For everyone liking questions...
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: General World History
Forum Discription: All aspects of world history, especially topics that span across many regions or periods
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=20731
Printed Date: 19-Apr-2024 at 22:18
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: For everyone liking questions...
Posted By: rider
Subject: For everyone liking questions...
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2007 at 16:27
|
I am in a little search for Kings and Queens (from any time, place or origin). Now, if I give you descriptions, anyone care to show his knowledge and earn gratitude?  1) a queen... wished to remain unmarried but after being threatened with losing power, married (VII) 5) a queen... had power but didn't like ruling... enjoyed music and other pleasures... his husband ruled instead.. (XVI) 8) a king... driven into the borders of insanity... perished when he committed an assault along with the entire force of the kingdom against an enemy impossibly strong (XXV) 10) a king... gave rule over to his successor very soon... practically right after coming to power... held the throne for a limited period of time.. (II) 12) a king... he favoured breaking away from traditions in secret.. (XIV, XIII) 16) a king... received power cause no brother or sister of him wanted it... was third in line of succession and yet got the throne... (IX) 17) a king... married late.. gathered legends and lore.. wrote books.. [favoured seagoing..] (IV) 18) a queen... in secret opposed the ways of her husband, the king... her heart was with the opposition to the king's power... beautiful... (XXIII) 19) a queen... only successor... was forced to marry... and by that gave away her power... (XXV) 20) a king... loved silver above all other things... (XV) This is all. Anyone who knows anything, please post. You will be of great help. Many thanks, EDIT: I don't have specific answers for these. I'd just like you to know who the descriptions resemble to you... NB! King/Queen is in a loose term, meaning any ruler... |
Replies:
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 07:36
|
Either of 3 and 11 could be Peter the Great, no? ------------- |
Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 08:27
|
5) Maybe Kristina Waza from Sweden but I don't know if she was married. I've heard She was homosexual.
Very tough questions, maybe You would give some more clues...
|
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 11:42
|
Well. I was more directing them like... I don't know who they are. I only have the descriptions (but I can elaborate on a few). I'd just need you guys to pull off a few connections and find if any of these would fit a King/Queen/Ruler that you have heard of... Pretty much like the battles topic I did 1.25 months ago... I'll describe it and you'll name things that were like it. ------------- |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 19:11
-Could be Augustus/Octavian? The longest period of peace that Rome had ever had?
A shot in the dark, but Murad II? Firstly he took the throne, abdicated- gave it to his son Mehmet I, who screwed up the coinage and started a Jannisary revolt. Then Murad came back to rescue the Ottoman empire, scolded his son (we can assume :D ) and was promptly killed at the battle of Kosivo Polje. Mehmet I comes back as Mehmet II (the conquerer) and invades Constantiople in 1453, ending the Roman empire and killing the last emperor Constantine IX diogenes.
Murad was quite old when he took over and knew that he could not keep it up for long, so it seems a plausable one.
...Septimus Servus? That African liked Astronomy and Eastern Mysticism. Gibbon says that he loved reading horoscopes and destinies.
Frederick the Great of Prussia? The elector who declared himself king in the early 18th century? He wanted to return to the old middle-ages courts of Prussia rather than be a vassal elector of the Holy Roman crown. He "opened" the lands, allowing Calvinists to migrate to his tollerant and prosoperous state, encouraging a great surge of religious refugees to enrich his nation.
I'm thinking...Mary Queen of Scots who married Philip II of Spain to aid her pro-Catholic cause?
Enver Hoxa of Albania- the Soviet Puppet who completely shut out his nation from the outside world, or Franco, the fascist Spanish leader of the Falanj who closed the boarders to France, Portugul and Gibraltar?
Again, it could be Augustus/Octavian, or any of the earlier emperors who had to pretend that they were nothing more than extra ordinary magistrates and citizens of the Roman "Republic" to hide from the people the new emerging Pseudo-Monarchy in Rome. Every 10th year they would declare that they would hand back executive power to the senate and commita (as Augustus promised), rather Ironic considering Augustus abolished the meetings of the Comita. They pretended that the senate still had their ancient authority, adhearing to old traditions.
...Could be Cambyses of Archenimid Persia, the Roman emperors Caracalla and Domitian, Ivan the Terrible - Czar of Russia are some possibilities...
The elector of Bavaria, Maximilian, in the wars of the Spanish succession - he tried with France to defeat the holy Roman empire, Britain, Holland and the German states- that was a stupid move and apparently he was a tad nutty - that's a long shot, I know, but that's my first answer
...urmmmm....
Hitler's operation Barborossa against the USSR is an obvious one
------------- |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 19:19
|
Oh, amazing. Thanks, a great lot. As I said, there aren't definitive answers... but you've been of great help. Although I would've thought that Hideyoshi or whoever closed Japan to foreigners would get a mention... Good that I remembered it now. The same with the Meiji Restauration. And with China. Thanks Aster. ------------- |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 19:23
|
I know next to nothing about the history of those peoples and - I'm not being ignorant, or rascist or anything like that - I don't really care much. It's just never interested me to the same degree as European and Ancient Near Eastern history (although all history interests me). I've got a book about the history of china called - "All under heaven" by an Afrikkaner called Wayne Kruger but have just never got around to reading it- it just doesn't interest me. ------------- |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 20:50
|
It seems I edited the original and added #18 and #19.
------------- |
Posted By: kurt
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 23:06
|
14 - genghis khan?
13 - attilla the hun? tamerlane?
|
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2007 at 04:53
|
18) Alexandra, Queen of Judea - fits all the criteria listed, except rather than keeping her opposition of her husbands actions completely secret, I believe she told the public, as it gained her popularity among the masses
------------- |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2007 at 05:28
...Could be one of the Macedonian kings in the Roman-Macedonian wars? They were waiting for their diodachi "brothers" to help them, but their help never arrived in the end. - basically, could be Perseus and Philip V ------------- |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 08:07
|
Hmmh. Earl Aster, I am fairly confident this sounds familiar: 20) a king... loved silver above all other things... (XV) I have heard of some Greek or whatever king like that but can't remember his name.. ------------- |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 14:05
|
That could either be Croesus, king of the Lydians or Midas, king of the Gordians. Both were obsenely wealthy and were both, according to ancient sources, very greedy. They both ruled prosperous empires which were decendents of the Urartians and Neo-Hittite empires, giving a unique blend of cultures from their ancestors and the Greeks of Asia minor. Midas supposedly asked the gods to turn everything that he touched into gold - naturally, this meant EVERYTHING! His wife, his kids, his property, even his food! Croesus watched as Harpagus's army marched across Cappodocia. He went to the delphic oracle of Apollo and asked the Pythoness if he should cross the river Halays. The pythoness's translation said "If you cross the river Halays", you will destroy a great empire. He crossed the halays and guess what? The empire he destroyed was his own. He said to Aristotle that he was the happiest man in the world, to which Aristotle obviously did not agree.
That could be any of the Athenian archons from the time of the Pelopennesian wars and perhaps, but less likely, the Persian wars. In the Pelopennesian wars that were to be the destruction of Athens, almost the entire Athenian offensive was carried out by sea. They sent one fleet to destroy Spartan allies on the Aegean Islands, one for their protection, one under Phormio to blockade Corinth via Naupactus and one to ravage the Spartan costal lands by use of marines. These were in the whole highly successful (Sparta's agricultural abilities were highly damaged) and Phormio manged to push of many Corinthian fleets until a relief came. The abilites of these archons to deliver strike forces behind the Spartan lines was devastating, but they did not have a backup plan and when the Spartan army marched up to Attica, the power of the Athenian navy could not do much. ------------- |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 18:22
|
Nothing in particular with silver? I am fairly confident there was someone... but still can't be sure. I know the legend of Midas... quite cool (not for him obviously). Now, (and you too Earl Aster), I've still been left with a few loose ends... perhaps you could (and all others) try revisiting the following questions:
About #8: You suggested the Duke of Bavaria and Hitler in their assaults. Well, the Duke could fit in but that's not a good match. Best would be the king/lord himself taking part of the battle/invasion along with his men. ------------- |
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2007 at 00:03
That's a tough one I thought most kings were like that. The one that popped in my mind first was Darius III, simply because I was thinking of Alexander the Great defeating him. He had a well run kingdom for people paid up to to 90% in taxation. The Greeks only wanted 50% and for their money the people got a better standard of housing and public facilities. Alexander was sure to win even if he had lost a few more battles! ------------- elenos |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2007 at 04:09
|
Well, the hint is extremely. And many kings have been normal... Yes, they want gold and stuff but not too much.
------------- |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2007 at 04:26
I am guessing Queen Isabelle of England, the French wife of King Edward II. She was definitely opposed to his alleged homosexuality, and she did favour the party who overthrew her husband. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2007 at 09:26
Frederick I (Frederick the Great's grandfather) was the first King in Prussia in 1701. He was called King IN Prussia because his status was that of prince-elector elsewhere in the HRE. The same was true of Frederick the Great until 1772 when he started calling himself 'King OF Prussia', but I don't think he gave up his electoral status when he did.
That would be Mary Tudor ('Bloody Mary') not Mary Stuart ('Queen of Scots') who married Philip. I don't know that either of them wanted to remain unmarried.
The reference might be to Elizabeth of Russia, who did remain unmarried for some while before marrying Alexei Razumovsky, one of the prime actors in the coup that brought her to full power.
Interestingly enough, both Anne before her and Catherine after never remarried after the death of their original husbands, reigning alone for ten and thirty-four years respectively. With Elizabeth's twenty that makes 64 years that Russia was ruled by a woman in the 18th century. I can't think of any country that was ruled by women for longer than that in a given century (Victoria comes close). ------------- |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2007 at 15:16
|
Hmmh Gcle... Which of the Prussians opened the lands then? The Great or the first?
------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 18-Jul-2007 at 07:35
Probably meant to apply to Frederick the Great (if either is correct) but I'm not entirely sure what the phrase means.
Frederick (the Great) was a protectionist who set up high tariffs to protect nascent Prussian industry, which is hardly 'opening the lands', but he did welcome foreigners in, especially artists and philosophers, and he was keen on religious tolerance. He even accepted the Jesuits after they had been disbanded by the Pope. And he established free trade inside the Prussian borders.
But in all this he was pretty much in line with the policies of his father and grandfather. Prussia wasn't particularly 'closed' before his reign.
Japan's Mutsuhito (Meiji) is a better candidate on the 'opened his lands' criterion. You could also argue that he 'returned to the old ways' in establishing the Empire and getting rid of the Shogunate.
------------- |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 18-Jul-2007 at 12:43
|
Yes, but if you look at all the Prussian electors between the 30 years war and the accesion of Frederick the Great as the first Prussian king, they all made strides to break away from the Holy Roman yoke. Georg William and others made many important strides in opening Prussia up to a wider world beyond the confines of the Holy Roman court - the annexations of eastern Brandenburg/Kleve in the Polish-Lithunian commonwealth and the attraction of Prussia to the expelled Calvinists of the various Catholic areas of Europe also put Brandenburg/Hollenzellern/Prussia on the map. ------------- |
Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 18-Jul-2007 at 13:42
You are wrong here cause Prussia was protestant since 1525. So they were out of Catholic church for a long time when thirty years war started. Don't know what You mean by " the annexations of eastern Brandenburg/Kleve in the Polish-Lithunian commonwealth" Could You explain it, please?
|
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 18-Jul-2007 at 16:37
|
Ok, please don't take this one offtopic.
------------- |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 18-Jul-2007 at 16:53
|
I've PMed him about it Rider, so don't worry. Any other questions that you want to look at? The one problem is that they are so vauge. I'm sure that if the other guys from the Asian and American sections came onto this, they would come up with loads of possible figures as well... ------------- |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2007 at 03:19
|
Well. I brought up all of those I needed answers for more but none you you did answer exactly those: 5) a queen... had power but didn't like ruling... enjoyed music and other pleasures... his husband ruled instead.. (XVI) 8) a king... driven into the borders of insanity... perished when he committed an assault along with the entire force of the kingdom against an enemy impossibly strong (XXV) 16) a king... received power cause no brother or sister of him wanted it... was third in line of succession and yet got the throne... (IX) 20) a king... loved silver above all other things... (XV) ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2007 at 07:49
He wasn't the first Prussian king. That's why he was called Frederick II. His grandfather was Frederick I, and there was his father Frederick William I in between.
I agree with that though. I said he wasn't too different from the policies of the previous Prussian kings, and you can push the family back further than that if you like. On the whole they provided a haven for religious minorities of all kinds, like the Netherlands. ------------- |
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2007 at 09:12
|
For number 7, Frederick II HRE is a good example. Religious sceptic, actually rather opposed to the whole idea of religion (namely Christianity). Even got to the extent he was dubbed the Antichrist by the Pope.... Also, for number 10, here are two possibilities: - Byzantine Emperor Alexander. Reigned for 13 months and died after a polo game. - "Taichang Emperor". Zu Changluo reigned for under a month, then he died. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2007 at 11:36
|
Yes I think Frederick II HRE (neat way of expressing it) is a good candidate for that one.
As an outsider for no 10, loosely interpreting 'king' as we were told to, what about the 9th President of the United States, William Henry Harrison, came into office March 4 1841, died April 4 1841, having caught cold during his inauguration speech.
Which, some might say, was just payback for having delivered the longest Inaugural speech in US history. And not wearing his overcoat.
------------- |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2007 at 14:16
|
Aren't there such for number 10 that abdicated?
------------- |
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2007 at 16:11
|
As in, rather than dying, handed over to the successor while still alive (after only ruling for a very short period of time)? I'll see what i can find...
------------- |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2007 at 16:38
|
Not exactly. The one I am talking about lived for a great while longer. This means that the person abdicated due to unwillingness to rule. Kinda may remind of that English king... ------------- |
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2007 at 16:49
|
Well King Edward VIII of England abdicated, but more because he wanted to marry Wallis rather than unwillingness to rule. I see what you mean now, and will continue searching...
------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2007 at 10:17
|
If dictators count as 'kings' then how about Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, Dictator of Rome in 458 BCE? Established as dictator to resist invasion from other tribes, he beat them in 16 days, and then gave up the dictatorship to go back to his farm.
Then he did the same thing again in 439.
Maybe he doesn't count because he didn't give his power to a successor, but returned it to the republic. ------------- |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2007 at 13:06
|
Well, I believe it does count. Thanks a lot Gcle.
------------- |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2007 at 15:20
|
I strongly disagree… (at least in the Roman republican context)
All the Roman dictators cannot be considered kings. The office of dictator was an element of the republican constitution and they still used republican systems to rule. A king has to have an entire system based on his "divine right" to rule - a court, church etc. The Roman emperor wasn't even a king (until Septimus Serevus)- he combined the office of Dictator (for life) with Pontifex Maximus, Legatus and Censor. The whole principle of "king" only existed in Rome from the 7 kings to all the emperors past Septimus Serevus. Besides, Republican "dictators" were not "dictators" in our sense of the word - they were still under the authority of the Censors and the Senate - the only difference was that they had "imperium" for the duration of the crisis, took command of all the legions, had more leverage over the senate and could pass acts without the senate. The very fact that there was a senate that had elected him clearly shows that he wasn't a king. ...As I've said before, these questions are just to vauge to answer properly.
this could be a long shot, but Hannibal was enraged by the Romans, and after he escaped from Carthage ran from court to court to try and persuade Diodachi kings to make war against them. He took a vast Carthaginian army right to hell and back (despite the protestations of Hanno and the Carthaginian assembly) and twice got Carthage into war. He was a brilliant strategist, but that does seem to be a rather odd move. Also, Rome by the 2nd and 3rd Carthaginian wars, and by Marius's reforms was much more superior to Carthage. Or perhaps Kasier Wilheim II? He was known to be quite eccentric, unrealistically nationalist and obsessed by war. He suffered from chronic depression and was ridiculed by his family when young because of his weakness and his lame arm. He attempted to attack Russia and France simueltaneously whilst relying on the Schlieffen plan, which didn’t really work… …Or perhaps Adolph Hitler? That’s an easy one…
------------- |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2007 at 16:35
|
Weren't the Marian reforms after the beating of the legions by the Cimbri and Teutones (so around 115 BC) rather than the Carthaginian times? Now, I (and gcle) know very well that Roman dictator doesn't equal a king. However, taken as a very loose term depicted a constitutional monarch, it fits the criteria. ------------- |
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2007 at 19:43
Of course Cincinnatus or any dictator for the matter, is a "sole ruler", and thus a loose variation of "king". Thus, that criteria is filled. Also, Rider's right in saying that the Marian reforms were a good 30 or so years after the Third Punic War, so yes, the Roman army at that stage was A LOT stronger than the non-existent Carthaginian Army  Hannibal I don't think is valid for 8) as he is not a king, or sole ruler and he was not driven into insanity, or even the borders of it. Furthermore, Hannibal did not perish during or even directly after his assault and took only a small portion of his kingdom as soldiers (One, because the Senate did not permit a large number of reinforcements or initials for him, and two, because most of his army was composed of mercenaries rather than Carthaginians). Plus, he proved that the Romans were not impossibly strong, and did it in a breathtaking fashion. Of course, later they pulled through, but if all had gone to plan, Rome was a dead state. Hence, they weren't really impossibly strong. Nevertheless, I see where you're coming from, and a lot of these are just too vague... ------------- |