Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Redbeard, nobody likes a smartass and besides, British Navy in 1588 but nobody likes a pedant either good answers though.

Lordofhats, It's a lie!!! I am the law!!





That's how I feel about the subject!!

This is what I think of your law!

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Redbeard, nobody likes a smartass and besides, British Navy in 1588 but nobody likes a pedant either good answers though.

Not just good, researched too. Asking for years is a bit easy, I got eight or nine without needing to look them up. But times... that took some research.

I'm with LordofHats on this. The "biographies of great men" approach has long since been abolished as the very one-sided approach to history it is.

Skylifter wrote:I'm with LordofHats on this. The "biographies of great men" approach has long since been abolished as the very one-sided approach to history it is.

Thanks to a German fellow by the name of Leopold von Ranke

Whilst it isn't necessary to remember exact dates for everything, you do have to know the rough dates in order to form a framework within which to place the flow of events.

In other words you don't need to know the year of the Spanish Armada but you do absolutely need to know it happened during the late 16th century, not during WW2 (for example).

Historiography is the science of history.

Skylifter wrote:I'm a historian, too, and I got none. Okay, so for one thing I'm from Germany, and my field of study was ancient Rome, so it doesn't really worry me much (just goes to show how little British history actually directly impacted continental Europe ).

You're absolutely correct - the Treaty of Versailles had virtually no impact upon continental Europe, nor did the appointment of Churchill.

Treaty of Versailles was honestly more a French thing than a British thing. Back then France still mattered

Churchill is really only important as an extension of British policy aims, which he influenced sure, and things may have gone differently without him, but he's a smaller piece of the puzzle than Hitler himself, or Chamberlain for that matter.

I got 5 out of 10. And I agree that knowing an exact date can be fairly meaningless, compared to understanding how that event came about, and what it led to.

LordofHats wrote:

Churchill is really only important as an extension of British policy aims, which he influenced sure, and things may have gone differently without him, but he's a smaller piece of the puzzle than Hitler himself, or Chamberlain for that matter.

Churchill played a massive role in the successful prosecution of WWII. I don't think that's a particularly controversial statement.

I think Chamberlain gets an unduly raw deal, which is slightly more controversial.

Kilkrazy wrote:In other words you don't need to know the year of the Spanish Armada but you do absolutely need to know it happened during the late 16th century, not during WW2 (for example).

Since when?! Is this like when Pluto was no longer a planet? The Black Hand, at the behest of the Borgias assasinated Mao and so he sent his Spanish Fleets after the Japanese, leading to the occupation of Pearl Bailey.

Albatross wrote:

Skylifter wrote:I'm a historian, too, and I got none. Okay, so for one thing I'm from Germany, and my field of study was ancient Rome, so it doesn't really worry me much (just goes to show how little British history actually directly impacted continental Europe ).

You're absolutely correct - the Treaty of Versailles had virtually no impact upon continental Europe, nor did the appointment of Churchill.

Along with the hundred years war, the crusades, the massive continetal influence of the Saxon kings, the British East India company, the effect of the wars between France, Spain, Portugal, The Netherlands and the UK over colonial land and the social and economic effect this had, the intervention of the UK in world war 1 and 2 (both wars the UK could have keeped out of, at least at the start).

I suggest looking up Pax Britannica if you realy think the UK has had little influence in Europe.

Yes, continental europe has history that the UK has no involvment in, but to say that it has little impact is like saying that Spain had little impact because Norway was not effected by Spain. Countrys have school curriculums baised on what is important to them, which is normaly wars they won and times they were powerfull.

Back to the origonal subject, I got 1/10. As others have said, exact dates are of little use to most people, and remembering them is of no use for anything but showing off. They are rather like logarithms. Usefull to have a broad understanding of but, unless the apply to your area of work on a day to day basis, there are better things to do than remeber them. Scoffing at people for not knowing them is the same as the people who look down on others for not knowing Verdi from Purcell.

Since he referenced that he studied ancient Rome, I was under the impression he was referring to British history during that time period.

I got none of them right! I have a terrible head for dates but an excellent head for narratives, usually.

British history is very exciting- much more exciting than Irish history, which is a bit like a footnote in the broader british history

I do enjoy the Dark Ages the most though. Modern history is less exciting because it's less of a discovery. I always loved imagining myself living in the Dark Ages, and imagining how different my life would be.

Nevermind.

Da Boss wrote:I do enjoy the Dark Ages the most though. Modern history is less exciting because it's less of a discovery. I always loved imagining myself living in the Dark Ages, and imagining how different my life would be.

Well, for one thing, you'd probably die of plague.

Redbeard wrote:

Da Boss wrote:I do enjoy the Dark Ages the most though. Modern history is less exciting because it's less of a discovery. I always loved imagining myself living in the Dark Ages, and imagining how different my life would be.

Well, for one thing, you'd probably die of plague.

Or just from getting oppressed by someone who think he's a king because some watery tart threw a sword at him

Redbeard wrote:

Da Boss wrote:I do enjoy the Dark Ages the most though. Modern history is less exciting because it's less of a discovery. I always loved imagining myself living in the Dark Ages, and imagining how different my life would be.

Well, for one thing, you'd probably die of plague.

The plague was well after the dark ages.
But yeah they did suck. It's generally agreed that the world went downhill after about the 2nd century BC...

2/10 lol I know the others roughly but not the specific dates.

Nom