This may be fun. Or it may not be! We shall see.
This is what I propose. Each person posting in the thread posts all they can off handly remember about a historical event suggested by the previous poster, and then names the next historical event for the next poster to post about.
Only post things you can remember off the top of your head - no fair googling. We are sharing pre-existing knowledge and building us a gestalt of our shared head-facts, here, and learning through osmosis.
Course, if anyone gets a thing wrong, feel free to post about that. We don't want our gestalt soiled by no dirty old misinformation.
I set the game away with The Great Fire Of London.
* Happened some time in 1666.
* 17th century Bridget Jones equivelant Samuel Pepys buried some parmezan cheese in his back garden to save it from firey doom.
* It started at Pie Lane and ended at Pudding Corner.
* Though London burned pretty much down to nothing, less than a dozen people died. Yay!
* Was possibly started by some old ladies cow kicking over a lantern. But maybe I'm misremembering that bit.
Next historical event to be facted up - The Battle of Hastings.
Happened in 1066.... in Hastings... and it was a battle. I wont post further as this isn't really knowledge but is all I recall
What's the next event, magintz?
Quote
Was possibly started by some old ladies cow kicking over a lantern. But maybe I'm misremembering that bit.
Mrs. O'Leary's cow is widely credited with starting the great Chicago fire. Apparently this kind of thing is a more common than many believe.
Actually the majority of the Battle of Hastings happened in Battle, about 5 miles north-west of Hastings.
So it was the Battle of Battle? How delightful!
I also recall it was October 14th. I remember that because it was the first date I went on an airplane; I visited California and before going we learned about BoH at school.
Okay, how about we throw it across the pond?
The Declaration of Independence?
John Hancok set the world record for handwriting seen from space.
Next event, the french revolution
I know a lot about the Hastings battle... We start with urban legends. King Harold was not shot dead in the eye by an arrow... Seems that hurting the eye was a way of depicting betrayal in those times, and that's what they did in the Bayeaux' s tapestry, but it was not true.
Why did Hancock sign so big? Day of the Tentacle taught me that it was because he'd been told that "chicks dig a guy with a big... signature", but I am not totally convinced by that...
I think the ladies mentioned something about a big cock and he ended up signing john hanCOCK! Ended up without said booty.
French revolution:
Started in 1789 or thereabouts with a fairly moderate attempt to update some laws to avert an economic crisis, calling in a convention of the Estates that hadn't met for a long time. The whole thing gradually got out of hand, they decided to change the constitution (still with some pretty moderate changes), clashed with the military. Riots, storming of the Bastille, the King eventually deposed and placed in house arrest. Deepening economic crisis, war with German states, uprisings against the aristocracy. King tries to flee, captured and executed in 1791-ish.
Radical Jacobins take control of the revolutionary government, led by ... [damn! I'm blanking on his name]. They launch The Terror in 1792, declaring many thousands of people counter-revolutionaries, traitors and criminals and putting them to death on the guillotine. Most of the original revolutionaries are executed, but the majority of victims are poor. Eventually, the parliament or whatever have had enough (many probably fearing for their own lives), kill whatshisname. The Terror subsides, though political oppression continues in milder forms.
France run by a succession of weak juntas who are unable to resolve nation's problems (continued economic depression and ongoing wars) until Napoleon and allies take power in a coup, effectively ending the French Revolution around 1799. Napoleon quickly dispatches rivals and achieves absolute power as dictator and later Emperor.
Next: How about Indian independence?
[Edit: The guy's name was Robespierre, King Louis XVI was executed in January 1793, the Reign of Terror was in 1793-1794, and the "succession of weak juntas" was the Directory, a corrupt and ineffectual governing body controlled by various unscrupulous politicians scheming against each other. Other than these details I think I got most of it right.]
Indian Independence: It was 1947, Ghandi was making a fashion statement and cheating on his [salt] taxes. Muslims and Hindus make massive migrations to the new religiously homogenous states of Pakistan (east and west) and India, resulting in many a bloody encounter. Bollywood is still in black and white.
OK, there's this guy who won an election to become the new head of state of his country. He is 42 years old, and is considered one of the most charismatic politicians to come along for a long time. He is taking over from an old guy who was the supreme commander in a war that ended fifteen years previously. Who is this guy?
Quote from: Creed Malay on Mon 30/03/2009 22:57:49
Why did Hancock sign so big? Day of the Tentacle taught me that it was because he'd been told that "chicks dig a guy with a big... signature", but I am not totally convinced by that...
I was taught that he it was basically huge to openly prove his defiance against the King and that he was not timid in the least.
As for Baron's mystery person... I'm gonna go ahead and guess Hitler.
~Trent
Quote from: Baron on Tue 31/03/2009 04:46:16
Indian Independence: It was 1947, Ghandi was making a fashion statement and cheating on his [salt] taxes. Muslims and Hindus make massive migrations to the new religiously homogenous states of Pakistan (east and west) and India, resulting in many a bloody encounter. Bollywood is still in black and white.
OK, there's this guy who won an election to become the new head of state of his country. He is 42 years old, and is considered one of the most charismatic politicians to come along for a long time. He is taking over from an old guy who was the supreme commander in a war that ended fifteen years previously. Who is this guy?
This might be too obvious to even answer, but it's Barack Obama. Let's see what the next poster remembers about the Cuban Missile Crisis.
I don't think it's that obvious, Makeout Patrol. First of all, Obama isn't 42, he's 47. Secondly, the guy he took over from was never "supreme commander in a war that ended fifteen years previously." (The closest would be Cheney, who was secretary of defense--not supreme commander--during the Gulf War, which ended 17 years before Obama came to office.)
Hitler seems like a much better fit, though some details don't match.
Going out on a wildly flailing limb, but Dmitry Medvedev?
He's not very charismatic though..
Cuban Missile Crisis: Castro takes over Cuba, gets all chummy with the Russians who start preparing to install nuclear missiles. USA invades the Bay of Pigs and gets owned because Matt Damon's son left a model ship beside his lover's bed. JFK blockades Cuba so that the Russian ships carrying the missiles can't get through. WWIII narrowly averted because US schoolkids hide under their desks.
Next up: Napoleon's downfall
It took place in Waterloo in the beginning of the 19th century. That's about all I know :)
I know he was placed on St. Helen in exile, but I can't remember if that was before or after Waterloo. I also know he lived on Elbe (spelling?) in the mediterranean sea in some sort of exile at one point.
Wow, I suck at history.
Next: The battle of Lützen
Okay, I'm going to fluff on this and go back one because I have no idea what the Battle of Lutzen even was, but as for Napoleon...
Napoleon had two separate falls from grace, both spectacular and in quick succession, the first in the collapse of his empire in 1814 shortly after the Battle of Tolouse and the second, far more famous after the Battle of Waterloo in ... June (?) 1815. It's a matter that historians will debate a lot, but in both cases a severe underestimation of his chief strategic rival the British commander-in-chief The Duke of Wellington seems to have been one of the biggest factors, although seeds were also sown with his lack of understanding of foreign relations. Napoleon, in his days of obsession of invading England had planned to destroy Great Britain through economic strangling by controlling all the docks and trading routes of Europe and thus forcing a surrender from Pitt. He did achieve mastery of Europe - aside from Portugal, which was England's chief ally.
At this point Spain had been a willing ally of the French and it had been so for decades - but due to the renewed fighting in such close quarters and losses that they had suffered under Napoleon already and pressure from England Spain's allegiance was in danger of shifting. Napoleon saw it necessary to take Spain and Portugal quickly rather than a gradual victory through diplomacy. To achieve his ends, he effectively kidnapped King Joseph at gunpoint and forced him to sign a peace treaty. This did not sit well with the Spanish who launched the first ever sustained guerilla war against his troops, which would cost French armies tens of thousands of troops and make lasting peace impossible.
In 1808, in the Battle of Vimiero, Wellington notably became the first English commander to turn back a French army and win a battle. This was ignored by Napoleon, as the battle was a small affair. However, to the victories of Oporto, Talavera, Busaca and Salamanca more attention should have been taken - Napoleon's major reflex action was to accuse the Marshall commanding Spain at the time of gross incompetence, generally before replacing them with undue haste. Despite his insistence that there was no excuse for losing to the British forces at no point did he actually take control of Spain - even after he promised to he instead went on his terror expedition to Russia, wherein he assembled the largest army ever seen in the world, and preceded to record the greatest number of casualties outside of battle through a brutal forced march. Ironically the political rift with the Tsar of Russia formed after the Tsar followed Wellington's battles and believed the course of the war to be turning.
When it came to Waterloo, Napoleon could indeed have had a great victory - he outnumbered the Allied armies, and succeeded in 'humbugging' Wellington by splitting the British force away from their key Prussian allies and their commander General Blucher who comprised roughly half of the opposing force. However, Napoleon had moved slow - although he forced the Prussians to retreat he did not advance far enough to know their location and he gave Wellington time to select the ideal battleground. Furthermore, he arrogantly assumed that victory was his and actually had his best commanders stationed in France to defend the nation from the Austrian and Spanish armies. His one commander who had faced Wellington personally (which Napoleon had not), Nicolas Soult, was scorned and insulted openly by Napoleon when he offered advice, and morale suffered.
His most famous mistake was splitting his force into two, losing his biggest advantage, so that they could pin down the Prussian army and stop them from relieving Wellington. The problem was that he had no idea where the Prussian army actually was. The entire day went badly from thereon in, to the point where at the end of the day Wellington complained about how easy the battle had been for him. Napoleon clung onto hope until the very end, though, even claiming that the advancing Prussian army was his own reinforcements to his men, to try and rally them for one final charge.
I'm not sure but I believe that Napoleon turned himself in after a month or so in the run, as in the aftermath the Prussian army ran amok allegedly plundering towns all over France.
Sorry, I just wanted my moment in the sun... and I'm sure that there's a few errors there (aside from differences in historical perspective)
Yeah I was gonna say all that
I can't believe you didn't mention the invasion of Russia where he hugely overstretched himself and decimated his army by not ensuring his supply lines... oh well!
Also, Andail didn't specify WHICH battle of Lützen (guess who just got a disambiguation page on Wikipedia ;) )
Quote from: SSHI can't believe you didn't mention the invasion of Russia where he hugely overstretched himself and decimated his army by not ensuring his supply lines... oh well!
*Cough*
Quote from: Jaredeven after he promised to he instead went on his terror expedition to Russia, wherein he assembled the largest army ever seen in the world, and preceded to record the greatest number of casualties outside of battle through a brutal forced march. Ironically the political rift with the Tsar of Russia formed after the Tsar followed Wellington's battles and believed the course of the war to be turning.
Small coverage because I'm only really that familiar with the Western European theatre. It was a campaign rather than a battle, though - of the about three battles in the Russian campaign they were either French victories or inconclusive.
I believe the original army was 100,000 strong (with something like 55,000 Frenchmen and then other units of Swiss, Austrians, Bavarians, Dutch and other then-allies) and just over half made it back.
And to throw back to Wellington again (I can't help it man!) the tactic of burning all the supplies as they retreated had been used by Wellington when he withdrew to Torres Vedras, and its known that the Tsar followed his campaigns very closely. Admittedly it's somewhat more impressive when the crops and stores that you are destroying are actually those of your own nation...
Dearie me, my brain must not have been working on that paragraph...
Quote from: Creed Malay on Mon 30/03/2009 22:57:49
Why did Hancock sign so big? Day of the Tentacle taught me that it was because he'd been told that "chicks dig a guy with a big... signature", but I am not totally convinced by that...
This was a document that meant a lot to all these men who signed it. The first to do so was Hancock, and he did it so largely because he wanted everyone to see that he supported it. He just was super entusiastic about the Declaration. There are a couple stories of him going "They won't have to use spectacles to read THAT", which is hilarious but probably untrue.
As the legend goes, he was concerned the King himself wouldn't be able to read it, since he had poor vision.
Lützen? What about Lützen, people?
LÃœTZEN!!!!
Hmm, very well.. going by the name 'The Battle of Lützen' I guess that it would be an armed conflict between two nations within the context of a broader campaign that took place within or around a locale named Lützen, presumably in Germany given the local's penchant for drawing dots over the letter 'u'.
I'll also conclude that it has something to do with Sweden as of the post's originator although have never heard of said battle and don't recall a battle between Sweden and Germany. Perhaps it was long ago?
The Battle of Lützen was one of the most decisive battles of the Thirty Years' War. It was a Protestant victory, but cost the life of one of the most important leaders of the Protestant alliance, Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden.
Yes, I know I cheated, but can we move on sicne no-one but Andail seems to have heard of it?
Next: The discovery of the new world
Bah, I doubt anyone's ever heard of the new world. Or cares about it.
Errr...Christopher Columbus discovered it (or did he leave his shores for it? Or maybe both?) in 1492, thinking it was the east end of India. Unless you want to count the vikings who might have done it, lead by Eric somebody, or the theory that the Japanese had done it before, or count the native americans who "discovered" it even longer before that, when they probably just walked over from Asia.
So Chris's Crew are getting annoyed because there hasn't been land seen for a long time, and they are probably going to do something really bad, but then seagulls (or was it some other type of bird?) show up, and everyone gets happy and excited and probably screamed "LAND HO!" and so on.
Aside from that, the new world gets its name from Amerigo Vaspucci, another explorer guy.
Hmmm...most off this information is taken off my playings of Colonization. I can also tell you about all the guys who joined up in the Congress and what they did (Pocohantus was able to reduce tensions with the native americans, etc).
Tell me about.....Chingez Khan!
Bloodthirsty guy who killed lots of people, and then killed a lot more.
Next: the 1969 Apollo moon landing.
Babar forgot to mention that afetr discovering America, Chris Colombus went on to direct Mrs Doubtfire and the first 2 Harry Potter movies... :=
Quote from: paolo on Wed 01/04/2009 12:47:11
Next: the 1969 Apollo moon landing.
Whenever they talk about Armstrong walking on the moon, they always show that same photo. But it's not Armstrong. It's Aldrin. Armstrong was the one who took the photo. And nobody ever remembers Collins. He had the job of staying in orbit around the moon while the other two got to walk around and pick up rocks. (That is, of course, that we assume they actually landed on the moon and ignore the fact that the whole thing is a giant conspiracy!!!1!)
Next up: Crazy Billionaire Potpourri! Howard Hughes or Walt Disney. Take your pick. Who was crazier?
Well, I don't know much about Walt Disney aside from the common stuff - allegedly supported the Nazis, allegedly has his cyrogenically-suspended body buried under the big castle, ordered that nobody with a beard be allowed to work in Disney Land and that all Disney 'characters' in the park be banned from breaking character at any time outside of a certain room.
Howard Hughes liked planes a lot and looked like Leonardo DiCaprio, but when he got older he was so terrified of germs that he shunned all human contact, living in the top of his casino and supposedly stopped cutting hsi hair, beard and fingernails. I think. Damned contemporary history.
Somebody who actually knows what they're talking about please post now.
A couple of throwbacks:
*Apollo 11 had been designed by Wehrner Von Braunn, who has fairly controversial given that he had been an honourary Colonel of the SS and his second-most noted rocket was the V12 missile that killed hundreds of Londoners.
*The first European to land on America wasn't Eric Somebody (he came later) but Lief Ericsson.
Next: The Crippen murder.
Quote from: Jared on Thu 02/04/2009 07:23:16
*The first European to land on America wasn't Eric Somebody (he came later) but Lief Ericsson.
Eric the Red was Leif Ericsson's dad (that's why his name is Ericsson), and was the one who settled Greenland. While Leif may have been the first to make landfall on North America, the land was actually discovered a few years earlier by some other Viking guy.
All this is assuming we don't count Greenland as part of North America, as most geographers tend to do. In that case it was discovered much earlier.
QuoteNext: The Crippen murder.
The WHAT?
I seriously doubt that international members have even slightest clue who that american doctor was or what he did.
Ted Bundy would be already a tough nut, but this...
I'm a history fan, and I've never heard about it.
Eh, it's well known enough I think.
Dr. Hippen murdered his wife and buried her in the basement. The police were tipped off to her disappearance and searched the house but were unable to find anything. It was only until Hippen fled that they searched again, that time finding the body. A wireless telegram was sent once Hippen (and his lover dressed as a boy) were spotted fleeing to Canada. The police took a faster boat to Canada, and were able to meet Hippen when he arrived in Canada. I think he was relieved to be caught in the end, probably not so relieved about being hung back in london though..
It's very brief I know, I can't remember names of the ships, dates, or other names, sorry.
Next: (this might be too recent, if so, ignore it!) The O. J. Simpson Murders
Just a quick bit about Disney before we take the plunge into OJ.
The famous Disney signature that's part of the logo -- It's not Walt Disney's! It was done by either one of his animators or by one of his secretaries.
Also, Disney was such a control freak that he made his employees clock in and out for everything. Even if they just got up to open a window or get a drink of water.
Quote from: InCreatorThe WHAT?
The work of the second-most famous murderer in British history.
Historically it was the first murder within respectable middle-class British society to be utilised as a sensation by the British mass-media thanks to the recent application of Guglielmo Marconi's [then] brand-new wireless telegraph technology, which actually turned out to be key to solving the case. Crippen and his new fiance were on a ship bound for America, disguised very convincingly as a father and his teenaged boy - but the fact that the ship carried a brand new wireless receiver meant that they could be brought to justice whereas before it would have been impossible to catch them.
Prior to this Marconi had actually been on the verge of complete bankruptcy due to multiple spates of bad publicity generated by the Post Master General, Professor Oliver Lodge, noted magician Neville Maskelyne and to a lesser extent Croatia's favourite eeeevil scientist Nikola Tesla - so the murder served to save his business. (A couple of years later the sinking of the Titanic did even more good to his business, so these became Marconi's golden years)
Notably Crippen never actually confessed to the killing and due to the paucity of remains the 'body' (or rather collection of body parts) was extremely difficult to identify. The one break was that Belle Crippen had an appendectomy scar she showed off a lot, and a scar was found in the buried mass of skin. Interesting the remains were preserved and a recent DNA test suggested that the remains weren't those of Belle Crippen at all...
The other interesting detail was that the body was buried under the floor of Crippen's kitchen, yet he continued to live there for about a week after the murder. Several accounts mention a strange smell that the Doctor put down to insufficient ventilation...
Quote from: The InCreatorI seriously doubt that international members have even slightest clue who that american doctor was or what he did.
Well, I'm an Australian myself, so surely I
am an international member?
Quote from: ponchAlso, Disney was such a control freak that he made his employees clock in and out for everything. Even if they just got up to open a window or get a drink of water.
..so they all had a clock at their desks or something? I find that quite cool in it's insanity.
The Vikings found it first. I forget whether it was Erik Lief or Eric the Red. But they also discovered Greenland and Iceland and gave them names that were ironic, which confused the daylights out of the guys chasing them.