History quiz

[Decker]

Lol np

And ooohhh close(er) again...

[Sarmatian]

Aztecs/Tenochtitlan?

[Conradus]

The Aztecs only emerged somewhere in the 12th century. Mayans would be a better gamble, though they never were an empire.

The Macedonians with their capital at Pella?

Or the Ptolemies at Alexandria?

[Quintus.JC]

Sarmatian gave a good guess I reckon. The Aztecs worshiped Toci, and victims to her were normally female who were flayed.

[Sarmatian]

Sarmatian gave a good guess I reckon. The Aztecs worshiped Toci, and victims to her were normally female who were flayed.

I'm afraid I didn't know that. Decker said "close" when Mayas and Incas were mentioned, so it's got the be in Americas, and if it's not Mayas or Incas, it's gotta be Aztecs... There isn't any other civilization for which you could say it rivaled the Romans... But, we need to wait for Decker...

[Quintus.JC]

But what Conradus said made sense, the Aztecs arrived much, much later than the Romans (if you discount the Byzantines). So on one sense it wouldn't of been the Aztecs, but I still think its a good answer.

[Sarmatian]

But what Conradus said made sense, the Aztecs arrived much, much later than the Romans (if you discount the Byzantines). So on one sense it wouldn't of been the Aztecs, but I still think its a good answer.

It doesn't have to be contemporary rival of the Romans. Just an empire that could rival theirs, in terms of size, power, influence etc... At least that's how I understood it

[Quintus.JC]

It doesn't have to be contemporary rival of the Romans. Just an empire that could rival theirs, in terms of size, power, influence etc... At least that's how I understood it

If thats the case then Aztecs does stand a chance of being the answer, but I don't remember any famous Aztec cities apart from the original triple alliance of Tenochtitlan, Texcoco, and Tlacopan. I only gathered the clue from that 'female scrafice victims' bit.

[Conradus]

It doesn't have to be contemporary rival of the Romans. Just an empire that could rival theirs, in terms of size, power, influence etc... At least that's how I understood it

Rivalled is an arguable word then. To really rival them, they would need to 've been in direct contact. Though you may be absolutely right that any empire in history that rivaled them in matter of influence, land, ... might be the one we're looking for. But if that's the case I find it a rather dubious question. More of a straight gamble than a question.
A lot of empires were larger than the Roman ever was and other were just as advanced, influential,...

So it might be Aztecs after all, though I'd rather not have such questions again :p

[Decker]

Sorry about the absence fellas... was quite busy yesterday ...

Aztecs/Tenochtitlan?

The Sarmatian got it right. I was watching Engineering an Empire on History International Channel and that's where I got the idea for the question I do apologize for the way I worded it as I could have done a better job, so sorry for the little confusion I caused

[Sarmatian]

I don't have a good question at the moment, so I give away the privilege to the next poster...

[Paradox]

I'll go ahead and ask one.

What was the name of the battle that revolutionized the use of rifles in Japan, making them more effective, and who introduced the skillful maneuver?

[Quintus.JC]

Extremely uneducated guess: Battle of Sekigahara?

[Incongruous]

I'll go ahead and ask one.

What was the name of the battle that revolutionized the use of rifles in Japan, making them more effective, and who introduced the skillful maneuver?

Do you mean muskets or rifles? The terms are nowdays often used regardless of weather rifling or smoothbore is meant.

If muskets then I would go for Nagashino and Oda Nobunaga.

[Paradox]

Bopa the Magyar is correct, and yes I meant muskets.

[Incongruous]

I have lived from the time when he who did lose his cote in a field reigned till the time when a shortened Stewart was shamed.

[Geezer57]

he who did lose his cote in a field

Is that the noun you wanted? Because a cote seems to be a small shed for animals, which would be hard to lose inadvertently.

Or is "coat" the right word?

[Incongruous]

Is that the noun you wanted? Because a cote seems to be a small shed for animals, which would be hard to lose inadvertently.

Or is "coat" the right word?

The english language has seldom stood still, this is word play upon an old name for a certain battle from long ago.

To those who know about this period in history, it should not be difficult.

[Brandy Blue]

The battle of Lose-Cote Field was in 1470, during the reign of Edward IV.

I assume that the shortened Stewart brought to shame must be Charles I, beheaded in 1649.

Since no human wold live for 179 years, I assume that the answer to your question is not a person.

There was a John Chamber whose dates are given in The Dictionary of National Biography as 1470-1649, but I suppose that must be a typo.

[Incongruous]

The answer is indeed a human, but who?

[Brandy Blue]

In that case, I suppose the shortened Stewart brought to shame is James IV who died in the disasterous battle of Flodden Field. That gives a much more human life span for your person. Born between 1442 and 1483 and died in 1513. (You never actually said the person was born in the year of Lose-Cote, only that he or she was born during the reign of etc.)

That must give a huge range of possible candidates. It might have been, for example, John de Vere,Earl of Oxford, or Lord Robert Keith, Master of Marischal.

I don't know about everyone else, but I admit I'm stuck.

[Incongruous]

I did not think that particular Stewart had his height forcefully subtracted, try again.

[Brandy Blue]

try again.

No thanks! I have not suceeded in finding the birthdate or the date of the person's death, so I know I'm not up to this challenge. I look forward to finding to finding out ... when someone else gets it!

[AggonyDuck]

Another beheaded Stuart would be Mary Queen of Scots, but still the time between the two events is considerable. 104 years in fact.

[AggonyDuck]

This is a wild guess, Ralph Sadler (1507-1587)? It's based on the fact that Edward IV didn't lose his coat in that battle, but the Lancastrians did.

[Incongruous]

Ok, I am very bad at riddles, this one was clearly too hard (or too bad), but I'll keep it up for one more guess before I retire it out of shame

The man whom ruled over him first, had his coat torn from him and many other parts, his crown found in a thorn bush.
The man whom ruled over him him last, was humbled by his subjects.

[Brandy Blue]

Well, I enjoyed your riddle, Bopa. Now that you've given us a definite anchor for the first date (1483, Bosworth Field), I'll try once more.

Thomas Parr supposedly lived from 1483-1635. He did not really live until the Stewart was brought to shame, but he did die in Charles I reign.

[Incongruous]

Well, I enjoyed your riddle, Bopa. Now that you've given us a definite anchor for the first date (1483, Bosworth Field), I'll try once more.

Thomas Parr supposedly lived from 1483-1635. He did not really live until the Stewart was brought to shame, but he did die in Charles I reign.

Yay!

Old Tom is indeed the answer, although almost certainly not a true story, it is so engrained into the histric folklore of England that I thought it good enough for here, he did claim to have lived since the time of Richard till the time of Edward.

[Sarmatian]

Just a suggestion, could we stay clear of such questions in the future? That's not common knowledge and rarely will a person outside England/UK know the answer. This is an international forum, questions should be asked with that in mind. Everyone here could ask a question about folklore/myths/legends from his country and no one else could guess the answer...

[Brandy Blue]

I am not sure what you mean, Sarmatian. I'm sure that plenty of questions have been asked here which are obscure, unless it happens to be part of your own history. Anyway, almost any question about history is obscure to someone, unless its some huge event that everyone has heard of, in which case it is pretty easy.

I agree that we should stick to real history, though. No one wants to find questions here about Superman. (If you've heard of him where you're from.)

I won't try posting a question yet, because I want to understand your point better before I do.