Sorry, not he one I was looking for though it could have applied to the battle of Chilianwala. In a hint to all classical scholars the answer is supposedly a single word.
Printable View
Sorry, not he one I was looking for though it could have applied to the battle of Chilianwala. In a hint to all classical scholars the answer is supposedly a single word.
It seems to apply to 'Peccavi - I have sinned' but that famous pun was sent by Sir Charles James Napier who was appointed to take over Gough's command in the second Anglo-Sikh War, referring to his earlier conquest of Sindh. :inquisitive:
Well done Xipe Totec, and I stand corrected in that I thought it was General Gough.
Sorry about the delay in getting back, but I now forget to look at this thread on a regular basis, I fear it has run it's natural course.
Thank you Chris1959, may your cornfields be unusually fertile, and your avocados ripen quickly.
As to ending this thread I would call on the whole great community of the Org to decide. If you wish it to continue, just give me the Aztec name for the seven caves of Aztlan from whence originated the seven tribes of the Aztecs, and your chinampas will be forever blessed. :beam:
I wish it to continue but I have no idea what the Aztec name for seven caves of Aztlan was...Quote:
Originally Posted by Xipe Totec
It's as easy to find as a coatl on a coatepantli... :laugh4:
Quanozetopatoqazal?
No great warrior with many legs, your fields will be dry this season. The name I seek translates in Nahuatl as 'seven caves'. Here is a picture of it I found on the spider-woman of Teotihuacan's web, in less time than it takes to fill a bowl with one's blood for Huitzilopochtli:
https://img90.imageshack.us/img90/90...encavesjd4.jpg
I'd be very surprised if I was right since I made up that word. But after a bit of actual research (read: googling) might the answer be - chicomoztoc?
Congratulations Sarmatian, your answer is correct. :beam: I see you were only toying with us - as the jaguar toys with the turtle. Truly you can wear your defeated enemy's skin with pride, and let no man hold his nose in your presence without shaming his ancestors. Remember though - the wise man respects his opponent, even in death, for he died an honourable death in battle.
To you now goes the honour of leading the charge into the enemy ranks: many will fall to their numerous atl-atl, or perhaps you would prefer to pose another question for those well-versed in the ancient lore?
Thank you for your kind words, mighty descendant of Aztec warriors. Unfortunately, the people where I live are not so well versed in the ways of war. We're more into good food and fine alcohol, so my wishes to you will be in accordance with that - May your enemies never take control of your well when you've just eaten a lot of ham for dinner...:laugh4:
On the question issue, can't think of a good one at the moment. Somebody else may ask...
lets try an easy one.
What was the largest empire on earth. that contained no spread of water (seas, oceans) inside its boundaries?
The Mongol Empire under Mongke Khan?
Mongols
The Mongol Empire contained the Caspian Sea, so it would not count.
The Caspian Sea is a lake, so it would count.Quote:
Originally Posted by Conqueror
The Roman Empire?
The U.S.S.R. was pretty big and didn't contain any seas or oceans...?
I'm pretty certain it must be the Mongol empire.
I was thinking the same thing but I wasn't sure... guess we'll find out hahaQuote:
Originally Posted by Xipe Totec
Largest Contiguous empires in history [Source Wikipedia]
Mongol Empire - 33.2 million km² (under Khublai Khan in 1268)
Umayyad Arab caliphate - 13.2 million km²
Qing Empire - 13 million km² (under Emperor Qianlong)
Ottoman Empire - 11.5 million km² (under Mehmed IV in 1680)
Rashidun Arab caliphate - 9 million km² (under Caliph Uthman in 654)[2]
Brazilian Empire - 8.1 million km
United States of America- 8.08 million km²
Roman Empire - 6.9 million km² (under Emperor Trajan)
Achaemenid Persian Empire - 6.5 million km² (under Darius the Great)
Ming Empire - 6.5 million km²
Macedonian Empire - 6.5 million km² (under Alexander the Great)
Han Empire - 6 million km²
Tang Empire - 5.4 million km²
Maurya Empire - 5 million km² (under Ashoka the Great)
Byzantine Empire/Eastern Roman Empire - 4.5 million km²
Mughal Empire - 4 million km² (under Aurangzeb in 1690)
Hunnic Empire - 4 million km² (under Attila the Hun in 441)
Mexican Empire - 4 million km²
Seljuq Empire - 3.9 million km²
Seleucid Empire - 3.9 million km²
The USSR was 22.4 million square Km, but it is not generally accepted that it was an empire by historians, although often referred to as such by political opponents of the era.
I do not believe by any stretch of the imagination you can call the Mongol Empire under Khubilai a single empire as it was really a number of separate states, whose rulers had totally separate agendas and alignments, and even different religions and cultural values.
I go back to Mongke's empire, which did not entirely contain the Caspian Sea, except at its greatest extent, and certainly had much more unity and central authority than that of Ogedei or Khubilai.
Or
"The British Empire was the largest empire in history and, for over a century, was the foremost global power. By 1921, the British Empire held sway over a population of about 458 million people, approximately one-quarter of the world's population. It covered about 36.7 million km² (14.2 million square miles), about a quarter of Earth's total land area."
I think it would be true to say that the British Empire did not contain any seas or oceans, would it not?
The British Empire was undoubtly the largest empire of all time, but it was also undoubtly a maritime empire, seperated by seas and oceans.
While I do agree that by the time of Kubai Khan the Mongol empire was already a few seperate khanates ruled by different rulers the Mongol empire under Möngke Khan could still be considered as a whole.
LOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quintus.JC
And this was the Roman empire at its greatest extent?Quote:
Originally Posted by Quintus.JC
Accoridng to Wikipedia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fahad I
Surely one could switch The Romanovs for the USSR as an "Empire", and in the 1860s could be larger as it included Alaska.
Isn't the question a trick one as has been said before the largest empire that did not suround a sea is the British as others such as Mongol, Roman, Persian encapsulated a sea. If not then we have to go somewhere very dry and I plump for the Inca Empire or Kingdom of Mali.
No it must have been the Meganeura Empire who ruled all of Pangaea back in the Carboniferous Period.
I found the question rather vague and haven't really tried to answer it. If the poster doesn't return soon to clarify the question or acknowledge the possible right answer, we might as well move on...
Otherwise the answers will just start getting sillier... :clown:
Like the Empire from Star Wars right?? That spanned worlds and not oceans and seas if I'm correct :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xipe Totec
And technically anyone claiming the Roman Empire... I have dibs!! :whip:
Now you are getting a bit silly. The question did say empire on earth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Decker
Pangaea was the largest landmass ever on Earth and nothing could touch the giant dragonflies' dominion of fear. They didn't leave any maps unfortunately so we can't be absolutely sure that the empire did not contain any lakes. It certainly did not contain seas or oceans until it started breaking up into smaller chunks much later, and by then the ants were starting to take over anyway. Some even believe that the Dinosaurs ruled the Earth by the late Triassic, but they weren't half as scary as a swarm of Meganeura. :yes:
Ok, let's try to get this show on the road again with an easier question - I was probably the highest ranking official in an empire that doesn't exist anymore. I was at the same time grand admiral of the navy and something resembling prime minister. I was also the last person to hold that title. Who am I?
Karl Dönitz?
Regent Horthy?
Nope. Think middle ages...
Lukas Notaras?
Yep, Loukas Notaras, last Megas Doux of the Byzantine Empire. On to you, mate.
Yay! I was sure my first answer was going to be right as well. Anyway...
I was seen as a republican by some, a tyrant by others. I led my armies in a brutal religious war, and achieved many great victories. But in the end my state would crumble under my less able son. Who am I?
George Herbert Walker Bush. :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
That's a right laugh. :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Thank you Don Corleone, that was the best laugh I have had in a long long time. :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Ah, that's an easy question. Is it by any chance Old Knoll Cromwell?
It is indeed. Hmm that was my first question, I'll try and make it harder next time. It was worth it anyway for Don Corleone's comment.
So, thats you up King Henry...
Any chance King Henry V shows up here for a question again?
Your brother kings and monarchs of the earth
Do all expect that you should rouse yourself,
As did the former lions of your blood.
We can't let this magnificent thread just die like this so wth...
Which English King was never heard from again after the siege of Meaux in 1422?
:help:
Henry V, cos he died from dysentery on the way back.
Correct! please please please ask the next question your honour before anyone notices the breech in etiquette! :help:
If you insist...Quote:
Originally Posted by Xipe Totec
I was the eldest son of the Holy Roman Emperor, although I held many titles in my life, I would never become the emperor myself, though one day my son will be. Leaving the chance of leading a court life, I spent my life travelling around Europe. I fought in the Crusades, during which I sustained a serious injury which would eventually cause my death. I died fighting bravely in a famous battle during a famous war.
Some of the clues are supposed to be quite misleading, good luck.
That sounds a lot like John of Luxembourg, the blind King of Bohemia. Eldest son of the Emperor, travelled around Europe, wounded (blinded) on Crusade in Lithuania, and of course he famously died in the battle of Crecy during the Hundred Years' War.
Antagonist
EDIT: And his son also became Emperor, although I needed wiki to tell you that bit. :embarassed:
Bravo sir, it is indeed King John, the blind king of Bohemia. :applause:Quote:
Originally Posted by Antagonist
Please do ask the next question. :bow:
Someone please revive this thread.
If noone minds, I'll post a new question
My grandfather was known as the first of (title), my father was known as the first, but was actually the second of (same title as before), and I am known as the second, but I am actually the fourth of (same title as before) Who am I?
A bit confused here...
Just sticking my head in the door to apologize :bow: for having failed the sacred trust of keeping the Quiz thread alive, been very busy this week. I suppose I waived my right to ask a question this time around.
Antagonist
Yeah, my question is a bit confusing, I'll try to make it a bit clearer:Quote:
Originally Posted by Quintus.JC
My grandfather was known as the 1st of (title)
My father is known to history as the first, but was actually the 2nd of (title)
I am known in history as the second, but was actually the 4th of (title)
If you guys still can't figure it out, I'll give you guys some hints
This isn't any less confusing then the first one. You haven't given us anything to go on. Title may be Holy Roman Emperor or High Shaman in charge of sacrificing. It may be in South America or India and the time frame may range from ancient times to 20th century. So, basically, without anything to go on, you want us to guess the person for something unknown about him (as he's known as the second but really is the 4th)...Quote:
Originally Posted by TevashSzat
Too vague and broad, narrow it down...
Okay, the ruler is European and is, I would say, very well known to anyone who has learned about European History. He lived after the Middle Ages, too, if that helps.
This family that all three members are from, in fact, is quite well known for having this ridiculous naming system that creates alot of confusion
Are they the Stuarts?Quote:
Originally Posted by TevashSzat
An uneducated guess: Could it be the House of Hohenzollern after the reunification of Germany?
Yes it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quintus.JC
The grandfather is Frederick William, the first Elector of Brandenburg, also known as The Great Elector
The father is Frederick William I, the First King of Prussia, but the Second Elector of Brandenburg (I believe), also known as the Soldier's King
The man is Frederick II, the Second King of Prussia, but the Fourth Elector of Brandenburg, also known as Frederick the Great
I guess it would be your turn then
It was a rather confusing question... this one might be confusinger. :grin:
I was the brother to two kings and a famous crusader. Being the faction heir for a brief period of time, I was never to be king. The cause of my death was uncertain but it was rumoured that I was killed by a ‘stag’. My younger brother became faction heir instead and eventually became king, but he would (ironically) die in the same place where I died less than 20 years later.
Richard
Killed by a stag in a hunting accident, I believe the New Forest, leaving William the Second to become king. Both sons of William the Conquerer, of course. Though I do not recall which crusader he was brothers with.
Richard of Bernay it is
Son William the Conqueror, brother to King William Rufus and Henry I, and also brother to Robert Curthose who participated in the 1st crusade and fought at the seige of Antioch. Richard's death was really still a mystery athough it is widly viewed as an accident; he was either killed by a stag (????) or crashed into a tree while riding at high speed. Either way he died of his injuries soon after and his younger Brother Rufus became king, who ironically also died in the New forest (the forest where Richard died 20 years earlier), although Rufus was proably murdered.
You turn then. :bow:
I was born into a family of school teachers. I was not an aristocrat, yet went far in my nations military. Today, I am respected by comrades and enemies alike for my tactical genius. Though one campaign will always be attributed to me, I also commanded the defence against a large amphibious invasion. Who am I?
Rommel?Quote:
Originally Posted by SwedishFish
You're up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I voyaged the length of a continent, or more. Along the way, I met a long-legged man and a high priest, and left behind a student. When I eventually settled down, I wrote a book about my travels. Who am I, and who were these people mentioned above?
Is Da Gama the sailor?
No. The long-legged man is a clue to the period - how many long-legged men do you know of in history?Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Longlegged? Edward Longshanks comes to mind, although the description fits Marco Polo better
Right area, wrong direction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Conradus
I'll take a wild shot, Eric the Red?
Conradus was warmer.Quote:
Originally Posted by india
A wild guess would be Ibn Battuta, have no idea about the people you mentioned though.
Right period, but still the wrong direction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quintus.JC
So, I guess it would be from east to west???Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Still.....have no idea
East to West... Cheng Ho perhaps?