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.

A friendly quiz from today's Guardian newspaper on British history. I've hidden the answers behind a spoiler, but I'm satisfied that the members of this site are an honourable bunch, and would never dream of resorting to Wiki I got 9/10, but I am a historian. I'm hoping that most people get at least 7/10. I wanna feel some positive energy


1. When was the Magna Carta signed?

2. When did the Spanish Armada attack England?

3. When was Richard III killed at the Battle of Bosworth?

4. When was Charles I executed?

5. When was the union of Scotland and England?

6. When did the battle of Trafalgar take place?

7. When was the Battle of Hastings?

8. When was the treaty of Versailles signed?

9. When did Winston Churchill first become prime minister?

10. When was the Peasants' Revolt?

You know, most history classes are moving away from dates, instead focuses on the general timeline of events and the context in relation to other key events.

Dates are kinda useless if you can't put them in context with other events.

I only got five out of ten, though I had the rest pegged out to within a few years.

Easy E has a valid point, the actual dates are less relevant than the general timeline.

I got 9/10 the Treaty of Versailles got me, it probably doesn't hurt that History is my game too.
Easy E is right though most history classes have moved more to survey classes, but that doesn't throw dates completely out the window.

I only got 1/10!



Dates are not my strong point, for reasons I won't go into here. I'm stronger on music history, obviously.

Same here - I learnt a load of this sort of thing by rote at school but it has gurgled down the drain now.

To paraphrase Homer Simpson, 'As soon as I learn something new, it pushes some old stuff out of my brain'

I got 1 out of 10! (Versailles)

But, I don't think this is a remotely accurate way to measure one's knowledge of history. I could place all of those into a general history timeline, as well as describe what the events were and their implications. (Other than the Peasants' Revolt, I don't know what that is.) That's surely more important than knowing the exact year things took place. And, if knowing the exact year is important, isn't knowing the month and the day and the hour equally important?

I know maybe 3 or 4.

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 ).

Also, I agree with the Easy E that dates are useless, except in a specific context when they help constructing the chronology of directly connected events. I do not know too many dates about ancient Rome by heart, either, that's what I write them down for. History is not about dates, it is about developments and events. Knowing the date something happened is no use if you do not understand what it was that happened, how it actually unfolded, and what the reasons and consequences were.

Also, I agree with the Easy E that dates are useless, except in a specific context when they help constructing the chronology of directly connected events.

QFT.

How about we start asking the real questions Who here can describe the root causes and events preceding the English Civil War? Please do so in 4-5 paragraphs including a introduction and conclusion

Extra credit for anyone who can present an argument for why the Magna Carta was produced in England but not in any other European state of the time (+5 for your final grade ).

LordofHats wrote:Extra credit for anyone who can present an argument for why the Magna Carta was produced in England but not in any other European state of the time (+5 for your final grade ).

The Magna Carta was produced in England because America is such a strong leader of human rights that our sensibilities traveled back in time. And, because true Americans only speak English, the English were the only ones that were able to understand our message.

Got versailles and hastings.

Guess i never bothered to learn dates in history class after all!

Well you're not getting the extra credit but I will reward your imagination with this:



Its a baby bunny

Four.

Yes, context is important, but you need dates as a starting point, and not just for pub quizzes!

I'm surprised that nobody mentioned that most of these dates deal exclusively with leaders and monarchs (not the butterfly - fallout 3 joke) and are rather focused on the 'great man theory of history.'

In the interests of fairness, I'll do a quiz for the history of the United States some time this week.
And in a final note, the original quiz was multiple choice, but rather sneakily, I left out the other options! In my defence, I thought people on this site would find it too easy.

Old dead white men is what we call it.
Marxists tend to focus more on the people...that's almost a derp statement.

Albatross wrote:I only got 1/10!

Me too! And yet I don't feel bad about it ...

Or human society is an entropic, random mess.
One or the other.

I got one (Battle of Hastings) But similar to what others have said above, I recognised many of the events (7ish), and know a little bit about them. So I'm not completely useless

Two, Churchill and Hastings. Didn't even recognise a couple of those events, but then I've not been one for history unless it involves Tanks.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Yes, context is important, but you need dates as a starting point, and not just for pub quizzes!

No, you don't. Things like context take a lot of thought and analysis. Context is where the science of history is. Dates are just dates. They can be found in reference when needed. There's no real need to memorize them.

LordofHats wrote:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Yes, context is important, but you need dates as a starting point, and not just for pub quizzes!

No, you don't. Things like context take a lot of thought and analysis. Context is where the science of history is. Dates are just dates. They can be found in reference when needed. There's no real need to memorize them.

I agree with LordofHats - I've always been terrible with dates; but I can usually remember the occasional fact about an event, even if I don't know the exact date. I find it easier to remember words rather than numbers.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:A friendly quiz from today's Guardian newspaper on British history. I've hidden the answers behind a spoiler, but I'm satisfied that the members of this site are an honourable bunch, and would never dream of resorting to Wiki I got 9/10, but I am a historian. I'm hoping that most people get at least 7/10. I wanna feel some positive energy


1. When was the Magna Carta signed?
No idea.

2. When did the Spanish Armada attack England?
/shrug

3. When was Richard III killed at the Battle of Bosworth?
During the Battle of Bosworth

4. When was Charles I executed?
Ummmm...

5. When was the union of Scotland and England?
Errrrr...

6. When did the battle of Trafalgar take place?
I... umm... err...

7. When was the Battle of Hastings?
1066

8. When was the treaty of Versailles signed?
Sometime after WW1, around 1918-1919ish

9. When did Winston Churchill first become prime minister?
1940

10. When was the Peasants' Revolt?
Can I phone a friend?...

Spoiler:

1) 1215
2) 1588
3) 1485
4) 1649
5) 1707
6) 1805
7) 1066
8) 1919
9) 1940
10) 1381

2 Right and 1 sort of right if you count 1918-1919ish as an answer.

Now, if you asked me what of those subjects I actually got taught in school...

So, what subjects were you actually taught? Assuming of course you went to School

Lordofhats mentioned the science of history. Science of history!!! Burn the witch

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Lordofhats mentioned the science of history. Science of history!!! Burn the witch

You'd reject that history is a science? I know the social sciences catch a lot of flak for not being as empirical as some other sciences, but they are sciences

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:So, what subjects were you actually taught? Assuming of course you went to School

From Primary School through High School:
Ancient Greeks
Romans
Saxons/Vikings - where all you were taught was that they were bad people.
Tudors - where all you were taught was that Henry VIII was fat, married a few times and killed a few of his wives.
Slave Trade - Not much to teach there, it's a bit self-explanatory.
WW1 and 2 in little detail. For WW2, we essentially watched Schindler's List and that was it.

Of the questions asked in the OP, we weren't taught any of it bar the 3 I actually answered sincerely, although I would say it's on par with what has been taught for a good few years now.

Social sciences be damned!!! History is but the biographies of great men, as somebody once said.

Agreed that school was probably a waste of time for most people, but I would encourage people to engage in history, even if it's always about battles.

To be a member of this website, you need to know the difference between an AK47 and an AK74, the difference between an Ork and an Orc, and to have watched at least 10 episodes of Star Trek Voyager. Oh, and military history is a given, so get reading those books.

It will be interesting to see how well the American members do on the American history quiz I'm posting this week

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Social sciences be damned!!! History is but the biographies of great men, as somebody once said.

Well, that's one form History takes. It's a bit like saying Physics is only about Newton's Laws of Thermodynamics.

I look forward to your American Quiz. I'm sure I will do terrible.

Better answers inside.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Social sciences be damned!!! History is but the biographies of great men, as somebody once said.

Like most people somebody had a very poor understanding of what history is. History is not stuff that happened. Stuff that happened is facts and no one wastes their time debating facts (except when what happened is unclear but that's just a crap shoot) or rewritting the facts for the 1000th time.

People would much rather waste their time debating what those facts mean, why they happened, how they happened, and the patterns that they make. That's history my good sir and it is in fact a science