902, Victor Chauvin in 1911, Paul Casanova and Eugenio Griffini, independently, in 1923. Some have attacked the internal improbabilities of the story. A large proportion of books of that time would have been written on vellum, which does not burn. To keep that many bathhouse furnaces going for that length of time, a library of at least 14 million books would have been required. John the Grammarian who, according to the Barhebraeus story, pleaded with 'Amr for his library, is believed to have lived and died in the previous century. There is good evidence that the library itself was destroyed long before the Arabs arrived in Egypt. The 14th century historian Ibn Khaldun tells an almost identical story concerning the destruction of a library in Persia, also by order of the Caliph 'Umar, thus demonstrating its folkloric character. By far the strongest argument against the story, however, is the slight and late evidence on which it rests. Barhebraeus, the principal source used by Western historians, lived from 1226 to 1289. He had only two predecessors, from one of whom he simply copied the story and both preceded him by no more than a few decades. The earliest source is a Baghdadi physician called 'Abd al-Latif, who was in Egypt in 1203, and in a brief account of his journey refers in passing to "the library which 'Amr ibn al-'As burnt with the permisison of 'Umar." An Egyptian scholar, Ibn al-Qifti, wrote a history of learned men in about 1227, and includes a biography of John the Grammarian in the course of which he tells the story on which the legend is based. His narrative ends: "I was told the number of bathhouses that existed at that time, but I have forgotten it. It is said that they were heated for six months. Listen to this story and wonder!" Barhebraeus merely followed the text of Ibn al-Qifti, omitting his final observation on the number of baths. This number is provided by other Arabic sources, in quite different contexts.
To accept the story of the Arab destruction of the library of Alexandria, one must explain how it is that so dramatic an event was unmentioned and unnoticed not only in the rich historical literature of medieval Islam, but even in the literatures of the Coptic and other Christian churches, of the Byzantines, of the Jews, or anyone else who might have thought the destruction of a great library worthy of comment. That the story still survives, and is repeated, despite all these objections, is testimony to the enduring power of a myth.
Myths come into existence to answer a question or to serve a purpose, and one may wonder what purpose was served by this myth. An answer sometimes given, and certainly in accord with a currently popular school of epistemology, would see the story as anti-Islamic propaganda, designed by hostile elements to blacken the good name of Islam by showing the revered Caliph 'Umar as a destroyer of libraries. But this explanation is as absurd as the myth itself. The original sources of the story are Muslim, the only exception being Barhebraeus, who copied it from a Muslim author. Not the creation, but the demolition of the myth was the achievement of European scholarship, which from the 18th century to the present day has rejected the story as false and absurd, and thus exonerated the Caliph 'Umar and the early Muslims from this libel.
But if the myth was created and disseminated by Muslims and not by their enemies, what could possibly have been their motive? The answer is almost certainly provided in a comment of Paul Casanova. Since the earliest occurrence of the story is in an allusion at the beginning of the 13th century, it must have become current in the late 12th century—that is to say, in the time of the great Muslim hero Saladin, famous not only for his victories over the Crusaders, but also—and in a Muslim context perhaps more importantly—for having extinguished the heretical Fatimid caliphate in Cairo, which, with its Isma'ili doctrines, had for centuries threatened the unity of Islam. 'Abd al-Latif was an admirer of Saladin, whom he went to visit in Jerusalem. Ibn al-Qifti's father was a follower of Saladin, who appointed him Qadi in the newly conquered city.
One of Saladin's first tasks after the restoration of Sunnism in Cairo was to break up the Fatimid collections and treasures and sell their contents at public auction. These included a very considerable library, presumably full of heretical Isma'ili books. The break-up of a library, even one containing heretical books, might well have evoked disapproval in a civilized, literate society. The myth provided an obvious justification. According to this interpretation, the message of the myth was not that the Caliph 'Umar was a barbarian because he destroyed a library, but that destroying a library could be justified, because the revered Caliph 'Umar had approved of it. Thus once again, as on so many occasions, the early heroes of Islam were mobilized by later Muslim tradition to give posthumous sanction to actions and policies of which they had never heard and which they would probably not have condoned.
It is surely time that the Caliph 'Umar and 'Amr ibn al-'As were finally acquitted of this charge which their admirers and later their detractors conspired to bring against them.
Bernard Lewis Princeton, New Jersey
Hugh Lloyd-Jones replies:
I am delighted that my review has elicited Professor Lewis's learned and interesting letter. But if he had looked a little more closely at what I wrote, he would have seen that I do not believe that when the Arabs conquered Egypt there was very much left in the library for them to destroy. Whether the Arabs of that time would have destroyed a great library belonging to an alien culture is an interesting question which Professor Lewis is far better qualified to answer than I am, so that I am disappointed that nothing in his letter throws light upon this problem.
I don't think anyone contests that when the Arabs invaded, there was probably not a hell of a big library left. The story of heating the bathhouses is certainly apocryphal.
The fact that the same story is told of Persian books burned by the same Caliph doesn't necessarily indicate it is untrue: if it was that Caliph's policy to burn books, why not in Persia as well as Alexandria?
I disagree with Prof. Lewis that the story "provided an obvious justification" for getting rid of Fatimid heresies. The story as told makes the Caliph look like a bumpkin. Saladin didn't need such justification to burn clearly and directly heritical works, and certainly did not wish to look like an ignorant bumpkin for doing so. There is no indication that Saladin thought that nothing other than the Koran was necessary or desireable.
That said, it could easily be untrue, as it is based on a late source.
The strange thing about the Umar story is that it fits Islamic attitudes to learning after "The Incoherence of the Philosophers" better than it does the attitude of conquest beduin. The fact here was that the Library ceased to exist as part of the conquest.
After more than 24 hours, I take it as an open floor.
Where are situated Australia's oldest known European-built structures, and to what event are these linked?
Quote from: Drakken on January 18, 2012, 10:06:39 AM
After more than 24 hours, I take it as an open floor.
Where are situated Australia's oldest known European-built structures, and to what event are these linked?
Off the coast of W.A. and they are linked to a dutch shipwreck from the 17th or 18th century.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 16, 2012, 02:56:24 PM
Most historians aren't sure about that one. It may have happened but there's absolutely no evidence from the time that it did.
The Romans did and the Byzantines did. Not sure who's the third.
All the destructions of the Library are pretty sketchy for similar reasons. We just know at one point there was an institution known as the Library of Alexandria and at one point there wasn't. There may have been many institutions called the Library of Alexandria.
I for one found it rather funny how rage gets directed at various actors who at various points set civilization back centuries.
BTW with wikipedia blacked out today's quiz is somehow more interesting
Quote from: Drakken on January 18, 2012, 10:06:39 AM
Where are situated Australia's oldest known European-built structures, and to what event are these linked?
Um, on the West coast and the discovery of Australia by the Dutch?
Quote from: Viking on January 18, 2012, 10:15:12 AM
BTW with wikipedia blacked out today's quiz is somehow more interesting
It should have no impact. Nobody on Languish cheats -_-
I think we're very good about saying when we've looked up the answer. :)
Quote from: Valmy on January 18, 2012, 10:18:00 AM
Quote from: Viking on January 18, 2012, 10:15:12 AM
BTW with wikipedia blacked out today's quiz is somehow more interesting
It should have no impact. Nobody on Languish cheats -_-
I agree, unpossible.
Quote from: Viking on January 18, 2012, 10:12:24 AM
Off the coast of W.A. and they are linked to a dutch shipwreck from the 17th or 18th century.
It's Dutch, I'll give you that. But I need specifics. And it's not some random obscure event no one should know, by the way. I've checked.
No, the structures are not a shipwreck.
I've found no website giving out the answer. So without the toponyms you guys are fucked and must reel the wheels in your brains this time. So let the little white mouse work their treadmills. :nelson:
Is it related to the Krakatoa eruption? EDIT: Not Krakatoa, the earlier one. Tamboa.
I think you are going to have to define "structure" for us. That could be anything from a harbor, to a castle, to a pile of stones.
Prison on Raine Island?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 18, 2012, 10:48:31 AM
I think you are going to have to define "structure" for us. That could be anything from a harbor, to a castle, to a pile of stones.
Quotestruc·ture (strkchr)
n.
1. Something made up of a number of parts that are held or put together in a particular way: hierarchical social structure.
2. The way in which parts are arranged or put together to form a whole; makeup: triangular in structure.
3. The interrelation or arrangement of parts in a complex entity: political structure; plot structure.
4. Something constructed, such as a building.
By "structure", I mean something built by men (here Europeans) with a purpose and a functionality.
A non-obscure Dutch shipwreck on Australia in the 17th or 18th century... :hmm:
Quote from: Drakken on January 18, 2012, 10:52:49 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 18, 2012, 10:48:31 AM
I think you are going to have to define "structure" for us. That could be anything from a harbor, to a castle, to a pile of stones.
Quotestruc·ture (strkchr)
n.
1. Something made up of a number of parts that are held or put together in a particular way: hierarchical social structure.
2. The way in which parts are arranged or put together to form a whole; makeup: triangular in structure.
3. The interrelation or arrangement of parts in a complex entity: political structure; plot structure.
4. Something constructed, such as a building.
By "structure", I mean something built by men (here Europeans) with a purpose and a functionality.
Yes, so it could be a harbor, a castle or a pile of rocks.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 18, 2012, 10:49:12 AM
Prison on Raine Island?
It's even anterior to that one. That one is the oldest in
tropical Australia. My structure is the oldest in Australia, period.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 18, 2012, 10:54:52 AM
Yes, so it could be a harbor, a castle or a pile of rocks.
Yes. But given the circumstances of what was happening, its use and functionality was obvious. Hence my reference to a purpose and functionality.
I can't say too much, otherwise I might give too many clues. What I can tell you it's that these are Dutch, they're old, have been built by humans, and are not leftovers of a shipwreck (if you can get the subtlety of that last part).
Quote from: Drakken on January 18, 2012, 10:55:46 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 18, 2012, 10:49:12 AM
Prison on Raine Island?
It's even anterior to that one. That one is the oldest in tropical Australia. My structure is the oldest in Australia, period.
I have no idea. I'm just trying to out googlefu you.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 18, 2012, 10:59:36 AM
I have no idea. I'm just trying to out googlefu you.
I've checked that possibility beforehand, too. :shifty:
A lean-too or shelter built by the survivors of a dutch shipwreck of the west coast of australia?
The Dutch built pyramids on the coast of Africa.
Then went inland and built Ayer's rock.
Quote from: Viking on January 18, 2012, 11:05:07 AM
A lean-too or shelter built by the survivors of a dutch shipwreck of the west coast of australia?
Getting a little closer, but it wasn't a lean-to shelter. It was built for a very specific function, warranted by the circumstances.
Before you say I'm being facetious, I really can't say too much without spilling the beans here, so I tread carefully. :Embarrass:
A fort built on Tasmania as defence against the savage natives.
Cairn built to mark the grave of a member of Abel Tasman's crew who died on or near the mainland.
(if it's not that then I give up..)
Quote from: Viking on January 18, 2012, 11:18:54 AM
Cairn built to mark the grave of a member of Abel Tasman's crew who died on or near the mainland.
(if it's not that then I give up..)
Sadly, no.
However Yi is right in part, it was a fort. However, it wasn't to defend against savage natives.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.panoramio.com%2Fphotos%2Foriginal%2F7322262.jpg&hash=a6b8941ca4a33b5e8e75476ea38d848dc18cf84b)
However, the question is :
Where was it built, and to what event it was linked.
The event is so infamous, even for the time, an opera was made of it in our time and it was even part of the celebrations of the Summer JO in Sydney. So no, it's not an obscure event. It's even because of that event that female passengers on VoC ships were severely restricted when the news reached Amsterdam.
A fort to defend against nagging wives that stowed away on board the ship.
Is that a fort build as a result of the Batavia mutiny on 'Batavia's Graveyard"?
Quote from: Malthus on January 18, 2012, 11:48:50 AM
Is that a fort build as a result of the Batavia mutiny on 'Batavia's Graveyard"?
We have a winner. It was
the fort built by Wiebbe Hayes on West Wallabi Island as a result of the gruesome massacre by the mutineers in vicinity of the shipwrecked
Batavia, one of the worst in history.
Wiebbe Hayes and his soldiers were sent by the mutineers, led by Jeronimus Cornelius, to the Wallabi Islands to find water and food, ostensibly to send them to starve to death. But they did find water and food there.
When they finally learned by survivors who fled the main island by swimming that the mutineers were literally murdering people left and right on the main island (125 people, men, women, and children, were beaten, tortured, raped, and murdered while they were gone) first to cull the population for food ration, and more and more for the lulz as Cornelius and his thugs devolved into savagery for pleasure, they built that fort to hold out until a ship could arrive and protect any survivor that fled the scene.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.voc.iinet.net.au%2Fimages%2Fbatavia%2520muders.jpg&hash=99f888b0384fc13b3552edf3b80e5fdb090a657c)
Twice the mutineers tried to take the fort when they understood that Hayes had indeed found water and food and could hold out forever. The last attempt was nearly successfully, but they were repelled. When the relief ship
Sertam arrived, given to
Batavia's Commander Pelsaert in Batavia to save
his crew and passengers cargo of gold and silver, both raced to reach it (Hayes to alert of the mutiny, Cornelius and the mutineers to seize it, slaughter its crew, and flow away with the
Batavia's stock of gold). Hayes won. Amazingly, it's only then that Pelsaert learned that there was a mutiny, as the ship had shipwrecked before it could take place.
Aside from the numerous executions, two mutineers were left marooned on the Australian mainland, never to be heard of again. These are two first European settlers in Australia. Also, Lucretia Jans, now believed to have been Cornelius' power behind the throne in the mutiny plot, and the other surviving women the first women to set foot on Australia.
I expected it to be widely more known than that, though. It's one of the most bloodiest and infamous mutinies in naval history, thus why I was walking on eggshells. It's also why I worded it so the structure wasn't a shipwreck, yet it could be possible it could be to an infamous shipwreck. :huh:
Mathus has the floor - again.
Never heard of it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 18, 2012, 12:21:42 PM
Never heard of it.
The
Batavia is one of the two replicas (the other is De Ruyter's admiral ship
The Seven Provinces) which have been built in the dockyards in Amsterdam in the 1990s, using the methods and resources of the time. It's the Netherlands' (and Australia's)
Mutiny on the Bounty, only grosser, gorier, and sleazier.
She was even brought (towed by a barge) into the Sydney harbor to stay there for the Olympic Games in 2000.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 18, 2012, 12:21:42 PM
Never heard of it.
It's sort of like a 16th century Dutch version of
Lord of the Flies, only with adults.
Quote from: Malthus on January 18, 2012, 12:31:37 PM
It's sort of like a 16th century Dutch version of Lord of the Flies, only with adults.
It's
Lord of the Flies if Jack was an adult, heretical psychopath hell-bent on creating his own little kingdom and turned a bunch of the kids against the others, brutally killing anyone who either was in his path, he didn't like the face of, or just wanted to have fun with. I wouldn't be surprised if William Golding was in part inspired by the story of the aftermath of the
Batavia shipwreck for his novel.
Anyway, Malthus has the floor.
Okay, then - who was the first (and only) person to provide a written, eyewitness account of a Viking ship cremation burial ceremony? And what language was that account written in?
Written in Arabic? Don't remember the name of the guy, some emmissary of the Caliph of Baghdad iirc.
The 13th warrior guy?
ibn Fadlan in Arabic?
ships were expensive, burying one is frickin' ostentatious
Quote from: The Brain on January 18, 2012, 01:20:21 PM
ibn Fadlan in Arabic?
Yup.
Not really a difficult one, for this crowd. ;)
Quote from: Viking on January 16, 2012, 10:45:34 PM
The strange thing about the Umar story is that it fits Islamic attitudes to learning after "The Incoherence of the Philosophers" better than it does the attitude of conquest beduin. The fact here was that the Library ceased to exist as part of the conquest.
But that's like blaming the Bishop of Rome for the decline of the city, rather than the numerous raids and attacks in the previous centuries. It seems far more likely that the Arabs presided over the death of the library rather than that they destroyed it. The first stories are recorded in the 12th century. That's probably why it reflects the attitudes of that period, not the period the story alleges to narrate.
As I say my understanding is that in Western scholarship this is viewed as a myth (certainly the books I've read that cover the early Caliphate dismiss the story). Though it's still really interesting, especially what Bernard Lewis tries to address, which is why it's a myth, why it emerged when and where it did.
Open floor.
To get some traction out of this thread.
Who founded the colonies of New Amsterdam & New Sweden?
Bonus : He bought the land from the Indians, which tribe & how much?
$24 worth of Dutch shit.
Can't remember the dudes name, but they named a pipe tobacco after him.
Can't remember the tribe's name at all. If it was a tribe at all; could have been a chiefdom.
I think his name was Peter Minuet or something like that.
Not an answer to the question, but I just like to point out that Rambo settled in New Sweden in 1640.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 19, 2012, 01:33:03 PM
To get some traction out of this thread.
Who founded the colonies of New Amsterdam & New Sweden?
The Netherlands and Sweden. :smarty:
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 19, 2012, 01:33:03 PM
To get some traction out of this thread.
Who founded the colonies of New Amsterdam & New Sweden?
Bonus : He bought the land from the Indians, which tribe & how much?
Johann Printz?
The tribe and the sum, I don't have a clue, though.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 19, 2012, 01:33:03 PM
To get some traction out of this thread.
Who founded the colonies of New Amsterdam & New Sweden?
Bonus : He bought the land from the Indians, which tribe & how much?
The only one I can remember is Peter Stuyvesant.
Valmy is right, Peter Minuit.
It is believe it's the Lenape tribe but that's hardly official. Yi is right on the number.
Valmy or Yi get to ask a question, who ever does it first.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 19, 2012, 07:33:51 PM
Valmy is right, Peter Minuit.
It is believe it's the Lenape tribe but that's hardly official. Yi is right on the number.
Valmy or Yi get to ask a question, who ever does it first.
He was a great first pick in Colonization. You could just steal the indians shit for free.
And the funny thing is that it was the indians who made out like bandits: they traded land that wasn't theirs for a priceless array of high-tech goodies.
A follow up question, just to keep the thread going - the Indians were not the only ones to make what may seem in hindsight to have been a bad bargain for Manhattan ... what did the Dutch in turn horse-trade Manhattan away for to the English, in the treaty that ended the second anglo-Dutch war?
A small island in the Molluccas called Run? :hmm:
Suriname. Terrible mistake :(
Quote from: Maladict on January 20, 2012, 10:19:30 AM
Suriname. Terrible mistake :(
This is correct (though releasing historical claims on Run was also part of the deal).
Continuing the thread.... Henry Hudson explored the river that now bears his name. Who did he name it after?
Dead son I think.
I thought he named it North River.
Hm, apparently it went by two names at the time, North River being the other.
As an additional clue, an island outside the Americas is also named after this person.
Tristan da Cunha?
Hudson von Falkland.
Oh shit, that's in the Americas.
Tasman
No, none of those.
is it grootte Mouritse reviere for Prince Maurits?
I looked it up because we arent going to spend the day just spewing name but I'm not 100% sure.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 20, 2012, 12:33:08 PM
grootte Mouritse reviere for Prince Maurits.
I looked it up because we arent going to spend the day just spewing name.
Isn't that the point of this game? :huh:
Anyway, yes it's Maurits, the island of course being Mauritius.
Quote from: Maladict on January 20, 2012, 12:35:19 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 20, 2012, 12:33:08 PM
grootte Mouritse reviere for Prince Maurits.
I looked it up because we arent going to spend the day just spewing name.
Isn't that the point of this game? :huh:
Anyway, yes it's Maurits, the island of course being Mauritius.
Yes but 24h is too much time. You had a good 2 hours of glory.
Feel free to ask a new question.
This is where I found the answer : http://books.google.ca/books?id=vgnh3E5Mm0cC&lpg=PA4&ots
I might buy that book.
Nah, go ahead.
Who was King of France when Jacques Cartier died?
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 20, 2012, 12:50:51 PM
Who was King of France when Jacques Cartier died?
Um...Henri II?
Yes.
You are on deck.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 20, 2012, 01:03:24 PM
Yes.
You are on deck.
Holy crap that was a wild guess. I just knew it was in the 16th century so I guessed a 16th century king.
Ok...the French Revolution attempted to fund itself through what means and what was the name of the paper money that resulted?
Hint: not futures on the Aristocratic head harvest and they were not called 'Francs'.
Ecu?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 20, 2012, 01:18:51 PM
Euros?
Yes! The EU wants to glorify the French Revolution foreva! :frog: :wub:
Ok actually no but that would be funny.
assignats
Quote from: PDH on January 20, 2012, 01:32:18 PM
assignats
Ding ding! And what were they based on?
Ron Paul will be sad to know it was not gold.
Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2012, 01:33:15 PM
Quote from: PDH on January 20, 2012, 01:32:18 PM
assignats
Ding ding! And what were they based on?
Ron Paul will be sad to know it was not gold.
Shares of the plunder of Italy?
Spices?
They were based on stolen property, specifically church property.
Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2012, 01:33:15 PM
Quote from: PDH on January 20, 2012, 01:32:18 PM
assignats
Ding ding! And what were they based on?
Ron Paul will be sad to know it was not gold.
Lands and properties seized to the Church.
PDH beat me to it by a minute.
Quote from: PDH on January 20, 2012, 01:40:37 PM
They were based on stolen property, specifically church property.
Ding ding! You are up.
Nothing like a church-persecuting based economy.
Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2012, 01:48:10 PM
Quote from: PDH on January 20, 2012, 01:40:37 PM
They were based on stolen property, specifically church property.
Ding ding! You are up.
Nothing like a church-persecuting based economy.
somewhere out there Marti creamed himself and he doesn't know why
Why did the Dominican Inquisitor Stephen of Bourbon dig up and destroy the bones of Saint Guinefort in the 13th century, all in an attempt to end the veneration of this saint?
He was an early Christian with heretical beliefs?
Nope.
And this is somewhat known, there was a movie made about this incident.
Quote from: PDH on January 20, 2012, 02:06:39 PM
Nope.
And this is somewhat known, there was a movie made about this incident.
Really, what movie? (In PM, not to spoil the answer)
Oh, I know now. The saint was not human. If I'm right, the Floor is open.
I think you can search his name and it will show the movie.
Because St. Guinefort's grave was situated so that the venerators who approached it trampled Stephen's vegetable garden. Stephen was very proud of his vegetable garden, and rightly so.
Raz is close, and to say so gives it away. St Guinefort was a greyhound to whom mothers with sick children prayed for healing. Stephen was excited to find out about Guinefort, but got quite upset when he learned it was a dog.
Quote from: PDH on January 20, 2012, 02:18:36 PM
Raz is close, and to say so gives it away. St Guinefort was a greyhound to whom mothers with sick children prayed for healing. Stephen was excited to find out about Guinefort, but got quite upset when he learned it was a dog.
I thought it was because mothers would dump their sick babies on the grave to be "healed" by the dog, and so they would oftentimes die of exposure or starvation?
Stephen said they dumped them there, the cult (which may have lasted for centuries beyond this) didn't actually do this, but they did leave the infants alone after praying to Guinefort in all likelihood - Stephen also said the Devil was the reason for the cult, so you can take his reporting with the grain of salt you would Santorum's statements.
A simple, easy one: Where does the term Merovingian take its origins from, as dynasty?
Merovic, King of the Franks
Quote from: Maximus on January 20, 2012, 03:20:43 PM
Merovic, King of the Franks
CORRECTIVE EDIT:
Well yes, there's the semi-legendary King Merovech or Meroveus (which is the usual origins) from whom Clovis had traced its lineage from. That was the answer I was expecting, but one of the ortographs is "Merovic". So I grant it to Maximus. :blush:
To what royal person did Mercator dedicate his atlas?
Quote from: Maximus on January 20, 2012, 04:14:53 PM
To what royal person did Mercator dedicate his atlas?
Charles V?
Nope
Rudolf II?
Amerigo Vespuchi?
It's a trap!
None of those.
Jesus, King of the Jews.
No, but you're closer, in a way.
Karl von Habsburg, abdicated king of Spain and sundry shit.
I know, but I don't have a question.
I thought it was a trick question. He went to a monastery. :(
I assume then that the answer is some pope whose name I don't know.
Quote from: PDH on January 20, 2012, 05:16:04 PM
I know, but I don't have a question.
You can answer correctly but not give a question.
Fine. He dedicated it to Ptolemy. I was doing research on maps last year and came across this if I am remembering correctly.
I hadn't considered that, but it may indeed have been Ptolemy. However that is not the name he used.
Crash and burn! Flameout!
None of those either
Quote from: Maximus on January 20, 2012, 05:30:27 PM
I hadn't considered that, but it may indeed have been Ptolemy. However that is not the name he used.
It is not Ptolemy. Oh Maximus you magnificent bastard.
Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2012, 05:43:08 PM
It is not Ptolemy. Oh Maximus you magnificent bastard.
I READ YOUR BOOOOOOOOOK!
It's Atlas.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffiles.myopera.com%2Fdebplatt%2Fsmiley%2Fshrug2.gif&hash=d622b44438ce478a69d2e9a8c3e003728d659020)
OH I GET IT.
I got nothing, open floor.
Which country was a the major arms supplier to the communist Cuba's air force in its first couple of years.
Berkeley?
Israel?
Isreel was going to be my guess as well.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 21, 2012, 02:39:08 PM
Isreel was going to be my guess as well.
Not that country either.
The USA? Simply for the irony factor and because I think I recall reading that Castro turned to the Soviet Union only after he'd tried to get into bed with the Americans.
Quote from: Agelastus on January 21, 2012, 02:43:32 PM
The USA? Simply for the irony factor and because I think I recall reading that Castro turned to the Soviet Union only after he'd tried to get into bed with the Americans.
Not that I'm aware of.
Mexico?
India.
Yugoslavia.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 21, 2012, 03:05:14 PM
Yugoslavia.
Nope and no.
It's not a very good question, so I'll give you the answer- The UK in the form of the Hawker aircraft company, more details here:
http://www.urrib2000.narod.ru/ArticGiron1-e.html (http://www.urrib2000.narod.ru/ArticGiron1-e.html)
Note the role played by the British technicians and the important role played by the aircraft and especially the supplied rockets during the Bay of Pigs. :bowler:
One of the surviving gate guards in Cuba:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn-www.airliners.net%2Faviation-photos%2Fphotos%2F8%2F8%2F9%2F1914988.jpg&hash=f2b3bb35eb132aeb46d22439b0e5b90e8ed0f1fd)
Open floor.
Oh, someone would've guessed the UK eventually.
I thought I put an answer up. Oh well, it wasn't the correct answer. Mine was Czechoslovakia.
In 1420, Henry V entered Paris as a conqueror.
Who was the next foreign monarch to enter the city as a conqueror?
Wilhelm I of Prussia?
Gambetta? :P
No, and NO to Shelf :glare:
Czar Alexander?
Napoleon I?
Alexander II, tsar of all Russias, 1814.
Okay, open Floor.
While (obviously) not confirmed, this monarch is rumored to have died from a disease he caught from a peasant girl he raped.
Henry V?
No
Charles XII?
That ugly french king from The Borgias Charles something. I'm thinking post facto casting based on later severe syphillis.
No to both
Louis XVI?
Bad King John?
Good King Wenceslas?
Ivan the Terrible?
Wild guess: Baldwin of Jerusalem. He was thought to be leper but leprosy was fairly vague diagnosis at the time and nobody knew how you contracted it. Viking is probably on the right track with syphillis, which would place the king after the Colombian exchange.
No to all those; and unless I'm mistaken Louis XVI did not die of disease or natural causes--having been publicly beheaded.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 22, 2012, 11:54:48 AM
No to all those; and unless I'm mistaken Louis XVI did not die of disease or natural causes--having been publicly beheaded.
Could have been leprosy. His head falling off at the same time as being placed in the guillotine may have simply been a coincidence.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 22, 2012, 11:54:48 AM
No to all those; and unless I'm mistaken Louis XVI did not die of disease or natural causes--having been publicly beheaded.
On January 21st, no less. :smoke:
Quote from: AnchorClanker on January 22, 2012, 01:26:59 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 22, 2012, 11:54:48 AM
No to all those; and unless I'm mistaken Louis XVI did not die of disease or natural causes--having been publicly beheaded.
On January 21st, no less. :smoke:
Oooh. Didn't he have a condition anyway? A very tight foreskin or something that made sex very uncomfortable.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 22, 2012, 01:32:20 PM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on January 22, 2012, 01:26:59 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 22, 2012, 11:54:48 AM
No to all those; and unless I'm mistaken Louis XVI did not die of disease or natural causes--having been publicly beheaded.
On January 21st, no less. :smoke:
Oooh. Didn't he have a condition anyway? A very tight foreskin or something that made sex very uncomfortable.
That seems to ring a bell...
Anyway, Brain was close, but the answer is Louis XV.
Apparently there was a certain Madame du Barry who was known to find young, sometimes pre-pubescent girls for Louis XV to bang. In one rumored incident Louis caught sight of a young girl while on a trip, and unable to control himself, viciously raped her (she apparently was severely injured.) However, she had smallpox which Louis caught and later died from.
We know for a fact he died of smallpox, the rest has always just been rumor/legend; possibly trumped up in the post-monarchy period to highlight the depravity of the Bourbons, but it's also entirely possible it was true.
That leaves the floor open.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 22, 2012, 01:32:20 PM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on January 22, 2012, 01:26:59 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 22, 2012, 11:54:48 AM
No to all those; and unless I'm mistaken Louis XVI did not die of disease or natural causes--having been publicly beheaded.
On January 21st, no less. :smoke:
Oooh. Didn't he have a condition anyway? A very tight foreskin or something that made sex very uncomfortable.
Some have suggested that he had phimosis (unretractable foreskin), as well as, more speculatively, a glandular disorder which delayed puberty, explaining why he didn't care much about fucking Kirsten Dunst and therefore dallied in submitting to a circumcision to fix his problem. There's an article about it in a 2002 volume of Progres en Urologie.
24 hour rule ?
If so, which was the last place ruled by the British crown to use conscription for its' military force ?
Quote from: mongers on February 07, 2012, 07:24:24 PM
24 hour rule ?
If so, which was the last place ruled by the British crown to use conscription for its' military force ?
Yi rule? :lol:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 07, 2012, 07:26:45 PM
Quote from: mongers on February 07, 2012, 07:24:24 PM
24 hour rule ?
If so, which was the last place ruled by the British crown to use conscription for its' military force ?
Yi rule? :lol:
We did away with the Yi rule, besides this place has never been part of the United Kingdom, my country, hint there. :P
Australia.
Quote from: mongers on February 07, 2012, 07:41:54 PM
We did away with the Yi rule, besides this place has never been part of the United Kingdom, my country, hint there. :P
US the last holdout?
As there's a fair number of African countries who still have it, I assume he meant while they were under Britain.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 07, 2012, 10:43:02 PM
As there's a fair number of African countries who still have it, I assume he meant while they were under Britain.
Yeah, I'm not sure what he talking about. What exactly is meant by "ruled by the British crown". He needs to clarify the question. I'm guessing it's some place like Belize.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 07, 2012, 11:24:28 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 07, 2012, 10:43:02 PM
As there's a fair number of African countries who still have it, I assume he meant while they were under Britain.
Yeah, I'm not sure what he talking about. What exactly is meant by "ruled by the British crown". He needs to clarify the question. I'm guessing it's some place like Belize.
Nope, and I'm using the words "british crown" for a reason.
Just to clarify, the date of independence of the places you might be guessing is the cut off point. Once they're independent then if they continue to have conscription or reintroduce it isn't relevant, independence would be the last possible date for that country as regards this question.
The UK? :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2012, 09:27:25 AM
The UK? :hmm:
Nope.
I'll give you the answer as I'm going out for a while.
It's the british crown colony of Bermuda and the date is ... today, Bermuda still has a policy of raising recruits for the Bermuda Regiment by conscription, more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bermuda_Regiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bermuda_Regiment)
Quote
The majority of the Regiment is made up of conscripts, making it unique among all of the land forces still under the British Crown. Conscription is based on a random lottery of men through the ages of 18 to 23, with exemptions granted to Police and Prison officers, members of the British regular forces (or men who have served for two years), church ministers, prisoners or those who have been judged to be of "unsound mind". Temporary deferment is granted for full-time students (attending either the Bermuda College or schools abroad), for the length of their studies, and individuals currently medically unfit but likely to become fit again. Conscientious objectors have the opportunity to either serve in a non-combatant role or perform an alternative community service chosen by the Governor.
This practice (of conscription) is frequently criticised by both Bermudians and aware foreigners, particularly for its sexism and its similarity to slavery (a sensitive issue given the historic background of Bermuda), and has been noted in the British Parliament.[3] It receives support from the community, however, and is hailed for causing interaction between social and racial groups. A recent Bermuda Supreme Court decision has upheld that conscription is a lawful process, as presently administered by the Defence Department, although it required an earlier Supreme Court decision in 1995 to establish conscientious objection on an equal basis with that obtaining in Britain during conscription. Moral issues aside, however, this leaves the force dependent on the qualities of senior officers,[citation needed] whereas similar units – the British Army, in particular, upon which the Regiment is modelled – emphasise the initiative of junior members.
bump, someone else ask a question.
Bump yourself, bitch.
Alright - here's one to pass the time:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_Fh2aCkgfh6Q%2FSkyFm4q_q_I%2FAAAAAAAAAQg%2F44YwFWqlBZI%2Fs400%2FTiger.jpg&hash=b2d0403cf5cb5e243bcd1f0bb4c90231d16a9011)
What is this item, what does it depict, and who had it made?
Extra points for elaborating on the events which may have inspired its manufacture.
That is a .Jpg file creating by you, Jacob. You made it ask ask us questions in History Trivia thread.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 10, 2012, 06:53:52 PM
That is a .Jpg file creating by you, Jacob. You made it ask ask us questions in History Trivia thread.
One mark for amusement factor :lol:
Final Mark: 1/10
Grade: F
Anyone else?
Quote from: Jacob on February 10, 2012, 06:47:57 PM
Alright - here's one to pass the time:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_Fh2aCkgfh6Q%2FSkyFm4q_q_I%2FAAAAAAAAAQg%2F44YwFWqlBZI%2Fs400%2FTiger.jpg&hash=b2d0403cf5cb5e243bcd1f0bb4c90231d16a9011)
What is this item, what does it depict, and who had it made?
Extra points for elaborating on the events which may have inspired its manufacture.
Lettow fails casting the moon runes, dies horribly. Squee.
Thanks to Malthus's link I found a mew is a collective noun for castrated chickens. Seems appropriate really.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 10, 2012, 07:20:44 PMLettow fails casting the moon runes, dies horribly. Squee.
3 marks for being poetically apt. 1 for sound effects.
Final mark: 4/10
Grade: F
I'm going to the dean. My precious child will not have a failing grade!
Quote from: Jacob on February 10, 2012, 06:47:57 PM
Extra points for elaborating on the events which may have inspired its manufacture.
I'm thinking perhaps a man getting eaten by a tiger?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 10, 2012, 07:42:07 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 10, 2012, 06:47:57 PM
Extra points for elaborating on the events which may have inspired its manufacture.
I'm thinking perhaps a man getting eaten by a tiger?
Not a bad guess, but I am looking for something a little more specific :bowler:
Quote from: Jacob on February 10, 2012, 06:47:57 PM
Alright - here's one to pass the time:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_Fh2aCkgfh6Q%2FSkyFm4q_q_I%2FAAAAAAAAAQg%2F44YwFWqlBZI%2Fs400%2FTiger.jpg&hash=b2d0403cf5cb5e243bcd1f0bb4c90231d16a9011)
What is this item, what does it depict, and who had it made?
Extra points for elaborating on the events which may have inspired its manufacture.
I can't place it, but I think I've seen the object in RL, it's not a musical box that commemorates the the Indian Mutiny, though that's probably too late as it looks mid 18th century.
I expect you probably have seen IRL. You're also in the right geographical area, and you're correct - it's not to commemorate the Indian Mutiny.
Quote from: Jacob on February 10, 2012, 08:06:17 PM
I expect you probably have seen IRL. You're also in the right geographical area, and you're correct - it's not to commemorate the Indian Mutiny.
Yeah, so you'd give me about a D- :D
It's a good question as it's such a wel known object, I probably saw it about two years ago.
A gift from French colonialists to some Indian ruler?
Quote from: mongers on February 10, 2012, 09:31:48 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 10, 2012, 08:06:17 PM
I expect you probably have seen IRL. You're also in the right geographical area, and you're correct - it's not to commemorate the Indian Mutiny.
Yeah, so you'd give me about a D- :D
It's a good question as it's such a wel known object, I probably saw it about two years ago.
I'm a harsh marker. You're still getting an F, but I'll give you a chance to retake the test given that you're showing interest in the subject :bowler:
EDIT: On review I'm redacting my mark. You get a D on the strength of the "musical box" part, which is substantially correct.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 10, 2012, 09:43:13 PM
A gift from French colonialists to some Indian ruler?
The French are not involved (but you are implying something about the subject, I believe). The involvement of "some Indian ruler" is correct.
D- with potential for a higher grade if you develop your analysis.
The picture is of Tipu's Tiger - a mechanical musical instrument which, when played reproduces the sounds of a man moaning and screaming while being eaten by a tiger as well as the growls of the man-eating tiger.
The tiger was commissioned by Tibu Sultan, the ruler of Mysore around the year 1795. It is speculated that it was inspired by the death of Hugh Munro, killed by a tiger while on a hunting expedition in India. Hugh Munro's father was General Hector Munro, who had commanded a division in the second Anglo-Mysore war in which Tipu's father, Hyder Ali had been defeated.
The figure is on display at the Victoria & Albert museum in London.
Yi, you were on the right track as Tipu was allied with the French against the English. It is quite possible that Frenchmen visiting his court contributed to the construction, but it was Tipu himself who had it commissioned.
The wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipu's_Tiger
The floor is open.
Let's revive this Frankenstein of a thread once more.
When the Turks attacked King Karl XII of Sweden staying at Bender on Feb. 1st 1713, the King and about fourty lifeguards managed to ward off thousands of Turkish soldiers, including archers and artillery, for seven hours straight. What happened that finally defeated the Swedes and allowed the Turks to seize the King and make him and his men prisoners?
The Swedes embraced multiculturalism?
The lifeguards demanded overtime?
Thirst?
No, wait, fire?
I'm not saying it was aliens...
Quote from: Solmyr on February 17, 2012, 10:33:08 AM
The Swedes embraced multiculturalism?
Oh the Swedes were embracing multiculturalism allright - and then they were by the Turks jumping on them to grab them and seize them.
Quote from: Threviel on February 17, 2012, 12:10:30 PM
No, wait, fire?
Well they were in a house, so fire did prompt the Swedes to react. And then something happened... which is the answer.
The King and his men made for a different building but he tripped on his spurs and fell. Lt Åberg of the Upplanders threw himself on top of him to shield him and got a sabre cut to his head. The King was captured.
When the house caught on fire the heat made the lifeguards think they were in a sauna, so they all stripped off their armor and were easily overcome.
Quote from: Drakken on February 17, 2012, 10:31:49 AM
Let's revive this Frankenstein of a thread once more.
When the Turks attacked King Karl XII of Sweden staying at Bender on Feb. 1st 1713, the King and about fourty lifeguards managed to ward off thousands of Turkish soldiers, including archers and artillery, for seven hours straight. What happened that finally defeated the Swedes and allowed the Turks to seize the King and make him and his men prisoners?
They ran out of gunpowder?
Quote from: The Brain on February 17, 2012, 12:38:40 PM
The King and his men made for a different building but he tripped on his spurs and fell. Lt Åberg of the Upplanders threw himself on top of him to shield him and got a sabre cut to his head. The King was captured.
Bingo.
Karl XII got out of the building but tripped on his own spurs and fell down to get jumped by dozens Turks surrounding him. Game over. :nelson:
Quote from: Drakken on February 17, 2012, 12:47:42 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 17, 2012, 12:38:40 PM
The King and his men made for a different building but he tripped on his spurs and fell. Lt Åberg of the Upplanders threw himself on top of him to shield him and got a sabre cut to his head. The King was captured.
Bingo.
Karl XII got out of the building but tripped on his own spurs and fell down to get jumped by dozens Turks seizing him. Game over. :nelson:
That fucker just didn't know when to quit.
Staying on that topic, which warlord captured an Ottoman Sultan?
Timur the Lame.
ja
Name the four UK banks that issue paper money.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 17, 2012, 12:56:20 PM
Name the four UK banks that issue paper money.
Bank of England
Bank of Scotland
Bank of Wales
Bank of Northern Ireland?
Bank of Wales, Bank of Scotland, Bank of England, Bank of Northern Ireland.
Nope.
Dogger Bank
This is a history question?
Quote from: The Brain on February 17, 2012, 01:44:37 PM
This is a history question?
Name the four banks that issued paper money in the UK yesterday.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi13.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa299%2FSlayhem%2FHitlerbe2.jpg&hash=ca05397d028151d3b12997423a24f06f2eaa4357)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 17, 2012, 01:45:43 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 17, 2012, 01:44:37 PM
This is a history question?
Name the four banks that issued paper money in the UK yesterday.
Isn't one of them a bank of some god-ridden town deep in the countryside that has the custom privilege to print its own money legally?
Quote from: Drakken on February 17, 2012, 01:48:33 PM
Isn't one of them a bank of some god-ridden town deep in the countryside that has the custom privilege to print its own money legally?
Eh, couldn't tell you for sure. One of them was definitely a bank I had not heard of before.
To clarify, of the answers given so far Bank of England (duh) and Bank of Scotland are correct.
Need two more.
Philip and Carlton Banks
Hints: no bonus and large animal.
Bank of Whales
No. Good try.
Well, shitty try but you're a good guy.
btw, I thought it was 8 banks. Not that I know the name of any of them.
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 17, 2012, 02:52:05 PM
btw, I thought it was 8 banks. Not that I know the name of any of them.
Not even the ones I gave you? :hmm:
Time is up. Royal Bank of Scotland and Bank of Clydesdale.
Floor is open.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 17, 2012, 12:56:20 PM
Name the four UK banks that issue paper money.
Bank of England, Bank of Scotland, Royal Bank of Scotland, Clydesdale Bank, Northern Bank and the Bank of Ulster?
Edit: As it's been answered I looked it up. Bank of Ireland and First Trust Bank also issue.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 17, 2012, 02:57:49 PM
Bank of England, Bank of Scotland, Royal Bank of Scotland, Clydesdale Bank, Northern Bank and the Bank of Ulster?
Edit: As it's been answered I looked it up. Bank of Ireland and First Trust Bank also issue.
Hmmm. Article in the FT only mentioned my four. Either way.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 17, 2012, 03:01:17 PM
Hmmm. Article in the FT only mentioned my four. Either way.
Those are only England and Scotland. There's four Northern Irish banks too.
Apparently all the governments of the Crown dependencies issue their own version of the pound too. So there's a Manx pound, Jersey pound, Gibraltar pound, Falklands pound etc. Never seen any of them though. I assume they can be used here?
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 17, 2012, 03:04:33 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 17, 2012, 03:01:17 PM
Hmmm. Article in the FT only mentioned my four. Either way.
Those are only England and Scotland. There's four Northern Irish banks too.
Apparently all the governments of the Crown dependencies issue their own version of the pound too. So there's a Manx pound, Jersey pound, Gibraltar pound, Falklands pound etc. Never seen any of them though. I assume they can be used here?
The question was who issued the notes yesterday...
My cat is a manx. :)
I've dated a girl from Jersey. :)
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 17, 2012, 03:04:33 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 17, 2012, 03:01:17 PM
Hmmm. Article in the FT only mentioned my four. Either way.
Those are only England and Scotland. There's four Northern Irish banks too.
Apparently all the governments of the Crown dependencies issue their own version of the pound too. So there's a Manx pound, Jersey pound, Gibraltar pound, Falklands pound etc. Never seen any of them though. I assume they can be used here?
I once found a coin minted on the Island of Jersey in my change - in Canada.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 17, 2012, 03:14:04 PM
I've dated a girl from Jersey. :)
It's a royal tradition!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lillie_Langtry
:D
Quote from: Ideologue on February 17, 2012, 03:12:22 PM
My cat is a manx. :)
Very odd place the Isle of Man. The tail-less cats are a bit weird. There's the Fairy Bridges too, where you're meant to greet the fairies as you cross. According to my nan if you don't they follow you forever :mellow:
Also the last place in the UK (and I think Europe) to abolish corporal punishment. My Manx family are still furious that 'human rights' means there's no more birching of shoplifters :(
They should bring that back, really. The administration of an instructive beating is far less spiritually damaging than imprisonment.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 17, 2012, 04:11:03 PM
They should bring that back, really. The administration of an instructive beating is far less spiritually damaging than imprisonment.
Well it was only for petty theft, so I think the other option was community service.
From what I've been told the other problem was that the Manx also had a tendency to use it on young offenders :ph34r:
I don't see that as a problem.
Particularly teens in Catholic schoolgirl uniforms right? :perv:
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 17, 2012, 04:02:15 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 17, 2012, 03:12:22 PM
My cat is a manx. :)
Very odd place the Isle of Man. The tail-less cats are a bit weird. There's the Fairy Bridges too, where you're meant to greet the fairies as you cross. According to my nan if you don't they follow you forever :mellow:
Also the last place in the UK (and I think Europe) to abolish corporal punishment. My Manx family are still furious that 'human rights' means there's no more birching of shoplifters :(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UX8Dg4nW7lU
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on February 18, 2012, 06:35:37 AM
Particularly teens in Catholic schoolgirl uniforms right? :perv:
Depends on the teen.
Since the floor's open.
How many French Kings directly died from playing real tennis (or jeu de paume), and who were they?
Is "real tennis" where you use a peasant as the ball?
Quote from: Ideologue on February 19, 2012, 11:09:35 PM
Is "real tennis" where you use a peasant as the ball?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fd%2Fd1%2FJeu_de_paume.jpg%2F240px-Jeu_de_paume.jpg&hash=fdbbf31b65d5fdd678f8cfb9597d4e9ffdb0e5a6)
No.
2, both named Louis.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on February 20, 2012, 03:06:13 AM
2, both named Louis.
You'll have to be more precise. ;)
Number is good, though. Two Kings of France died. But only one was a Louis.
Answer:
- Louis X in 1316, from drinking a very cold drink after an exhausting game of real tennis. He died within days of pneumonia or pleurisy. By this account of his death, Louis X is widely considered the first real tennis player known by name.
- Charles VIII in 1498, after stricking his head on the lintel of a door while playing. He fell in a coma and died a few hours later.
Floor's open.
Wilf Batty, a Tasmanian farmer, is famous for doing what in 1930?
MFFFFFFF super orgy
Going coocoo for cocoa puffs?
Quote from: Caliga on February 20, 2012, 09:50:19 PM
Wilf Batty, a Tasmanian farmer, is famous for doing what in 1930?
Capturing the last Thylicene?
Raz would be the closest so far.
Well I'm all out of extinct Tasmanian animals.
He died?
Killing the last indiginous Tasmanian?
Quote from: Caliga on February 20, 2012, 09:50:19 PM
Wilf Batty, a Tasmanian farmer, is famous for doing what in 1930?
Shooting the last Tazzie Tiger. Over the years there have been many claimed sightings these have been diligently checked out but nothing could be confirmed iirc.
Yep. Well, the last wild tiger anyways. But close enough.
Wasn't that what Raz said?
Quote from: Maximus on February 21, 2012, 09:00:03 AM
Wasn't that what Raz said?
capturing /= shooting
Before the Battle of Kulikova a champion from each side presented himself and they fought a duel, what was the outcome of the duel.
The battle of Kulikova.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 21, 2012, 10:01:34 AM
The battle of Kulikova.
The battle would have happened with or without the duel, lets try an outcome that depended on the duel itself.
I think Eddie got it. :lol:
Pure guess: they killed each other on the first blow?
They kissed and made up?
Quote from: Drakken on February 21, 2012, 09:21:34 PM
Pure guess: they killed each other on the first blow?
first pass yes, though the russians claim to this day that the mongol fell off his horse first
Yippie.
Floor's open.
Resurecting this beast, just 'cos:
For what reason was the prominent Soviet botanist and geneticist Nikolai Vlavilov arrested on Stalin's orders in 1940 and sent to the gulag, where he starved to death in 1943?
Quote from: Drakken on April 05, 2012, 09:14:14 AM
Resurecting this beast, just 'cos:
For what reason was the prominent Soviet botanist and geneticist Nikolai Vlavilov arrested on Stalin's orders in 1940 and sent to the gulag to be starved to death there in 1943?
Opposed Lysenkenism in support of evolution?
Quote from: Malthus on April 05, 2012, 09:16:03 AM
Opposed Lysenkenism in support of evolution?
Correct on the first part, he was a vociferous opponent of Lysenkism.
Vlavilov was supporting the Mendelian theory of genetics, which was VERY anathema to Trofim Lysenko's socialist, non-competitive vision of "genetics". Lysenko settled the debate by having Vlavilov arrested and sent to his death.
As an aside, even the Russian Front was accessory in advancing the science of plant genetics! :lol:
QuoteAccording to Cohen, by 1940, Vavilov had accumulated a collection of 200,000 plant seeds from the Soviet Union and from abroad. The collection was seized by a German SS squad in 1943 and partially transferred to the SS Institute for Plant Genetics, which had been established at the Lannach Castle near Graz, Austria.[5] However, the Germans could only take samples stored within the territories occupied by the German armies, mainly in Ukraine and Crimea. The main gene bank in Leningrad was not affected. The leader of the German squad was Heinz Brücher, an SS officer who was also a plant genetics expert.
Quote from: Drakken on April 05, 2012, 09:19:19 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 05, 2012, 09:16:03 AM
Opposed Lysenkenism in support of evolution?
Correct on the first part, he was a vociferous opponent of Lysenkism.
Vlavilov was supporting the Mendelian theory of genetics, which was VERY anathema to Trofim Lysenko's socialist, non-competitive vision of "genetics". Lysenko settled the debate by having Vlavilov arrested and sent to his death.
Commonly known as the "Argumentum ad Parabellum". As Max Planck said, "science progresses one funeral at a time".
It might just be me, but my gut reaction to the question was "opposing lysenko was just way too obvious, the real answer must be something else".
Quote from: Viking on April 05, 2012, 09:23:07 AM
It might just be me, but my gut reaction to the question was "opposing lysenko was just way too obvious, the real answer must be something else".
I threw around enough curveball questions in the past, so I elected to go for one that wasn't too difficult. ;)
Quote from: Drakken on April 05, 2012, 09:19:19 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 05, 2012, 09:16:03 AM
Opposed Lysenkenism in support of evolution?
Correct on the first part, he was a vociferous opponent of Lysenkism.
Vlavilov was supporting the Mendelian theory of genetics, which was VERY anathema to Trofim Lysenko's socialist, non-competitive vision of "genetics". Lysenko settled the debate by having Vlavilov arrested and sent to his death.
I'd say Lysenko got the better of that debate. :D
How about this, an easy one - the intricately carved Lewis Chessmen are one of the most famous treasures from the early medieval period ever discovered. The "warders" (their version of castles) display what prominent and unmistakable feature that vividly demonstrates the particularly
Scandinavian heritage of the carvers?
I thought Lysenko's ideas were evolution. Just not Darwinian evolution.
I am going to say "breasts".
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2012, 09:34:39 AM
I thought Lysenko's ideas were evolution. Just not Darwinian evolution.
Lysenko's ideas were that Mendelian's genetics, at least for plants and seeds, as competitive and "survival of the fittest" was a Capitalist propaganda idea. His beliefs were that genetic traits were acquired and could be passed (akind to Lamarckism), and that these genes would pass on because the agents would collaborate with one another to survive, a more Socialist-friendly idea.
Through hoaxes and false research he was able to convince the Soviet apparatchiks that he was a genuine Soviet expert on plant genetics and agriculture, and they decided to base their agricultural policies on Lysenko's ideas, like planting seeds very early in winter in barely frozen ground in high humidity and low temperature (a process Lysenko termed vernalization) so that they could acquire resistance to cold, or plant them in batches very close to one another so that they would support each other's growth. Unsurprisingly the results were disastrous for Soviet agriculture.
Quote from: Malthus on April 05, 2012, 09:30:21 AM
I'd say Lysenko got the better of that debate. :D
How about this, an easy one - the intricately carved Lewis Chessmen are one of the most famous treasures from the early medieval period ever discovered. The "warders" (their version of castles) display what prominent and unmistakable feature that vividly demonstrates the particularly Scandinavian heritage of the carvers?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fclassicfun.ws%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fnom-nom-nom-2-480x412.jpg&hash=9e2dfd75d64adb75c814603b09ceeb7a85300aa6)
nom nom nom
Quote from: Viking on April 05, 2012, 09:43:39 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 05, 2012, 09:30:21 AM
I'd say Lysenko got the better of that debate. :D
How about this, an easy one - the intricately carved Lewis Chessmen are one of the most famous treasures from the early medieval period ever discovered. The "warders" (their version of castles) display what prominent and unmistakable feature that vividly demonstrates the particularly Scandinavian heritage of the carvers?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fclassicfun.ws%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fnom-nom-nom-2-480x412.jpg&hash=9e2dfd75d64adb75c814603b09ceeb7a85300aa6)
nom nom nom
I'm giving it to you ;) - the warders are shown chewing on their shields (the sign of a berserker).
Quote from: Malthus on April 05, 2012, 09:30:21 AM
How about this, an easy one - the intricately carved Lewis Chessmen are one of the most famous treasures from the early medieval period ever discovered. The "warders" (their version of castles) display what prominent and unmistakable feature that vividly demonstrates the particularly Scandinavian heritage of the carvers?
They had carved Drakkars instead of Rooks?
Quote from: Malthus on April 05, 2012, 09:45:54 AM
I'm giving it to you ;) - the warders are shown chewing on their shields (the sign of a berserker).
Berserkers would chew on their shields to use up some of that nervous energy they built up controlling their drug addled minds after eating the fly-shrooms.
Quote from: Viking on April 05, 2012, 09:54:09 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 05, 2012, 09:45:54 AM
I'm giving it to you ;) - the warders are shown chewing on their shields (the sign of a berserker).
Berserkers would chew on their shields to use up some of that nervous energy they built up controlling their drug addled minds after eating the fly-shrooms.
Interesting. Kinda like Crystal Meth users who can't stop clentching or grinding their teeth so much that they end up screwing with their dentition? Odds are surviving berserkers had bad dentition, then.
Quote from: Viking on April 05, 2012, 09:54:09 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 05, 2012, 09:45:54 AM
I'm giving it to you ;) - the warders are shown chewing on their shields (the sign of a berserker).
Berserkers would chew on their shields to use up some of that nervous energy they built up controlling their drug addled minds after eating the fly-shrooms.
I dunno if it is yet known what motivated berserkers. The point of shield-chewing I would have thought was to demonstrate an intimidating level of violent insanity ...
Quote from: Drakken on April 05, 2012, 09:56:58 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 05, 2012, 09:54:09 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 05, 2012, 09:45:54 AM
I'm giving it to you ;) - the warders are shown chewing on their shields (the sign of a berserker).
Berserkers would chew on their shields to use up some of that nervous energy they built up controlling their drug addled minds after eating the fly-shrooms.
Interesting. Kinda like Crystal Meth users who can't stop clentching or grinding their teeth so much that they end up screwing with their dentition? Odds are surviving berserkers had bad dentition, then.
I dunno if berserkers worried about dentition. Or surviving, for that matter. :lol:
Anyway, here's a pic of said berserkers:
http://blog.britishmuseum.org/2011/11/15/going-berserk-the-lewis-chessmen-in-new-york/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanita_muscaria
This is the mushroom they used, the sagas give the impresison that chewing on his shield was the only thing a berserker was good for (apart from killing lots of people in a suicidal charge) after eating the mushroom..
Anyways... the question is...
What event cause the invention of the socket musket?
Quote from: Malthus on April 05, 2012, 10:03:01 AM
Quote from: Drakken on April 05, 2012, 09:56:58 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 05, 2012, 09:54:09 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 05, 2012, 09:45:54 AM
I'm giving it to you ;) - the warders are shown chewing on their shields (the sign of a berserker).
Berserkers would chew on their shields to use up some of that nervous energy they built up controlling their drug addled minds after eating the fly-shrooms.
Interesting. Kinda like Crystal Meth users who can't stop clentching or grinding their teeth so much that they end up screwing with their dentition? Odds are surviving berserkers had bad dentition, then.
I dunno if berserkers worried about dentition. Or surviving, for that matter. :lol:
Berserkur - literally means bear skin. Thought to be a magically induced skin shift into a bear leaving the berserker inveulnerable to enemy weapons. They didn't worry about surviving mainly because they thought they did and if they didn't they were pretty much assured of a fast track to Valhöll.
Quote from: Viking on April 05, 2012, 10:05:48 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanita_muscaria
This is the mushroom they used, the sagas give the impresison that chewing on his shield was the only thing a berserker was good for (apart from killing lots of people in a suicidal charge) after eating the mushroom..
Your source is far from definite on that ...
QuoteA single source for the notion that Vikings used A. muscaria to produce their berserker rages was first suggested by the Swedish professor Samuel Ödman in 1784.[102] Ödman based his theories on reports about the use of fly agaric among Siberian shamans. The notion has become widespread since the 19th century, but no contemporary sources mention this use or anything similar in their description of berserkers. Today, it is generally considered an urban legend or at best speculation that cannot be proven. Muscimol is generally a mild relaxant, but could create a range of reactions within a range of people.[103] It is possible that it could make a person incredibly angry, as well as make them "very jolly or sad, jump about, dance, sing or give way to great fright".[103]
Quote
Anyways... the question is...
What event cause the invention of the socket musket?
A clarification - you mean some single event, rather than "I can't fire my damn musket with a knife-hilt shoved down the barrel"?
Quote from: Malthus on April 05, 2012, 10:18:01 AM
A clarification - you mean some single event, rather than "I can't fire my damn musket with a knife-hilt shoved down the barrel"?
I'm talking about a specific case of mass "it took me longer to put in the plug than it took for the other guy to run to within stabbing distance".
Quote from: Viking on April 05, 2012, 10:22:12 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 05, 2012, 10:18:01 AM
A clarification - you mean some single event, rather than "I can't fire my damn musket with a knife-hilt shoved down the barrel"?
I'm talking about a specific case of mass "it took me longer to put in the plug than it took for the other guy to run to within stabbing distance".
Ah, fair enough - that would indeed be awkward (well, briefly awkward) :D
I dunno without looking it up.
Quote from: Malthus on April 05, 2012, 10:26:04 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 05, 2012, 10:22:12 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 05, 2012, 10:18:01 AM
A clarification - you mean some single event, rather than "I can't fire my damn musket with a knife-hilt shoved down the barrel"?
I'm talking about a specific case of mass "it took me longer to put in the plug than it took for the other guy to run to within stabbing distance".
I'd accept the campaign as a good enough answer.
Ah, fair enough - that would indeed be awkward (well, briefly awkward) :D
I dunno without looking it up.
I'd accept the campaign as a good enough answer.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2012, 11:07:13 AM
I was thinking they might be Valkyries.
Amazons had breasts too, ya know. ;)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 05, 2012, 01:54:05 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2012, 11:07:13 AM
I was thinking they might be Valkyries.
Amazons had breasts too, ya know. ;)
Well, one each, anyway. They had the other removed so they could shoot the bow more easily. ;)
That's not how they're depicted in Diablo 2!
Quote from: Viking on April 05, 2012, 10:05:48 AM
What event cause the invention of the socket musket?
Bonnie Prince Charlie?
What is a socket musket? Is that a musket that has a socket for a bayonet?
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 05, 2012, 03:49:40 PM
What is a socket musket? Is that a musket that has a socket for a bayonet?
Yup. As opposed to the plug bayonet (handle fits down the muzzle).
The more important question is who thought it was a good idea to stick a bayonet in the mussel of a musket to begin with.
Quote from: HVC on April 05, 2012, 04:28:49 PM
The more important question is who thought it was a good idea to stick a bayonet in the mussel of a musket to begin with.
Some guy who fired at and missed a charging cavalryman.
Quote from: HVC on April 05, 2012, 04:28:49 PM
The more important question is who thought it was a good idea to stick a bayonet in the mussel of a musket to begin with.
It's the obvious way to convert a firearm into a spear. Considering the slow rate of fire of early firearms, it makes some sense.
I don't mean attaching a knife to the gun, which if I recall started as a hunting thing (bears and boars get angry if you shoot and just maime :P ) and makes sense. I mean sticking it in the mussel itself, that seems like a bad plan :lol:
Quote from: HVC on April 05, 2012, 04:54:02 PM
I don't mean attaching a knife to the gun, which if I recall started as a hunting thing (bears and boars get angry if you shoot and just maime :P ) and makes sense. I mean sticking it in the mussel itself, that seems like a bad plan :lol:
As I said, it's simply the easiest way to do it so the knife sits securely, if the knife & gun doesn't come with an extra attachment.
Now obviously having the ability to fire with the knife on is a better idea- that's why the socket bayonet style took off. But someone needs to make the special attachment first. It is a lot easier to simpy remove the handle of a knife and jam the tang down the barrel of a gun. Don't need any special attachments for that.
The actual attachment is a simple yet sophisticated little machine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayonet_mount
Prior to use of this device, "ring" bayonets had the alarming disadvantage of simply falling off in combat.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 05, 2012, 02:54:30 PM
That's not how they're depicted in Diablo 2!
It's not how they are typically depicted in Greek art either. The "Without out breasts" thing seems an unlikely etymology.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2012, 05:16:13 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 05, 2012, 02:54:30 PM
That's not how they're depicted in Diablo 2!
It's not how they are typically depicted in Greek art either. The "Without out breasts" thing seems an unlikely etymology.
It isn't purely a matter of etymology. Both Both Herodotus and Hippocrates - the two most prominent sources for their existence - claim that they cut off a breast.
They are described by Hippocrates as:
"They have no right breasts...for while they are yet babies their mothers make red-hot a bronze instrument constructed for this very purpose and apply it to the right breast and cauterize it, so that its growth is arrested, and all its strength and bulk are diverted to the right shoulder and right arm."
It is true that they are not depicted as having only one tit in art, but who wants to look at hawt women warriors with only one tit?
The plug bayonent is a logical descendent of the pike. This barrel is kind of a stick, let's put a pike head on it. BTW Hillary it's muzzle. Mussels are what Belgians pull from a shell and eat with frites.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 05, 2012, 03:44:16 PM
Quote from: Viking on April 05, 2012, 10:05:48 AM
What event cause the invention of the socket musket?
Bonnie Prince Charlie?
Right place, wrong time. The problem was psychotic highlanders running at you very fast. However, it was a problem in 1689 rather than 1745. The true solution to chargin psychotics was solved, not by Hugh Mackay after the battle of Killiecrankie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Killiecrankie), which is the answer to the question. But rather by Hiram Maxim, but that is a question for another day.
QuoteAt seven o'clock Dundee gave the order to advance, at which point the entirety of the Highlanders dropped their gear, fired what muskets they had, and charged. Mackay's forces, realising the battle was on, stepped up their rate of fire, however due to a shallow terrace on the hillside shielding the advancing Jacobites, this fire was partly masked.[3] Eventually the lines met and Mackay's men in the centre were "swept away by the furious onset of the Camerons." So fast was the Jacobite charge that many Government troops had insufficient time to fix their bayonets, leaving them defenceless at close-quarters (during this period, the plug bayonet was used, which fitted into the barrel of the musket and prevented further reloading or firing - this meant that fixing bayonets was delayed till the last possible moment). The battle soon ended with the entirety of Mackay's force fleeing the field, quickly turning into a rout that killed 2,000.[2]
Floor is open.
Heh, I just came across an obscure one - which famour historical person was depicted as the target in the first picture to depict hand-gun violence?
Gustavus Adolphus.
Genghis Khan?
Grumbler?
Quote from: Malthus on August 15, 2012, 12:17:58 PM
Heh, I just came across an obscure one - which famour historical person was depicted as the target in the first picture to depict hand-gun violence?
Was the person a contemporary to the picture? Because I suppose someone in the 16th century may have drawn a picture of Julius Ceasear or something...
William of Orange?
Quote from: Martinus on August 15, 2012, 01:51:00 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 15, 2012, 12:17:58 PM
Heh, I just came across an obscure one - which famour historical person was depicted as the target in the first picture to depict hand-gun violence?
Was the person a contemporary to the picture? Because I suppose someone in the 16th century may have drawn a picture of Julius Ceasear or something...
Good question ... and the answer is no. The person is not a contemporary of the picture. ;)
Okay, here it is. The guy being threatened with an early hand-gun was ... the Buddha. :lol:
The gun in question was the Chinese "fire lance":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_lance
The picture:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/FireLanceAndGrenade10thCenturyDunhuang.jpg
Guy with the gun is the snake-haired demon in the upper right (another demon is holding a grenade!)
I don't think that's really a hand gun, anymore then a Bazooka is a hand gun.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 16, 2012, 10:41:49 AM
I don't think that's really a hand gun, anymore then a Bazooka is a hand gun.
It's the earliest hand-held gunpowder weapon that used exploding gunpowder to fire a projectile out of a tube. A bazooka works on a different principle altogether - it's a rocket launcher.
This is of course a trick question, the trick spotted by Martinus - that the guy being menaced lived one thousand six hundred years before the invention of such weapons. Also, ironic that it is the Buddha, associated with peaceful stuff.
Quote from: Malthus on August 16, 2012, 01:48:37 PM
Also, ironic that it is the Buddha, associated with peaceful stuff.
There are a lot of Japanese Buddhists that would disagree with you.
Quote from: Malthus on August 16, 2012, 01:48:37 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 16, 2012, 10:41:49 AM
I don't think that's really a hand gun, anymore then a Bazooka is a hand gun.
It's the earliest hand-held gunpowder weapon that used exploding gunpowder to fire a projectile out of a tube. A bazooka works on a different principle altogether - it's a rocket launcher.
This is of course a trick question, the trick spotted by Martinus - that the guy being menaced lived one thousand six hundred years before the invention of such weapons. Also, ironic that it is the Buddha, associated with peaceful stuff.
Being hand held doesn't make it a hand gun.
Quote from: Drakken on August 16, 2012, 02:37:00 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 16, 2012, 01:48:37 PM
Also, ironic that it is the Buddha, associated with peaceful stuff.
There are a lot of Japanese Buddhists that would disagree with you.
I didn't know that the Buddha was
personally known to be a bad-ass, even among Japanese types. :lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on August 16, 2012, 03:44:41 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 16, 2012, 01:48:37 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 16, 2012, 10:41:49 AM
I don't think that's really a hand gun, anymore then a Bazooka is a hand gun.
It's the earliest hand-held gunpowder weapon that used exploding gunpowder to fire a projectile out of a tube. A bazooka works on a different principle altogether - it's a rocket launcher.
This is of course a trick question, the trick spotted by Martinus - that the guy being menaced lived one thousand six hundred years before the invention of such weapons. Also, ironic that it is the Buddha, associated with peaceful stuff.
Being hand held doesn't make it a hand gun.
I disagree.
QuoteA handgun is a firearm designed to be handheld, in either one or both hands. This characteristic differentiates handguns as a general class of firearms from long guns such as rifles and shotguns (which are mounted against the shoulder).
and
QuoteHandheld firearms were first made in China where gunpowder was first developed. They were hand cannons (although they were not necessarily fired from the hand, but rather at the end of a handle). By the 14th century, they existed in Europe as well. The first handheld firearms that might better be called "pistols" were made as early as the 15th century, but their creator is unknown.[5] By the 18th century, the term came to be used often to refer to handheld firearms. Practical revolver designs appeared in the 19th century, but it was not until the mid-twentieth century that the (sometimes-observed) differentiation in usage of the words "pistol" and "revolver" evolved among some speakers and the use of "handgun" became prevalent. Previously there had been no such differentiation, and in fact Samuel Colt's original patent was for a "revolving-breech pistol." There is no literal equivalent for "handgun" in the Romance languages, which continue to use cognates of the word "pistol".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handgun#Multiple_senses_of_the_word_.22pistol.22
You are mistaking "handgun" and "pistol". The fire lance was a "handgun" because it was fired from the hands, not brought to the shoulder like a rifle, musket or shotgun.
Thread necromancy!!!!!
What is the modern name of Diopolis Megale?
Nicki Minaj.
I dunno, Tunis?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2012, 05:48:50 PM
I dunno, Tunis?
Tunis was founded as the islamic military camp after the conquest of north africa, it was chosen specifically to be a new city without traditions the muslims could be enticed into.
So, no, not Tunis and not Nicki Minaj.
Ceuta
... or Melila?
I don't know why I said Tunis. I was thinking Tripoli, but I don't think that's right either. It might help if I knew Greek. I'm guessing that Diopolis means "ten cities". Or "God City". I dunno.
Milan ?
Thebes?
Istanbul?
Quote from: Jacob on December 28, 2012, 06:08:36 PM
Ceuta
... or Melila?
Both hispanicized romanized punic names. Neither is greek and neither is the right answer.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2012, 06:09:31 PM
I don't know why I said Tunis. I was thinking Tripoli, but I don't think that's right either. It might help if I knew Greek. I'm guessing that Diopolis means "ten cities". Or "God City". I dunno.
Tripoli, Libya is named after Tripoli in Lebanon and is often referred to as Tripoli of the west in both punic and arabic. The name today is a greek bastardardization of the original punic name.
Diopolis Megale literally means "City of the Great God" referring to Zeus as the Great God.
Quote from: Caliga on December 28, 2012, 06:50:45 PM
Istanbul?
Famous for having many names, yes, but Diopolis Megala isn't one of them.
Quote from: Maladict on December 28, 2012, 06:27:10 PM
Thebes?
I know my question is a trick question, but this answer is a trick answer. Then again Raz's answer was a trick answer as well. Thebes is not the answer to the question.
Quote from: mongers on December 28, 2012, 06:22:09 PM
Milan ?
Mediolanum means middle of the plain in latin iirc. Milan is a lombard bastardization of that.
Quote from: Viking on December 28, 2012, 07:12:14 PM
I know my question is a trick question, but this answer is a trick answer.
Not sure what's tricky about it. :huh:
We're talking Dio
spolis megale, yes? It's Thebes, or Luxor if you want to be pedantic about it.
Quote from: Viking on December 28, 2012, 07:05:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2012, 06:09:31 PM
I don't know why I said Tunis. I was thinking Tripoli, but I don't think that's right either. It might help if I knew Greek. I'm guessing that Diopolis means "ten cities". Or "God City". I dunno.
Tripoli, Libya is named after Tripoli in Lebanon and is often referred to as Tripoli of the west in both punic and arabic. The name today is a greek bastardardization of the original punic name.
Diopolis Megale literally means "City of the Great God" referring to Zeus as the Great God.
I'm pretty sure it means "three cities".
Ephesus?
Quote from: Maladict on December 28, 2012, 07:23:15 PM
Quote from: Viking on December 28, 2012, 07:12:14 PM
I know my question is a trick question, but this answer is a trick answer.
Not sure what's tricky about it. :huh:
We're talking Diospolis megale, yes? It's Thebes, or Luxor if you want to be pedantic about it.
I gave up and looked. It's something really obscure.
Quote from: Maladict on December 28, 2012, 07:23:15 PM
Quote from: Viking on December 28, 2012, 07:12:14 PM
I know my question is a trick question, but this answer is a trick answer.
Not sure what's tricky about it. :huh:
We're talking Diospolis megale, yes? It's Thebes, or Luxor if you want to be pedantic about it.
You have the floor. I couldn't accept Thebes as an answer since Luxor is the modern name and there were two Thebes.
Ok, fair enough.
Where is Leonardo da Vinci's famous Vitruvian Man, illustrating the proportions of the human body, kept? Either the museum or the city will do.
Gonna do a wild guess - Louvre, Paris?
The Vatican?
My guess is Milan.
Not Paris, Milan or the Vatican.
Zagreb.
New York?
Nope
Florence?
It's only a piece of parchment. It's not like it's something some army would carry off. I would have guessed the monastary where he died near paris... but that's not a city, plus I can't remember it's name :( .
He lived in Milan, Venice and Paris. Milan and Paris have been guessed.
Venice.
Quote from: Viking on December 29, 2012, 11:19:51 AM
It's only a piece of parchment. It's not like it's something some army would carry off. I would have guessed the monastary where he died near paris... but that's not a city, plus I can't remember it's name :( .
He lived in Milan, Venice and Paris. Milan and Paris have been guessed.
Venice.
Yes, although he only stayed very briefly and did not create the drawing there.
Also, he lived in Amboise, not Paris. And of course in Vinci, Florence and Rome.
It's not parchment but paper and the French would most definitely have carried it off if it had been in the city in 1797. As it happened, the Accademia did not acquire it until 1815.
It's only rarely on display, I missed out on seeing it by a day back in 2002. :cry:
Ok,
sooo...
Melbourne, Sidney, Hobart and Brisbane are named after British statesmen, Darwin after a British scientist and Perth after a British City. Who/What is Adelaide named after?
Princess Adelaide
It's an abbreviation of the Scottish "I dinna get laid." Rankers of the highland regiment posted there considered it a hardship post because of the lack of female convicts to rape.
Quote from: Sahib on December 29, 2012, 02:27:14 PM
Princess Adelaide
Adelaide was not a princess, though the standards of this thread would require you to say what she was princess of. You answer is almost half a hair short of answering with "Adelaide".
Quote from: Viking on December 29, 2012, 03:52:58 PM
Quote from: Sahib on December 29, 2012, 02:27:14 PM
Princess Adelaide
Adelaide was not a princess, though the standards of this thread would require you to say what she was princess of. You answer is almost half a hair short of answering with "Adelaide".
It was a ship ?
Quote from: Viking on December 29, 2012, 03:52:58 PM
Quote from: Sahib on December 29, 2012, 02:27:14 PM
Princess Adelaide
Adelaide was not a princess, though the standards of this thread would require you to say what she was princess of. You answer is almost half a hair short of answering with "Adelaide".
Quote
It's an abbreviation of the Scottish "I dinna get laid." Rankers of the highland regiment posted there considered it a hardship post because of the lack of female convicts to rape.
Yeah, standards of this thread.
Quote from: mongers on December 29, 2012, 03:55:22 PM
Quote from: Viking on December 29, 2012, 03:52:58 PM
Quote from: Sahib on December 29, 2012, 02:27:14 PM
Princess Adelaide
Adelaide was not a princess, though the standards of this thread would require you to say what she was princess of. You answer is almost half a hair short of answering with "Adelaide".
It was a ship ?
There are certainly ships named Adelaide, but none of them gave the name to the city.
Huh, that one's easy. She was named after William IV's consort, Queen Adelaide.
Watched Young Victoria last week, so there. :nerd:
I like Yi's answer best.
Quote from: Drakken on December 29, 2012, 09:11:43 PM
Huh, that one's easy. She was named after William IV's consort, Queen Adelaide.
Watched Young Victoria last week, so there. :nerd:
Yepp, she wasn't Princess Adelaide when the city was founded.
Open floor.
Taking the open floor.
Why is the political spectrum described as being from right to left? What was the original political significance of right and left.
French assembly.
Clowns to the left, jokers to the right. :D
Ok, the revolutionary faction that wanted more drastic change sat on the left side. Possibly it was the Jacobins vs Girondists, though I'm not 100% positive on that.
The King lovers sat on his right, so the revolutionary lovers sat on his left.
What's the question again?
Quote from: Viking on December 31, 2012, 12:48:16 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 31, 2012, 12:29:14 PM
French assembly.
can you elaborate?
The French king's assembly when those who supported him were on his right hand and those in opposition on the left.
Iirc it's probably the constitutional assembly convened to decide the fate of the French monarch vs a republic, but I like my made up one better. :)
You're getting closer, I'll give the floor to the one who can say why the royalists sat on the right rather than on the left; which they did for a specific reason.
Quote from: Viking on December 31, 2012, 02:43:47 PM
You're getting closer, I'll give the floor to the one who can say why the royalists sat on the right rather than on the left; which they did for a specific reason.
Is it supporting the sword wielding hand ?
Quote from: mongers on December 31, 2012, 05:56:49 PM
Quote from: Viking on December 31, 2012, 02:43:47 PM
You're getting closer, I'll give the floor to the one who can say why the royalists sat on the right rather than on the left; which they did for a specific reason.
Is it supporting the sword wielding hand ?
That is sooo close I'm gonna give it.
The Royalists sat on the right of the king because that was the position of honor. This is where we get the phrase "right hand man" as well. To the best of my knowledge this is due to one of two reasons, either it has to do with the left hand being used for wiping ones arse or it has to do with hoplite warfare.
With the hoplon/aspis not being held, but rather bound to the wielder's arm the shield only covered half the body, the other half being covered by the man to your right. This meant that hoplite formations tended to drift left AND the man on the far right didn't have anybody to on his right covering half his body. So the place on the far right at the front became the place for your best warriors and subsequently the place of greatest prestige since you were not only facing more enemies (since the formation was drifting left) but you were also only half covered by a shield.
Despite using a center grip scutum which covered all the bearer the romans still put officers on the right as well as iirc the first cohort. This is then taken up by the barbarians and thus becomes feudal tradition in the middle ages despite the position on the far right not having any real significance anymore.
So royal toadies always seek to sit as close to the king as possible on the right.
Open floor, I have no trivia.
Wackjob Jacobins were seated on the Left side of the room, conservative dudes on the Right.
Trivia question :
Who is the oldest President of the United States to have living grandchildren, as of today?
H W Bush? #lowhangingfruit
You're way off. I googled it.
Wow, the answer will blow your mind! :o
Quote from: Drakken on January 18, 2013, 08:21:19 AM
Trivia question :
Who is the oldest President of the United States to have living grandchildren, as of today?
I'm thinking Roosevelt.
Saw this on the news a few months back - isn't it someone like Tyler?
I have no real idea but I'm going with honest Abe. Just because it would be dammned impressive. :D
Quote from: PDH on January 18, 2013, 09:31:55 AM
Saw this on the news a few months back - isn't it someone like Tyler?
I think it was something like this too.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 18, 2013, 09:07:58 AM
Wow, the answer will blow your mind! :o
It's a little humbling in a way, to think of only three generations of a family seeing all they have.
Yes, I had to google it too.
Quote from: Agelastus on January 18, 2013, 10:18:35 AM
It's a little humbling in a way, to think of only three generations of a family seeing all they have.
Yeah. "When my granddad was born George Washington was president and Louis XVI was still King of France". :wacko:
Quote from: Malthus on January 18, 2013, 10:07:15 AM
I have no real idea but I'm going with honest Abe. Just because it would be dammned impressive. :D
Abe has had no more living descendant for a long while. Lincoln and Buchanan are the only two Presidents to have no living descendant.
PDH got it. It was indeed John Tyler, 10th President of the United States, and he died in 1862.
Anyone else can have the question.
By the way, my grandfather was born in 1897 - and I thought that was rather old.
Quote from: Viking on December 31, 2012, 06:12:54 PM
Quote from: mongers on December 31, 2012, 05:56:49 PM
Quote from: Viking on December 31, 2012, 02:43:47 PM
You're getting closer, I'll give the floor to the one who can say why the royalists sat on the right rather than on the left; which they did for a specific reason.
Is it supporting the sword wielding hand ?
That is sooo close I'm gonna give it.
The Royalists sat on the right of the king because that was the position of honor. This is where we get the phrase "right hand man" as well. To the best of my knowledge this is due to one of two reasons, either it has to do with the left hand being used for wiping ones arse or it has to do with hoplite warfare.
Does anyone actually use their non-dominant hand to wipe their ass? Isn't that asking for trouble?
Quote from: Ideologue on January 21, 2013, 08:34:39 PM
Does anyone actually use their non-dominant hand to wipe their ass? Isn't that asking for trouble?
One would think so. Would hate to wipe twice because of the smear.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 21, 2013, 08:34:39 PM
Quote from: Viking on December 31, 2012, 06:12:54 PM
Quote from: mongers on December 31, 2012, 05:56:49 PM
Quote from: Viking on December 31, 2012, 02:43:47 PM
You're getting closer, I'll give the floor to the one who can say why the royalists sat on the right rather than on the left; which they did for a specific reason.
Is it supporting the sword wielding hand ?
That is sooo close I'm gonna give it.
The Royalists sat on the right of the king because that was the position of honor. This is where we get the phrase "right hand man" as well. To the best of my knowledge this is due to one of two reasons, either it has to do with the left hand being used for wiping ones arse or it has to do with hoplite warfare.
Does anyone actually use their non-dominant hand to wipe their ass? Isn't that asking for trouble?
:blink:
I thought it was 'human nature' or at least a common cultural habit, to
Not use your dominant hand for dirty jobs ?
Or are you very handed and notable diminished motor/hand to eye co-ordination with your non-dominant hand.
I make a habit of washing my hands afterwords.
Quote from: mongers on January 21, 2013, 09:13:00 PM
:blink:
I thought it was 'human nature' or at least a common cultural habit, to Not use your dominant hand for dirty jobs ?
Says the guy that pisses and shits on trees.
It's not a dirty job if you learned how to use TP properly, and wash your hands.
QuoteOr are you very handed and notable diminished motor/hand to eye co-ordination with your non-dominant hand.
Personally, I lose my balance and fall over if I try to do anything right-handed.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 21, 2013, 09:53:28 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 21, 2013, 09:13:00 PM
:blink:
I thought it was 'human nature' or at least a common cultural habit, to Not use your dominant hand for dirty jobs ?
Says the guy that pisses and shits on trees.
It's not a dirty job if you learned how to use TP properly, and wash your hands.
QuoteOr are you very handed and notable diminished motor/hand to eye co-ordination with your non-dominant hand.
Personally, I lose my balance and fall over if I try to do anything right-handed.
:D
Oh you're a leftie as well.
Personally I've always tried to use my right for as much stuff as possible, so I can use most tools either hand, sawing wood doesn't seem a problem and for some stuff like ratchet drives I'm more comfortable with the right.
Quote from: PDH on January 21, 2013, 08:31:36 PM
Anyone else can have the question.
Since it happened on yesterday's date in history, the Battle of Cape St. Vincent featured what famous bridge?
The Nelson Bridge.
Open floor.
Just learned one (on the can):
Against whom were the Maccabbees revolting?
Egypt?
Nope.
The Selucids. Who were a Macedodian successor-state to the empire of Alexander.
Quote from: Malthus on March 04, 2013, 10:07:49 AM
The Selucids. Who were a Macedodian successor-state to the empire of Alexander.
I'm sorry. The answer I was looking for was
Seleucids. :(
I thought it was an interesting question because I've heard the Maccabbees mentioned a lot but not once was their enemy mentioned.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 04, 2013, 10:11:45 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 04, 2013, 10:07:49 AM
The Selucids. Who were a Macedodian successor-state to the empire of Alexander.
I'm sorry. The answer I was looking for was Seleucids. :(
I thought it was an interesting question because I've heard the Maccabbees mentioned a lot but not once was their enemy mentioned.
You seriously expect me to get the correct spelling without looking it up? :P
But yeah, the enemies of the Macabees aren't usually named.
How about another Maccabee-themed question: the guy they were fighting against assumed the name "Antiochus" when he assumed the throne. He then took another name as an epithet, which was guaranteed to annoy the Jews. What dd that epithet name mean?
For bonus marks: the Romans did something to him that is sometimes considered the origin of the phrase "to draw a line in the sand". What, exactly?
The Baconator.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 04, 2013, 11:52:24 AM
The Baconator.
Well, that would certainly do it ... but no. ;)
Jesus Christ.
Quote from: Malthus on March 04, 2013, 11:48:01 AM
How about another Maccabee-themed question: the guy they were fighting against assumed the name "Antiochus" when he assumed the throne. He then took another name as an epithet, which was guaranteed to annoy the Jews. What dd that epithet name mean?
Messiah?
Quote from: Caliga on March 04, 2013, 01:30:30 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 04, 2013, 11:48:01 AM
How about another Maccabee-themed question: the guy they were fighting against assumed the name "Antiochus" when he assumed the throne. He then took another name as an epithet, which was guaranteed to annoy the Jews. What dd that epithet name mean?
Messiah?
Nope ... a bit
less close than the last guess. ;)
Pigfucker
Quote from: Syt on March 04, 2013, 01:38:18 PM
Pigfucker
So said "Lyndon B. Johnson Maccabbee". ;)
"the anointed one"?
Quote from: Malthus on March 04, 2013, 11:48:01 AM
How about another Maccabee-themed question: the guy they were fighting against assumed the name "Antiochus" when he assumed the throne. He then took another name as an epithet, which was guaranteed to annoy the Jews. What dd that epithet name mean?
For bonus marks: the Romans did something to him that is sometimes considered the origin of the phrase "to draw a line in the sand". What, exactly?
I know this one! Epiphanes. Antiochus Epiphanes. I think that means enlightened one.
I assume it had something to do with the Greek/Roman pantheon, as the original cause of the Maccabbee revolt was Antiochus' decision to build a temple to Zeus in Jerusalem.
"Zeus-lover?"
Quote from: Valmy on March 04, 2013, 01:52:24 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 04, 2013, 11:48:01 AM
How about another Maccabee-themed question: the guy they were fighting against assumed the name "Antiochus" when he assumed the throne. He then took another name as an epithet, which was guaranteed to annoy the Jews. What dd that epithet name mean?
For bonus marks: the Romans did something to him that is sometimes considered the origin of the phrase "to draw a line in the sand". What, exactly?
I know this one! Epiphanes. Antiochus Epiphanes. I think that means enlightened one.
You got it.
Though it means "god manifest" - i.e., meaning something like "Antiochus, God on Earth".
Sort of similar to the Christian notion of the messiah (though not at all like the Jewish notion). Such a title was, of course, deeply offensive to believing Jews.
Allegedly, his "often eccentric behavior and capricious actions led some of his contemporaries to call him Epimanes ("The Mad One"), a word play on his title Epiphanes".
Quote from: Malthus on March 04, 2013, 11:48:01 AM
For bonus marks: the Romans did something to him that is sometimes considered the origin of the phrase "to draw a line in the sand". What, exactly?
Stopped his (successful) invasion of Ptolemaic Egypt by, at a parley, drawing a circle in the sand around him and stating if he crossed it without agreeing to take his army home he would have to face the might of Rome etc. etc.
On one side - Antiochus, his officers and his army. Tens of thousands of men.
On the other side, a Roman Official with his lictors and aides. Probably a dozen or so men if the tale is to be believed in its' entirety.
Something like that, anyway. :)
Quote from: Agelastus on March 04, 2013, 04:55:29 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 04, 2013, 11:48:01 AM
For bonus marks: the Romans did something to him that is sometimes considered the origin of the phrase "to draw a line in the sand". What, exactly?
Stopped his (successful) invasion of Ptolemaic Egypt by, at a parley, drawing a circle in the sand around him and stating if he crossed it without agreeing to take his army home he would have to face the might of Rome etc. etc.
On one side - Antiochus, his officers and his army. Tens of thousands of men.
On the other side, a Roman Official with his lictors and aides. Probably a dozen or so men if the tale is to be believed in its' entirety.
Something like that, anyway. :)
Close - Antiochus was told not to invade Egypt by Roman dude, Antiochus said he'd have to to take that under advisement etc. clearly stalling for time, Roman dude draws a circle around Antiochus in the sand and says something like "I'll have your answer before you leave this circle or it's war", Antiochus backs down.
But you get the bonus marks ... :D
Edit: Roman dude was this fellow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Popillius_Laenas
As thread's dying I thought I'd ask a question. Which Muslim jurisprudent and theologian retold the story of Jesus saving Mary Magdalene, with the words 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone', only to add that John the Baptist then ran out of the crowd and pummelled her?
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 09, 2013, 10:14:04 PM
As thread's dying I thought I'd ask a question. Which Muslim jurisprudent and theologian retold the story of Jesus saving Mary Magdalene, with the words 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone', only to add that John the Baptist then ran out of the crowd and pummelled her?
I know there is an apocryphal story about a Rabbi who retold the story like that (but not with John the Baptist and the prostitute not being Mary Magdalene) as a musing on self-righteousness. I can't remember who it was though. In his version the stone thrower was the husbands wife iirc.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 09, 2013, 10:14:04 PM
As thread's dying I thought I'd ask a question. Which Muslim jurisprudent and theologian retold the story of Jesus saving Mary Magdalene, with the words 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone', only to add that John the Baptist then ran out of the crowd and pummelled her?
Sayid Al-Douchebag
We don't know, tell us.
Yeah. Day's up. Ibn Hanbal.
I quite liked the story. It does highlight what's always struck me, that that story isn't necessarily about unconditional forgiveness and tolerance which is often how its presented.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 10, 2013, 08:52:52 PM
Yeah. Day's up. Ibn Hanbal.
I quite liked the story. It does highlight what's always struck me, that that story isn't necessarily about unconditional forgiveness and tolerance which is often how its presented.
Hanbal as in Hanbali school of juristprudence?
Yep.
Who was the first person to talk about winning "hearts and minds" in the context of counterinsurgency?
Napoleon?
Nope.
Himmler
:thumbsdown:
Gaius Julius Caesar
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 10, 2013, 08:52:52 PM
Yeah. Day's up. Ibn Hanbal.
I quite liked the story. It does highlight what's always struck me, that that story isn't necessarily about unconditional forgiveness and tolerance which is often how its presented.
Elaborate
Stalin ?
Nope.
The Wigger has been warmest so far.
Alexander?
Having google/wiki'd it, I'm not sure how I was at all close. :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 13, 2013, 06:45:48 AM
Who was the first person to talk about winning "hearts and minds" in the context of counterinsurgency?
Crassus.
Or is it Pompey? :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 13, 2013, 08:22:47 AM
Having google/wiki'd it, I'm not sure how I was at all close. :hmm:
Warmer than Himmler and Caesar. :contract:
No to Alexander and Crassus.
No to Pompey.
Robespierre?
Quote from: Solmyr on March 13, 2013, 08:29:11 AM
Robespierre?
No.
A slight hint: he wasn't being ironic when he said it. Or wrote it.
Sherman
General Howe?
Timmy was off by a hair. It was General Clinton.
If Timmy has a question, he can ask it.
Crown Prince Sado of the Joseon dynasty was executed by his father the Emperor in an extremely cruel way.
How was he killed? Why was he killed (there are two answers I will accept)
Crown Prince Sado?
It has to be said, "In a BDSM play accident"
dynsaty?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 13, 2013, 08:01:28 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 10, 2013, 08:52:52 PM
Yeah. Day's up. Ibn Hanbal.
I quite liked the story. It does highlight what's always struck me, that that story isn't necessarily about unconditional forgiveness and tolerance which is often how its presented.
Elaborate
....On what?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 13, 2013, 09:00:33 PM
dynsaty?
dynasty! :mad:
Now stop using my typos to distract the masses from the fact that you don't know your motherland's history.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 13, 2013, 09:39:39 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 13, 2013, 08:01:28 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 10, 2013, 08:52:52 PM
Yeah. Day's up. Ibn Hanbal.
I quite liked the story. It does highlight what's always struck me, that that story isn't necessarily about unconditional forgiveness and tolerance which is often how its presented.
Elaborate
....On what?
What you think the story is neccessarily about.
Hard not to see it as not about unconditional forgiveness when all humans, even Saints, have sinned and are thus unfit to judge.
Quote from: Viking on March 13, 2013, 08:56:13 PM
Crown Prince Sado?
It has to be said, "In a BDSM play accident"
If only he knew the safe word. :(
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 13, 2013, 11:10:20 PMWhat you think the story is neccessarily about.
Hard not to see it as not about unconditional forgiveness when all humans, even Saints, have sinned and are thus unfit to judge.
:lol: I was mainly flippant. But it seems more about an awareness of our own faults and a sort of tolerance of others' than forgiveness. Christ forgives but that's because he can. He could also stone her to death.
Depending on status of sin some humans could stone her. The Ibn Hanbal story made me laugh because there's an old Catholic joke about the Virgin Mary doing exactly the same.
Edit: Also it doesn't per se condemn stoning for adultery. It's a little bit Tariq Ramadan.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 13, 2013, 09:00:33 PM
dynsaty?
Making typos is Tim's dynsaty. I mean his destiny.
What did the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks call their party/group/terror cell before they split?
May be a gimme for some; I didn't know it or forgot it if I ever did.
24+ hour rule (and it was the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party). :P
New question: which American president was the first to host an Iftar (the breaking of the fast at sunset during Ramadan) in the White House?
Jefferson.
Which was the first US President to be an unambiguously Trinitarian Christian.
Obama.
no,
btw, I'm using wikipedia as the arbiter here due to the often controversial nature of the question and my precieved biases.
None, since the word "unambiguously" is used, there is probably someone, somewhere who claims they aren't a real christian.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 09, 2013, 10:18:21 AM
None, since the word "unambiguously" is used, there is probably someone, somewhere who claims they aren't a real christian.
which is why I'm using wikipedia as the arbiter and the word unambiguously. Which is the first american president which was clearly a trinitarian christian? viz. never spent significant parts of his life as a deist, unitarian or non-practicing.
That's a strange definition. I suppose it's a good one for your purposes though. By that definition George W. Bush wouldn't be considered a trinitarian Christian
Wilson?
Volleyball.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 09, 2013, 11:05:51 AM
Wilson?
No, I'm pretty sure that a few of the 19th century presidents were christians.
Washington was Episcopalian - who are Trinitarians... Adams was Unitarian... I'd go with Washington, unless there's some weird disqualifier in there... if the question is actually "Trinitarian" as opposed to 'lifelong and devout' - it's Washington.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on May 09, 2013, 03:04:02 PM
Washington was Episcopalian - who are Trinitarians... Adams was Unitarian... I'd go with Washington, unless there's some weird disqualifier in there... if the question is actually "Trinitarian" as opposed to 'lifelong and devout' - it's Washington.
This is why I used the qualifier "unambiguously". Washington's iconic status meant that everybody wanted a piece of him. The Baptists claim he was baptised at valley forge, the episcopalian minister in philadelphia asserted that Washington was a deist strangely enough.
It is quite possible that he cultivated the ambiguity due to his appreciation of his own iconic stature. He was nominally an episcopalian but his religion is sufficiently ambiguous that his wikipage lists both deism and episcopalianism as his religion that that was the arbiter I choose. Listing both means it was ambiguous.
Jackson?
James Garfield was notably devout...
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 09, 2013, 03:25:09 PM
Jackson?
Yes, Andrew Jackson was the first explicitly Christian president. While he wasn't a notable paragon of christian values, he was a Presbyterian. It took getting to the generation after the founders before a US president was willing to explicitly declare himself a Christian.
You're up Wigger.
I got nuttin'.
I'll grab it again...
What was Ulysses S. Grant's given middle name?
Ulysses
Hiram?
Grant
Danger.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 09, 2013, 11:31:39 PM
Ulysses
Yes, his given name was
Hiram Ulysses Grant. His name was "changed" when a friend of the family who only knew him as Ulyss or Ulysses Grant arranged to have him go to West Point. He added the extra S.
Stop answering questions if you don't have any yourself.
I insist that you answer a question.
Quote from: Viking on May 10, 2013, 03:36:48 AM
I insist that you answer a question.
Already did! :P
Ok, the Song of Roland is based upon which battle?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 10, 2013, 04:41:19 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 10, 2013, 03:36:48 AM
I insist that you answer a question.
Already did! :P
Ok, the Song of Roland is based upon which battle?
Roncesvalles?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 10, 2013, 04:41:19 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 10, 2013, 03:36:48 AM
I insist that you answer a question.
Already did! :P
Ok, the Song of Roland is based upon which battle?
The Battle of Tull.
Wooo!
Ok, which was the most bombed place in WWII?
Dresden?
Do you mean most bombed as in largest number of times?
Malta?
Berlin
Quote from: Syt on May 10, 2013, 05:39:07 AM
Malta?
Yup. 3.340 air raids were sent against it between June 1940 and November 1942.
Quote from: The Larch on May 10, 2013, 05:41:59 AM
Quote from: Syt on May 10, 2013, 05:39:07 AM
Malta?
Yup. 3.340 air raids were sent against it between June 1940 and November 1942.
I bet the amount of bombs was nowhere near what was dropped on Berlin or Tokyo.
Quote from: Zanza on May 10, 2013, 05:45:10 AM
Quote from: The Larch on May 10, 2013, 05:41:59 AM
Quote from: Syt on May 10, 2013, 05:39:07 AM
Malta?
Yup. 3.340 air raids were sent against it between June 1940 and November 1942.
I bet the amount of bombs was nowhere near what was dropped on Berlin or Tokyo.
Sorry, should have specified that it was by number of raids rather than by tonnage dropped.
120 years ago today, the United States Supreme Court ruled in the case Nix vs. Hedden. What was the ruling?
Nix lost due to the votes of the Texas and Illinois justices.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 10, 2013, 06:08:44 AM
Nix lost due to the votes of the Texas and Illinois justices.
:huh:
Giggle.
That the tomato is a vegetable, not a fruit.
On her 55th birthday evening party in 131 BC, what noteworthy gift did Cleopatra II allegedly receive from her brother/ex-husband/ex co-ruler, Ptolemy VIII Physcon, and her daughter/niece Cleopatra III, who Physcon had married after divorcing Cleopatra II?
Obviously it's about Ptolemaic family politics, that should you give you a slight clue.
The head of Pompey?
Somebody was given head.
A combination family tree/dating guide.
An asp in her bed?
Jacob?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 10, 2013, 07:13:04 PM
A combination family tree/dating guide.
It would have been quite a simple dating guide : the eldest son marries the eldest daughter, and the rest of the daughters get married off to Syria or other diadochi eligible bachelors.
But no. That said Raz's reply, taken literally, is getting slightly warmer.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 10, 2013, 08:02:59 PM
An asp in her bed?
No. The gift was an even harsher "go fuck yourself" than that.
I apply the 24 hour rule.
As the "gift" sent from Ptolemy VIII Physcon (usually translated as Potbelly) and her daughter Cleopatra III, she received Ptolemy Memphites, her only surviving son and the only child she's conceived with Physcon. Except that Physcon had him decapitated and torn into pieces before sending the whole remains in a carried box right on time for her birthday. :nelson:
Languish is losing its ways. In the good old time it would have had been fiercely contended. :(
500 hour rule.
What is the origin of the word ostracize/ostracism?
Ostriches
Clay pots
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 02, 2013, 01:11:16 PM
Clay pots
Can you elaborate a little for the edification and amusement of the groundlings?
Athenians used clay shards to vote on who to exile from the city. Think it was dependant on color of the shard.
:thumbsup:
My source says you wrote the name on the shard and voted based on which pile you threw it in.
Did the Athenians call the shards ostriches? Otherwise I still don't see the origin of the word.
They called them like ostrakateioea or something.
The "Mighty Handful" consisted of Mily Balakirev, Cesar Cui, Modest Mussorgsky, Alexander Borodin, and what other composer?
Vangelis
I looked it up... the last one is the only one I recognize... I suck...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cobrapest.com%2Finflight.jpg&hash=52d59e10893133c02efc3fa4b0ded9b395f312d8)
Quote from: Viking on June 03, 2013, 04:10:54 PM
I looked it up... the last one is the only one I recognize... I suck...
Have you seen Fantasia? Mussorgsky composed Night on Bald Mountain(featured in the scene with the giant demon, before Handel's Ave Maria). Also Pictures at an Exhibition is pretty well known.
Answer was Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov. Open floor.
An interesting factoid I picked up today: In what war and under what flag did Anders' Army fight? Hint: neither the war nor the flag is obscure. Bonus points: where was this army formed?
I'm still disappointed that nobody was able to connect a composer with this picture. :(
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cobrapest.com%2Finflight.jpg&hash=52d59e10893133c02efc3fa4b0ded9b395f312d8)
The flag might not be obscure but Who is Anders and what was his army?
Indeed
Stab in the dark: the Danish contingent at the Battle of the Boyne. Formed...over there.
Nope, more recent
Quote from: Maximus on August 29, 2013, 02:30:49 PM
Nope, more recent
Has a nice Hogan's Heroes type ring to it so I am going to guess WWII. Anders - sounds scandi but nothing was really going on there except the Germans landing in Norway so I am going to guess a bunch of Norwegians trying to fight the Nazi's under a British flag because they were formed in England - since the local Norwegians had already learned how to goose step.
Even remotely close?
I'm going to give it to you because you got the war right and kinda-sorta the flag.
Anders' Army was more formally known as Polish Armed Forces in the East, an army formed by the Soviet Union out of Polish PoWs and other prisoners in Soviet concentration camps. They wore the Piast eagle and fought under Soviet command until '42 when they were transferred to Iran and joined British command, eventually seeing fighting in North Africa and Italy.
I was close in a game of nuclear horse shoes... lol.
Here is the question. The formation of the English Common Law is often heralded as one of the foundations of the Rule of Law. But what was the not so noble reason for its creation orginally?
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 29, 2013, 05:36:52 PM
I was close in a game of nuclear horse shoes... lol.
Here is the question. The formation of the English Common Law is often heralded as one of the foundations of the Rule of Law. But what was the not so noble reason for its creation orginally?
So people couldn't seek 'refuge' within the church system of justice ? :unsure:
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 29, 2013, 05:36:52 PM
I was close in a game of nuclear horse shoes... lol.
Here is the question. The formation of the English Common Law is often heralded as one of the foundations of the Rule of Law. But what was the not so noble reason for its creation orginally?
Giving the king a monopoly on selling writs, thus pumping up his income?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 29, 2013, 01:56:58 PM
I'm still disappointed that nobody was able to connect a composer with this picture. :(
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cobrapest.com%2Finflight.jpg&hash=52d59e10893133c02efc3fa4b0ded9b395f312d8)
Rimsky-Korsakov?
EDIT: just noticed the answer on the previous page, my timing sucks
I don't think there is a simple answer to CC's question.
Prior to the introduction (or at least formalisation) of a common law system by Henry II by sending out judges on a circuit, the law was localised with local bigwigs dispensing their version of justice. HII imposes a common system throughout the country. One can speculate as to the reasons but they would include seeking a unified approach and extending the power of the King in opposition to the obility and higher gentry.
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 05:51:53 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 29, 2013, 05:36:52 PM
I was close in a game of nuclear horse shoes... lol.
Here is the question. The formation of the English Common Law is often heralded as one of the foundations of the Rule of Law. But what was the not so noble reason for its creation orginally?
Giving the king a monopoly on selling writs, thus pumping up his income?
bingo. you have the floor
Quote from: Gups on August 30, 2013, 04:57:00 AM
I don't think there is a simple answer to CC's question.
Prior to the introduction (or at least formalisation) of a common law system by Henry II by sending out judges on a circuit, the law was localised with local bigwigs dispensing their version of justice. HII imposes a common system throughout the country. One can speculate as to the reasons but they would include seeking a unified approach and extending the power of the King in opposition to the obility and higher gentry.
Naw, Henry the second wasnt motivated to seek a unified approach. We can say that with some confidence because that was a consequence of creating a royal monopoly on justice which developed incrementally. With hindsight we can see his policy as the start of what would become the Common Law but he did it to increase his revenues.
This is probably an easy one for this crowd ... but here goes.
The Colossus of Rhodes was one of the wonders of the ancient world (as well as in the Civilization series of games ;) ). In the real world, its construction was alleged to have been financed from a rather unusual source. How did Rhodes allegedly pay for building its colossus?
Not sure about financing, but I think the bronze came from melted down weapons and armor of an invading army?
Temple whores? :unsure:
Quote from: Maximus on August 30, 2013, 10:34:58 AM
Not sure about financing, but I think the bronze came from melted down weapons and armor of an invading army?
You got it.
The bronze partly came from melted down weapons and the money from selling the other stores the army was forced to leave behind - at least, allegedly.
The Colossus itself was a memorial of thanks to Helios for Rhodes' success in defeating the siege.
I keep thinking this is the History Trivia Thread Rednecks.
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2013, 11:29:09 AM
I keep thinking this is the History Trivia Thread Rednecks.
Me, too. :blush:
Who is widely believed to be the only British soldier to kill an enemy with a longbow in World War 2?
Quote from: Syt on September 07, 2013, 09:40:25 AM
Who is widely believed to be the only British soldier to kill an enemy with a longbow in World War 2?
The Axis didn't use longbows.
Quote from: Syt on September 07, 2013, 09:40:25 AM
Who is widely believed to be the only British soldier to kill an enemy with a longbow in World War 2?
It's that psychopathic scottish guy in the SBS who did in a hopefullly german sentry with a longbow during a raid on bordeaux before attaching limpet mines to a series of ships hidden up the garonne river. I don't remember his name.
Quote from: Viking on September 07, 2013, 10:23:44 AM
Quote from: Syt on September 07, 2013, 09:40:25 AM
Who is widely believed to be the only British soldier to kill an enemy with a longbow in World War 2?
It's that psychopathic scottish guy in the SBS who did in a hopefullly german sentry with a longbow during a raid on bordeaux before attaching limpet mines to a series of ships hidden up the garonne river. I don't remember his name.
Good enough:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Churchill
QuoteLieutenant Colonel John Malcolm Thorpe Fleming "Jack" Churchill, DSO & Bar, MC & Bar (16 September 1906 – 8 March 1996), nicknamed Fighting Jack Churchill and Mad Jack, was a British soldier who fought throughout the Second World War armed with a longbow, and a Scottish broadsword. He is known for the motto "any officer who goes into action without his sword is improperly armed."
[...]
Churchill resumed his commission after Poland was invaded. In May 1940 Churchill and his unit, the Manchester Regiment, ambushed a German patrol near L'Epinette, France. Churchill gave the signal to attack by cutting down the enemy Feldwebel (sergeant) with a barbed arrow, becoming the only British soldier known to have felled an enemy with a longbow in WWII.[2] After fighting at Dunkirk, he volunteered for the Commandos.[3]
Churchill was second in command of No. 3 Commando in Operation Archery, a raid on the German garrison at Vågsøy, Norway on 27 December 1941.[4] As the ramps fell on the first landing craft, Churchill leapt forward from his position and played a tune on his bagpipes, before throwing a grenade and running into battle in the bay. For his actions at Dunkirk and Vågsøy, Churchill received the Military Cross and Bar.
In July 1943, as commanding officer, he led 2 Commando from their landing site at Catania in Sicily with his trademark Scottish broadsword slung around his waist, a longbow and arrows around his neck and his bagpipes under his arm,[5] which he also did in the landings at Salerno. Leading 2 Commando, Churchill was ordered to capture a German observation post outside of the town of La Molina, controlling a pass leading down to the Salerno beach-head. He led the attack by 2 and 41 Commandos, infiltrated the town and captured the post, taking 42 prisoners including a mortar squad. Churchill led the men and prisoners back down the pass, with the wounded being carried on carts pushed by German prisoners. He commented that it was "an image from the Napoleonic Wars."[6] He received the Distinguished Service Order for leading this action at Salerno.[7]
In 1944 he led the Commandos in Yugoslavia, where they supported Josip Broz Tito's Partisans from the Adriatic island of Vis.[8] In May he was ordered to raid the German held island of Brač. He organized a "motley army" of 1,500 Partisans, 43 Commando and one troop from 40 Commando for the raid. The landing was unopposed but on seeing the eyries from which they later encountered German fire, the Partisans decided to defer the attack until the following day. Churchill's bagpipes signalled the remaining Commandos to battle. After being strafed by an RAF Spitfire, Churchill decided to withdraw for the night and to re-launch the attack the following morning.[9] The following morning, one flanking attack was launched by 43 Commando with Churchill leading the elements from 40 Commando. The Partisans remained at the landing area; only Churchill and six others managed to reach the objective. A mortar shell killed or wounded everyone but Churchill, who was playing "Will Ye No Come Back Again?" on his pipes as the Germans advanced. He was knocked unconscious by grenades and captured.[9] He was later flown to Berlin for interrogation and then transferred to Sachsenhausen concentration camp.[3]
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fd%2Fd2%2FJack_Churchill_leading_training_charge_with_sword.jpg&hash=5b0e7607e81f2eff9ad41f9ca09a60e54f55922b)
Jack Churchill (far right) leads a training exercise, sword in hand, from a Eureka boat in Inveraray.
In September 1944 Churchill and a Royal Air Force officer crawled under the wire, through an abandoned drain and attempted to walk to the Baltic coast. They were captured near the coastal city of Rostock, a few kilometres from the sea. In late April 1945 Churchill and about 140 other prominent concentration camp inmates were transferred to Tyrol, guarded by SS troops. A delegation of prisoners told senior German army officers they feared they would be executed. An army unit commanded by Captain Wichard von Alvensleben moved in to protect the prisoners. Outnumbered, the SS guards moved out, leaving the prisoners behind.[10] The prisoners were released and after the departure of the Germans, Churchill walked 150 kilometres (93 mi) to Verona, Italy where he met an American armoured force.[3]
As the Pacific War was still on, Churchill was sent to Burma,[3] where the largest land battles against Japan were being fought. By the time Churchill reached India, Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been bombed and the war ended. Churchill was said to be unhappy with the sudden end of the war, saying: "If it wasn't for those damn Yanks, we could have kept the war going another 10 years."[3]
hmm.. maybe he used a crossbow in the garonne raid? I'm actually a bit surprised that psychopathic scottish guy gave that specific a result....
OK, this may be pre-history, but, what was the most recent, and possibly only specific and dated event to nearly wipe out humanity. (as in kill nearly everybody rather than nearly getting to the point where everybody dies). I want event type, location and time.
Volcano, Lake Toba, ~750kya
Quote from: Maximus on September 07, 2013, 11:33:28 AM
Volcano, Lake Toba, ~750kya
only off by one order of magnitude, but I'll give it to you. But, 750,000 years ago would be homo erectus, which had it's own migration out of europe. Toba was 75,000 years ago (ish) and mitochondrial eve's range includes toba in it's lower range.
time to restart the thread
In the movie Lawrence of Arabia, when crossing a difficult section of desert one of the Arabs, named Gasim, goes missing and Lawrence goes back to save him.
QuoteIn David Lean's epic film, the rescue of Gasim would be immortalized in a ten minute scene, culminating in Lawrence finally rejoining his comrades to their relieved and raucous cheers, his noble act cementing his image as a true "sone of the desert". The reality was quite different.
The quote is from Lawrence in Arabia:War, Deceit, Imperial Folly and the Making of the Modern Middle East by Scott Anderson.
The question is what really happened when Lawrence returned with Gasim and bonus points if you know how Gasim came to be separated from the group.
In the film gasim is executed by lawrence after some crime. In reality the guy he saved was not the one he executed.
So, nothing special happened to the guy when he returned to the camp, I have no idea how he got lost, incompetence or malice I suspect.
Quote from: Viking on March 07, 2014, 11:18:10 AM
In the film gasim is executed by lawrence after some crime. In reality the guy he saved was not the one he executed.
So, nothing special happened to the guy when he returned to the camp, I have no idea how he got lost, incompetence or malice I suspect.
You are correct that Gasim was not shot. In fact the shooting incident occurred with another group long before Lawrence met up with the group of Arabs he crossed the desert with.
But that wasnt the answer, there was in fact something that did happen when he and Gasim returned which was different than that portrayed in the movie.
Well, I have no idea what actually happened to him.
Quote from: Viking on March 07, 2014, 02:14:30 PM
Well, I have no idea what actually happened to him.
The question isnt what happened to Gasim, the question is what happened when Lawrence returned with Gasim. The bonus question is why did Gasim need rescuing in the first place.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2014, 02:23:47 PM
Quote from: Viking on March 07, 2014, 02:14:30 PM
Well, I have no idea what actually happened to him.
The question isnt what happened to Gasim, the question is what happened when Lawrence returned with Gasim. The bonus question is why did Gasim need rescuing in the first place.
Well I still don't know.
Ok, hopefully you are not the only one who reads this thread. :)
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2014, 02:30:11 PM
Ok, hopefully you are not the only one who reads this thread. :)
I think I might be.
There was a sexy party.
Quote from: The Brain on March 07, 2014, 02:54:30 PM
There was a sexy party.
The camels were already exhausted from the trip across the desert
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2014, 11:08:46 AM
time to restart the thread
In the movie Lawrence of Arabia, when crossing a difficult section of desert one of the Arabs, named Gasim, goes missing and Lawrence goes back to save him.
QuoteIn David Lean's epic film, the rescue of Gasim would be immortalized in a ten minute scene, culminating in Lawrence finally rejoining his comrades to their relieved and raucous cheers, his noble act cementing his image as a true "sone of the desert". The reality was quite different.
The quote is from Lawrence in Arabia:War, Deceit, Imperial Folly and the Making of the Modern Middle East by Scott Anderson.
The question is what really happened when Lawrence returned with Gasim and bonus points if you know how Gasim came to be separated from the group.
Rather than arriving to relieved and raucous cheers the arabs were very disappointed in Lawrence for risking his life for someone who obviously deserved to die. They took out their disppointment on Lawrence's two servants who were beaten for allowing Lawrence to leave.
The bonus question, Gasim didnt secure his camel when he got off to take a piss.
Here's an odd one: who is the only non-Jewish person to be proclaimed as "messiah" in the Old Testament? Where was he proclaimed, and why?
The anus. Don't know the second question.
Quote from: Malthus on April 02, 2014, 01:59:54 PM
Here's an odd one: who is the only non-Jewish person to be proclaimed as "messiah" in the Old Testament? Where was he proclaimed, and why?
Cyrus, Babylon, ending the Babylonian Exodus?
Squeelus stole my guess.
You sure that question is Yi rule-compliant Malthus? :glare:
Quote from: Queequeg on April 02, 2014, 02:11:33 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 02, 2014, 01:59:54 PM
Here's an odd one: who is the only non-Jewish person to be proclaimed as "messiah" in the Old Testament? Where was he proclaimed, and why?
Cyrus, Babylon, ending the Babylonian Exodus?
Yup.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2014, 02:12:27 PM
You sure that question is Yi rule-compliant Malthus? :glare:
I dunno. If Cyrus was Canadian, that would sure prove confusing. :lol:
Tough, northern, extremely tolerant religiously and culturally and fond of horses? Possible. He also might have worn something like flannel, we know the Saka did.
Who was the founder of the Sassanid Dynasty, where in Persia did he come from, and why did he rebel against the Parthians?
Quote from: Queequeg on April 02, 2014, 02:22:26 PM
Tough, northern, extremely tolerant religiously and culturally and fond of horses? Possible. He also might have worn something like flannel, we know the Saka did.
Also, the world's most
polite world-emperor. He always said "excuse me?" when having someone impaled.
The Persian Empire would have had free health care for all and compulsory Curling.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 02, 2014, 02:22:26 PM
Who was the founder of the Sassanid Dynasty, where in Persia did he come from, and why did he rebel against the Parthians?
Um Sassan, he came from erm...Susa, and he rebelled against the Parthians because they were dirty Turkish foreigners.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 02, 2014, 02:22:26 PM
Tough, northern, extremely tolerant religiously and culturally and fond of horses? Possible. He also might have worn something like flannel, we know the Saka did.
Who was the founder of the Sassanid Dynasty, where in Persia did he come from, and why did he rebel against the Parthians?
Ardashir, but I don't have a clue about the rest.
A lot of that could be guessed, Age.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 02, 2014, 03:25:14 PM
A lot of that could be guessed, Age.
I knew that he'd started conquering other Parthian vassals in the Persis-Fars area after ascending the throne but as to where exactly he was born? Or what the exact cause of his rebellion was?
No, I don't know that.