"The world's first of these opened in London in 1863" is, I feel, a fair question. "The world's first of these opened
in Bologna in 1088" is not. It's getting on for a thousand years ago, so there isn't much of a context for people to latch onto. I think it needs a better clue. Possibly 67% of people might agree.
Got 100% but had to think on some for a second. And, in spite of just finishing a biography on Josef Stalin I had to guess completely on that one. Don't recall hearing it before. But the guy had a ton of different nicknames so maybe that one just got lost in the shuffle.
Very good quiz. Just one thing: Bologna is not the oldest university 'in the World', as the universities of al-Azhar in Cairo and Qarawiyin in Fez predate Bologna by more than a century (and were a model Bologna followed) and are still thriving. Bologna is the oldest university in Europe, though.
The older universities weren't universities (in the modern sense of the word). Here's what Wikipedia says:
Other institutions of higher learning, such as those of ancient Greece, ancient Persia, ancient Rome, Byzantium, ancient China, ancient India and the Islamic world, are not included in this list owing to their cultural, historical, structural and juristic dissimilarities from the medieval European university from which the modern university evolved.
I think that is a wee bit of a cop out. If the modern university is based on the European medieval institutional model (which I think is too narrow a claim to make with credibility), then it would still improve the clue to read "the oldest European university" or even European-style. That way, the truth of these other places as institutions of higher learning and scholarly discourse are not unnecessarily marginalized by yet another European-focus.
That's a typical western bias. Muslims had large schools that were in many ways similar to European universities, but the Christians like to believe that they invented them. Of course, in the middle ages, these schools mostly teached religious stuff, but the muslim ones were clearly the most open-minded at the time.
The one in Morroco is recognized as the first, and still functions as a University today. Probably doesn't fit the narrative of the discourse though... especially since it was founded by a woman.
For example: both cathedrals and mosques are places of worship, but if a particular cathedral predated a particular mosque, you wouldn't say that cathedral is an older mosque. They're both very similar in purpose, but they're not one in the same.
There's enough difference to warrant distinction, and that's what's happening here. Without establishing some basic definitions, though, it's hard to take the conversation much further.
Stalin tried to conquer my country Finland in WWII with his million army (didn't succeed) and he was called nickname "Isä aurinkoinen" (which means "Father sunny") here in Finland. Never heard about Uncle Joe, but thats my shame.
People call the USA a separate country when it's really a body consisting of 50 different states, some of which were former countries, although Texas and Hawaii aren't allowed to send their own teams to world sporting events. The Netherlands is called a country even though it also includes Aruba, Curacao, and Sint Maarten. People think the UK is a country because it is.
The Netherlands is also a Kingdom. Aruba, Curacao and Sint Maarten are countries within the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The Netherlands Country consists of the Netherlands on the European Continent and Bonaire, St. Eustatius (Statia) and Saba in the Caribbean Sea.
It does make it strange when the UK can send any of its four constituent countries to the Olympics, World Cup, etc., but other countries can't send their states/provinces, etc., only their dependencies/external territories.
but they don't. Oddly the UK sends just one team to the olympics and for some reason they call it Team GB but it includes athletes from Northern Ireland which is not part of Great Britain. As the Americans say, 'go figure'.
Team GB was actually named in honour of ex-Prime Minister Gordon Brown, such was his universally acclaimed status as an iconic national treasure and political titan.
There was definitely a temple in Uppsala, but as I understand it, there's only one account of human sacrifices there and archaeologists doubt it.
I also find it really amusing that your main association with Uppsala is "pagan human sacrifice" and mine is "kind of annoying to get to because train services from Stockholm end early".
in Bologna in 1088" is not. It's getting on for a thousand years ago, so there isn't much of a context for people to latch onto. I think it needs a better clue. Possibly 67% of people might agree.
For example: both cathedrals and mosques are places of worship, but if a particular cathedral predated a particular mosque, you wouldn't say that cathedral is an older mosque. They're both very similar in purpose, but they're not one in the same.
There's enough difference to warrant distinction, and that's what's happening here. Without establishing some basic definitions, though, it's hard to take the conversation much further.
I also find it really amusing that your main association with Uppsala is "pagan human sacrifice" and mine is "kind of annoying to get to because train services from Stockholm end early".