There are only a very limited number of European countries that existed back then that could have had colonies. I just guessed all of them. Sweden was the last one I could think of.
Among fellow Scandinavians (I'm a Dane) this is actually quite widely known. Because of a very small joke: even under French sovereignty the island has maintained the capital's name as "Gustavia". Named in honour of King Gustav - the most Swedish of all royal names.
Thanks to praimos's comment, I went on Google Earth to have a look. I dropped down on street view directly in front of a pretty large statue that appears to be of a human-pig (human-bear?) tourist. Quite a first impression.
Divantilya: Thank you for your constructive feedback and educating us on your language. We appreciate all efforts to improve our vocabulary and use of phrases for our 2nd, 3rd or 4th languages. If only all users could be so considerate
It leads to the interesting situation where Cartagena in Colombia was founded as a colony of Spain and named after Cartagena in Spain, which was founded as a colony of and named after Carthage in Africa, which was founded by the Phoenicians and has a name in Punic meaning 'New Tyre'.
Yes, they had a few colonies, like Tanzania. That's why there was some fighting in Africa during WWI. Anyway, the French and British empires were ridiculously big, which is, in my opinion, the main cause of the war... ironically, the German wanted more and they lost everything in 1919...
Apart from those and Germany, there was also Spain. The Netherlands on the other hand were already out of Africa before the main colonizing period started in the late 19th century.
Spain didn't do a lot in Africa however, due to a deal they did with Portugal in the 15th century that divided the world in half and suggested that Spain have one half and Portugal have the other. The division meant that Africa and Brazil fell within the Portuguese half (hence Portugal's essential initiation of, and massive contribution to, the transatlantic slave trade), and anything west of Brazil was Spanish, hence why Spain had so much of the Americas.
The Germans controlled modern day Namibia, Tanzania, Togo and Cameroon up until WWI when they were transfered to the British, French and South Africans.
Definition of 'mother country' according to Oxford English Dictionary - a country in relation to its colonies: Australia sent the flower of its youth to defend the mother country's interests.
I do apologize if I offended any non-native English speakers (which I obviously have) with my comment about "NUMBER of" ... (people) rather than "Amount of..." (people). That was not my intent, but it was my fault for not first checking the name. My comment was directed to native English speakers who are just too careless to use the proper phraseology. My pet peeves are the above: "Number v. Amount" and the use of the word "Floor", when speaking of the sidewalk or walkway, for which the proper terminology is "ground". Again, this was not intended for English as a second-language speakers, of which I am one as well.
FWIW, that's what I understood the intent of you comment to be. And I appreciated what you pointed out. I always prefer to know more rather than less. Except when it comes to anything having to do with Harry Potter, of course. :-)
I've never heard of a sidewalk being called anything but a sidewalk. A sidewalk or walkway is what keeps you from walking on the ground. A path on the other hand is most often on the ground (or a way through a crowded room). A floor is part of a building: ground floor, dance floor, senate floor, third floor. The ground is the earth/dirt.
Just one of many instances; Listening to the TV news earlier tonight, I heard an eyewitness describe a scene in this way: "He ran out of the building holding his side and fell to the floor over there by the hydrant".
P.S. if at any point in the future you see an answer from 800 BC: not a single modern-day country in the world existed then, though ancient civilizations we call Egypt and China were around at the time, they have basically nothing to do with the modern states by the same names. And those are the only two.
Nice quiz. I would just highly suggest to specify that the Congo is the Congo Free State. I think it would be unambiguously then, because there used to be a different French Congo.
St. Barthelemy was French from 1648 to 1783 and was then exchanged to the Swedish in 1784, then it was sold back to France in 1878 and is now an Overseas Collective of France.
"Mother country" sounds almost like an endearing term for a nation that exploits the native population and steals its resources in some twisted excuse of ushering "civilisation".
Congo should be changed to the Democratic Republic of Congo. There are two countries with 'Congo' in their name - D.R.Congo (formerly Zaire) which was a Belgian colony and the Republic of Congo which was a French colony.
Iceland being a Danish colony is debatable. It was a part of the Norwegian realm (that was in a personal union with Denmark) until 1814. Technically it was a Norwegian colony (along with the Faroes and Greenland) up until that point.
France should be accepted for Congo, as France controlled the Republic of Congo (Congo-Brazzaville) from 1908 to 1960, while Belgium controlled the Democratic Republic of Congo (Congo-Kinshasa), also from 1908 to 1960.
I feel like Phoenicians should have been an acceptable answer; I don't think Phoenicia was a country like the rest of these are in the modern sense. It was a group of peoples whose territory didn't have well defined borders (as is my understanding).
I think it's the level of administration they had. I'm not knowledgeable about the topic, but I assume that Alaska to the Russians was more like Puerto Rico to the United States. Either way, the time period on this quiz makes it impossible to be the United States.
of people.
On another note, this may be the first time that my very last guess has worked. 0:01 to go with the box showing 100% is almost screenshot-worthy. :P
UK?
Spain?
Portugal?
France?
Belgium?
Netherlands?
Germany?
It's gotta be one of these!
(I'm not saying there is an equivalence, I just don't know where the difference is)