What's up with the Holy Roman Empire? To understand this era in history, you have to realize that the modern nation-state hadn't really been invented yet.
The Holy Roman Empire, famously, was neither holy, Roman, nor an empire.
It wasn't really a country in the sense that we have countries today. At one point, there were over a thousand quasi-independent states within the empire, some as small as a single village.
Some kingdoms, like Austria, had territory both within and outside of the HRE.
So don't ask for us to include the HRE. It just doesn't make sense.
Nice quiz thank you - but you're early on Great Britain. No such thing until 1707. Before then it was England (apart from a very brief period under the Commonwealth).
This has been fixed. It's a bit complicated since, though England and Scotland were technically separate, they had the same monarch. The area listed includes the entirety of Great Britain as well as Ireland.
It's 1700, not 1600 - by this time England had already beheaded a king for getting above himself. Although the monarch(s) in 1700 had much more political influence than they do today, it's not right to say that they simply ruled the country - it was more an continual battle of wills between them and the English and Scottish Parliaments. The last royal veto of an Act of Parliament was only in 1708, and even that was on the advice of ministers.
i agree on piedmont, since it is present also on the map cited as source. On the contrary, Sardinia would be incorrect because the savoy dukes were granted possession of the kingdom of sardinia only in 1720
Yes, I put Piedmont too... all rather confusing! I also got muddled about when the Netherlands became independent and didn't even bother trying it. Duh.
I don't understand why England and Scotland are counted together since they were separate countries until the Act of Union (1707), yes they had the same Monarch, at the time William III and Mary II, but they had different institution, for example in 1707 there had been the first election for the Great Britain parliament, before that there were two parliaments.
They weren't. The principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia, as well as the Republic of Ragusa, were vassals of the Ottoman Empire, but not part of the empire itself. They were probably counted as part of the Ottoman-controlled world for the purposes of this quiz, but they most definitely weren't part of the Ottoman Empire itself.
Good thing that Austria works, Habsburg Dynasty is correct as it's name. But Spain was also controlled by its own branch of the Habsburg family. (The last one died in november of 1700 and got replaced by a Bourbon). And that's a bit confusing.
Yes, although prior to the formation of the Austrian Empire in 1804, all the Habsburg realms (those under the Austrian branch, that is) were nominally independent countries that just happened to be in personal union. So technically the Archduchy of Austria, the kingdoms of Hungary, Croatia and Bohemia, and the Duchies of Silesia were all separate countries in 1700.
Please accept Piedmont, not just Savoy. Should have gotten that early on, especially since it's practiced elsewhere: Brandenburg-Prussia, Denmark-Norway, Poland-Lithuania.
I don't have a problem with you including England & Scotland as one country since they were ruled by the same monarch. But could I ask that Scotland be removed from brackets as the wording makes it seem as if Scotland was part of England.
I actually missed the Ottoman Empire. Not that I've never heard of it, but it just didn't spring to mind. Imagine 300 years from people not thinking of the USA as one of the great world powers.
I'm not trying to start a debate about whether it is or isn't a great country, but just thinking about what the future will look like. How many dynasties and empires thought they would live on forever only to be nearly forgotten after only a few hundred years?
I know I'm being the world's biggest pedant here, and I'm not even sure if this actually warrants changing, but Spain technically wasn't a single country until the Nueva Planta degrees of 1707-1716, and even then the unified kingdom didn't yet include Galicia, Navarre or the Basque Lordships.
But seeing as you went for the entirety of Spanish-ruled Europe here (including Naples, Milan and the Southern Netherlands), it might be best to just change the one answer to "Spanish realms" or something similar, instead of separating them all into different answers.
The Holy Roman Empire, famously, was neither holy, Roman, nor an empire.
It wasn't really a country in the sense that we have countries today. At one point, there were over a thousand quasi-independent states within the empire, some as small as a single village.
Some kingdoms, like Austria, had territory both within and outside of the HRE.
So don't ask for us to include the HRE. It just doesn't make sense.
PS: Nice Quiz! :-)
I'm not trying to start a debate about whether it is or isn't a great country, but just thinking about what the future will look like. How many dynasties and empires thought they would live on forever only to be nearly forgotten after only a few hundred years?
But seeing as you went for the entirety of Spanish-ruled Europe here (including Naples, Milan and the Southern Netherlands), it might be best to just change the one answer to "Spanish realms" or something similar, instead of separating them all into different answers.