History HubÌý permalink
Friday Quiz
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by Katy R (U14748743) on Friday, 30th September 2011
Hello to you all on this glorious morning,
Here's today's question to get you started.
How many American men were conscripted into the Vietnam War, and how does that compare to the number conscripted into both World Wars?
Happy hunting!
Katy -
Message 2
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 30th September 2011
Counting draftees is not eas easyy as one might think.
The combined WW figures for US armed forces hovers just under 4 million. The Vitenam War figure varies from just under 2 million to just over 2.5 million. -
Message 3
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 30th September 2011
Pologies for spelling - using telephone
-
Message 4
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Friday, 30th September 2011
You would just scared someone like me, naturally with all this information at my fingertips, would beat you to the draw.
-
Message 5
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 30th September 2011
I have fingertips too. Theyre just too fat for telephone buttons.
-
Message 6
Posted by Katy R (U14748743) on Friday, 30th September 2011
Hi Nordmann and Caro,
It is indeed difficult to get definitive figures for these as they always vary in terms of what they are recording - i.e soldiers or personnel etc.
I did read there were 10 million American conscripts in WW2, but I think for your valiant effort you should set the next question...
Caro
I am always impressed how people know the answers so quickly when it’s taken me quite a while to think up the question!! Its obviously brainbox central on here!
Katy -
Message 7
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 30th September 2011
Ta! (I checked out the 10 million in WWII and it seems that is also correct if one includes those, like doctors, nurses, mechanics etc, who were conscripted in an ancilliary role).
Ok - here's one that's not as hard as it looks ...
How can we be reasonably sure that a well-bred, fashionable and honey-tongued go-between never tortured a full-grown nimble-footed arch-villain, however dauntless a watchdog the gossip might have sanctimoniously suggested he may have been, at least before the death of Catherine De Medici and the founding of the city of Hiroshima? -
Message 8
Posted by Thomas (U14985443) on Friday, 30th September 2011
... it seems that is also correct if one includes those, like doctors, nurses, mechanics etc, who were conscripted in an ancilliary roleÌý
Seems rather a contradiction to me, because either some is conscripted or volunteerd to service. Of course that´s not the same as it was in Germany where there was an obligation to serve during WWII and very few were free to chose their work place, for example. For serving in military service, this was by appeal for volunteer to that. -
Message 9
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 30th September 2011
In the US, all doctors and surgeons, for example, (up to a certain age) were technically conscripted on the provision they were required. They were still paid however by their hospitals, private practise income etc, but were obliged to join a theatre of war if required (think M*A*S*H* in a later conflict). So, in some estimates of draftees they figure. Other estimates include only those who ended up on the armed forces payroll.
-
Message 10
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 30th September 2011
Hi Nordmann
Is the nimble-footed, arch-villain, Nicolo Machiavelli, who was famously was tortured on the orders of the Medici after the fall of the Florentine republic?
TP -
Message 11
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 30th September 2011
No, TP, but he could well have been the Duke of Vienna's deputy who acted as Dispenser of Law in his master's absence. By all accounts if the Medici had tortured him it would have been to the resounding approval of the city's population.
-
Message 12
Posted by Thomas (U14985443) on Friday, 30th September 2011
... think M*A*S*H* in a later conflict ...Ìý
I´ve very rarely watched this series and even by occasion, it doesn´t lasted longer than a few minutes, because this was a bit too silly imo. But thanks for your post Nordmann re the practice of the US. -
Message 13
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 30th September 2011
I'll repeat the question just in case people get confused with two topics being discussed at one time above:
How can we be reasonably sure that a well-bred, fashionable and honey-tongued go-between never tortured a full-grown nimble-footed arch-villain, however dauntless a watchdog the gossip might have sanctimoniously suggested he may have been, at least before the death of Catherine De Medici and the founding of the city of Hiroshima?
And I'll throw in a clue
Knock, knock
Who's there?
Will
Will who?
Will someone please google when Catherine DeMedici unclogged her pops?
(That's actually two clues, come to think of it) -
Message 14
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 30th September 2011
OK Done that if you're sure; 1589.
TP -
Message 15
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 30th September 2011
Is the honey-tongued go-between Mendoza, who was Philip's ambassador to London and Paris?
TP -
Message 16
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 30th September 2011
No, TP. Allegedly one of the King of France's principal attendees was honey-tongued, but the go-between could have been one of several candidates.
-
Message 17
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 30th September 2011
Sorry, "attendants", not "attendees".
-
Message 18
Posted by Thomas (U14985443) on Friday, 30th September 2011
I´m just guessing and I´m not quite sure, but I rather think of W. A. Mozart, for "torture" mustn´t always go by physical treatment. What disturbes me is the link to the founding of the city of Hiroshima, that doesn´t fit to my guessing.
Anyway, someone might find the right answer. -
Message 19
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 30th September 2011
No, Thomas. Nothing as new-fangled as Mozart.
(Another clue) -
Message 20
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 30th September 2011
It's like pulling teeth. Are we talking about an 'old-fangled' composer active in 1589, like Byrd or Campion?
TP -
Message 21
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 30th September 2011
Not in the slightest.
Can I recommend you concentrate less on the small details related to individual terms used and more on what could possibly make sense given all terms used in the complete question?
By the way - 1589 was quite correct and very relevant (and Hiroshima was founded in the same year). However the fact that the "knock knock" question asked when she unclogged her pops (rather than popped her clogs) is also quite relevant (as is the "knock knock" itself).
Now I need dentures! -
Message 22
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 30th September 2011
I'm really sorry about all this. I hoped that the burning bonfires of my mistakes would at least light the way for someone more adroit in the ways of 16th C Europe. But there seem to be no other players. Where are SST and Ur-L when you need them?
The trouble with 'unclogged her pops' is that it doesn't mean much to me. Catherina di Medici's 'pops' in the the American sense of father was the Duke of Urbino who died the same year she was born.
Knock, in the sense of Catholic Europe, is a shrine in Ireland and the site of a famous airport, but its origin is 19th century surely.
If knock means that the whole questions is about Kool Moe Dee and other famous rappers I shall be disappointed.
Regards,
TP -
Message 23
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Friday, 30th September 2011
Now I'm really having to dig deep for this but I have a vague recollection of having read somewhere that Catherine had problems 'down below' to quote the dear departed Les Dawson and employed some weird remedies to fix it so becoming pregnant. Is this anything to do with her 'unclogging'? Or did she just give up clog dancing?
-
Message 24
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 30th September 2011
Hi ferval
That could explain my total ignorance. I never do the 'down below' bits of history.
Regards,
TP -
Message 25
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Friday, 30th September 2011
I'm not going to be much use, TP: I'm as *utterly* baffled as the rest of you.
A wild, wild guess - this isn't anything to do with Marlowe's "The Massacre at Paris", is it? The final scene deals with Henry III's death (1589?) and the King's favourite, "sweet" Epernoun, wants to torture the villain friar who's just stabbed poor old Henry with a poisoned knife. But it's too late to torture him, because he's already dead (as Epernoun himself points out).
"The Massacre at Paris" is a very unusual work - more like a drama-documentary than a play. It's apparently historically spot on and really well researched - unlike all the wild stuff Shakespeare was coming up with around the same time. Much of the factual material in "Massacre" (last act especially) can be verified by sources in State papers. Marlowe had access to good information!
How the clogging of C of M's pops fits into this the Lord only knows. But she is in the play!
Will Shakespeare of course was famously described as "honey-tongued", but that's quite irrelevant, I'm sure.
I repeat - wild guess. -
Message 26
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 30th September 2011
Hi Temperance
Funny how that which you dismiss as most irrelevant is actually the most relevant conjecture yet submitted. I really thought this one was too easy, even if it is relatively google-proof.
As I said - avoid attributing historical interpretation to the elements of the question and just take it in its entirety.
Then it *will* be obvious, at least - as the question indeed asked - in as far as how we can be reasonably certain that it could not have occurred before CdM's unclogging, now ascertained as 1589.
(Another clue in that last sentence) -
Message 27
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 30th September 2011
Hi SST
Nice one! So we need a Will Shakespeare play that could only have been written after C di M death. It may or may not contain 'down below' bits.
Now, let's have a sprint finish to the line from you!
TP -
Message 28
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Friday, 30th September 2011
Iago the arch-villain? or something to do with Cordelia and Lear?
-
Message 29
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Friday, 30th September 2011
I'm trying to watch "Strictly"!
Angelo in "Measure For Measure" is the Duke of Vienna's deputy and is left in charge. He's a thoroughly bad lot.
Lots of "down below" bits.
(I hope the arch-villain doesn't turn out to be you-know-who in another play.) -
Message 30
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 30th September 2011
I bet she gets it too!
(Another clue there)
-
Message 31
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Saturday, 1st October 2011
This is going to be one of those questions that drive us all mad throughout the entire weekend. And I bet the answer is glaringly obvious.
More random thoughts while you're all no doubt glued to the rugby.
So we need a Will Shakespeare play that could only have been written after C di M death. It may or may not contain "down below" bits. Ìý
Or a poem? The one that provoked the "honey-tongued epithet? "Venus and Adonis"? That has got lots of "down below" bits in it.
Richard III - is the arch-villain of the question mentioned in his famous "winter of discontent" speech? Is the villain "Grim-visaged war" who now "capers nimbly in a lady's chamber"? Mars? Mars was Venus's jealous lover - he sometimes disguised himself as a boar. A boar did for Adonis. But what's all the torturing bit about? Tortured with jealousy? Was Mars specifically mentioned in Ovid's version? (I have no idea.)
Was the reference to the Duke of Vienna a complete red herring?
Venus and Adonis was written about 1593ish, I think.
"Knock, knock." Someone knocking - having a go at - Shakespeare? Greene?
I did say random thoughts.
This is *infuriating*. -
Message 32
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 1st October 2011
Rugby? You're kidding. It does as if a literary historian is what we need. Not a plodding archaeologist.
Keep going.
TP -
Message 33
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Saturday, 1st October 2011
Not kidding here. Only two games tonight on telly, one to watch in person tomorrow. Average so far of about 10 a week.
You'd think we could manage something to do with Shakespeare, wouldn't you? Except that when I read Nordmann's question it sounds like a real event or assumption is being asked for here, not one from literature. We don't have to reasonably sure about something that happens in a book or play - we can decide to take whatever line we fancy really. And why bother telling us they're full-grown?
All those clues remind me of Pepys for some reason (gossip and watcher, I suppose), but that's the wrong timeframe. -
Message 34
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Saturday, 1st October 2011
The Duke of Vienna wasn't a complete red herring - if one isolates all the historical and pseudo-historical detail in the many references that is one way (albeit a very roundabout way) to solve the question.
However, as said, just one look at the question itself in its entirety should make the answer very obvious indeed.
I would say that I am now having misgivings about setting this question, but in fact that would also be yet another clue to the answer. -
Message 35
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Saturday, 1st October 2011
And why bother telling us they're full-grown?Ìý
Athena was the goddess of war as well as wisdom, wasn't she? She sprang, fully grown and in full armour, from her father's head. Hadn't Zeus swallowed Athena's pregnant mother? A very odd business and nothing I'm sure to do with the question.
I still keep thinking about Henry III, 1589 and war. But Nordmann said not to think about history, which is odd in a history quiz!
"Sanctimoniously" was a strange word to use - Angelo was sanctimonious.
I'm all bogged down in detail. Need a break.
Another random thought - Catholics being tortured? -
Message 36
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Saturday, 1st October 2011
The answer is of course of an historical nature, though maybe not one anymore which every "schoolboy" might readily know.
(Another clue there) -
Message 37
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Saturday, 1st October 2011
Is that to do with the All the world's a stage speech?
Or is there something about the two people that means they couldn't have or didn't exist at the same time? -
Message 38
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Saturday, 1st October 2011
Nope.
I have to go out for a while today so it could well be this evening before I can respond, though I can check on the phone. However, if you like we can just abandon this and start another question ...
btw - you're all very close to the solution -
Message 39
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Saturday, 1st October 2011
However, if you like we can just abandon this and start another question... Ìý
No giving up.
Something to do with the New World?
Leave us all to it - someone will crack this - eventually. -
Message 40
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Saturday, 1st October 2011
I think I've got it. It's about new words, not new worlds.
All those strange details you give to confuse and mystify us - arch-villain, nimble-footed, sanctimonious etc. etc. - I bet our honey-tongued, go-between (presumably between Stratford and London?) William invented them, didn't he? Had they never been used before 1589ish - when WS first started scribbling down a few ideas?
Not sure about tortured, though. -
Message 41
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Saturday, 1st October 2011
Absolutely correct, and that's why we can be reasonably certain the event described, however improbable anyway, could never have occurred before 1589, the date of Shakespeare's first play.
I'll post the full list from question and clues over in the bar later. Well done Temp. Over to You ... -
Message 42
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Saturday, 1st October 2011
You may well be on to something there, Temp. A quick look on the OU suggests that out Will was the first recorded use of at least many of these expressions in their current meaning.
Perhaps the whole question is a red herring simply to provide a vehicle for using those words? -
Message 43
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Saturday, 1st October 2011
Crossed posts!
Well done Temp. The level of deviousness demonstrated in this quiz is almost worrying. -
Message 44
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 1st October 2011
Brilliant SST. I never had an inkling. I believe assassin and bed-room are two more of Will's!
TP -
Message 45
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Saturday, 1st October 2011
Ok - since no one has started a new theme and while I have access to what the Norwegians rather unbardslikely (see - we can all do it) call a datamaskin - here's the list of all the salient words used and where the OED has identified their first usage in the modern sense:
From the original question:
Well-bred (Henry IV, Part II)
Fashionable (Timon of Athens)
Honey-tongued (Love's Labour's Lost)
Go-between (Troilus and Cressida)
Torture - as a verb (Henry VI, Part II)
Full-grown (Pericles)
Nimble-footed (Henry IV, Part I)
Arch-villain (Measure for Measure, Timon of Athens)
Dauntless (Macbeth)
Watchdog (The Tempest)
Gossip (The Comedy of Errors)
Sanctimonious (Measure for Measure, The Tempest)
... and from the subsequent clues ...
Knock, knock. Who's there? (Macbeth)
Unclog (Coriolanus)
New-fangled (As You Like It, Love's Labour's Lost)
Bet (Henry IV, Part II)
Misgivings (Julius Caesar)
Schoolboy (Julius Caesar)
These for the most part are from the ones understood to have been coined by him and him alone - there are several hundred more of which his is the earliest documented usage. -
Message 46
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Saturday, 1st October 2011
Oh gosh, I do feel delightfully smug.
And I didn't cheat - you can't with Nordmann's questions. (We were all barking up lots of wrong trees, though, weren't we? Still, that's part of the fun.)
Would someone else take over and set a question? I'm off out now and won't be back for ages. -
Message 47
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Saturday, 1st October 2011
Oh, brilliant! Just seen the list - thanks for posting that, Nordmann. -
Message 48
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Saturday, 1st October 2011
Oh gosh, I do feel delightfully smug.
And I didn't cheat - you can't with Nordmann's questions. (We were all barking up lots of wrong trees, though, weren't we? Still, that's part of the fun.)
Would someone else take over and set a question? I'm off out now and won't be back for ages.
Ìý Ah! I know that one!
Captain Lawrence Edward Grace ("Titus") Oates -
Message 49
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Saturday, 1st October 2011
I feel miffed now - one of my first thoughts after seeing 1589 and SS mentioned was that surely all his important plays, at least the major tragedies, were written after that, but of course, I didn't think beyond that, and don't know dates specifically enough to realise it was the date of the first play.
Caro. -
Message 50
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Sunday, 2nd October 2011
Since Temp hasn't posted a question yet, here's something to keep you amused in the meantime.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
±«Óãtv iD
±«Óãtv navigation
±«Óãtv links
±«Óãtv © 2014 The ±«Óãtv is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.