Yea unlike with some people/countries, it isnt advertised/emphasized that they are from a certain country. It is more about the person than their nationality.
I've read that he was often misunderstood... but it would be a big discussion, what his essence really was... for example, it is or was often believed that he was for autocracy, but in fact he saw this as a necessary evil before a state could grow into a republic. But okay, it's a quiz ;-)
It seems to be fairly widely understood by scholars (if not the general public) that The Prince was meant as a takedown of the Medicis, i.e. thinly-veiled satire. Its contents were not consistent with what is otherwise known of Machievelli's views, and the Medicis sure made his life a living hell.
It has been a while since a read it. It did not seem to me satirical. He did seem to be earnestly arguing that bad actions can bring about good outcomes in certain circumstances. I believe the example he uses is that a ruler might use cruel violence to dissuade dissent and rebellion, allowing the longer term stability which will actually allow things to get better. Anyway, my memory could be bad or the translation I read could have been biased...
Indeed he never wrote those words. The closest thing is a footnote by Napoleon in the edition supposedly annotated by him (more likely it was British propaganda forged right after Waterloo). I forget what the exact phrase was.
Regarding the spirit of the phrase being in the content of the book, not exactly. As I understand it, Machiavelli argued that, once an end is achieved, the means to have reached it are justified. But if the end isn't achieved, then they aren't. In other words, the legitimacy is derived upon succesful conclusion of the action, not its initiation. A fine distinction, but an important one.
As for the purpose of the book itself, I wasn't aware of the satiric interpretation, which is interesting. The interpretation I got when I studied it was that it was a way to ingratiate himself with Lorenzo De Medici to get a job after he was ousted from public service with the fall of the Republic. And yes, he was a republican through and through.
The quiz was pretty good, but I am going to be a little picky for a second. Caesar and Augustus are not Italians, they are Romans. That is a very big difference. The Roman empire just happened to be centralized in what is now Italy for a while.
Over all though, good quiz, I barely got any of the more modern names.
Sorry but he's right. Considering Roman emperors as Italians is a huge anachronism. Like saying Charlemagne was French/German. They lived in a completely different world, they're nothing more than romans. We need to stop looking in the past with modern eyes, even though it's tempting
We're not looking at history through a modern lens, we're contextualizing. Everyone knows Augustus and Caesar were Roman and not Italian, but that doesn't change that they're Italian figures due to the fact that they built what eventually became Italy. You don't have to nitpick everything.
You misspelled "fascist" as "facist". Also, the first king of Italy was Odoacer, almost 1400 years before the person mentioned in the quiz. Odoacer was Germanic, so yes, the first king of Italy wasn't Italian. I think the question should be replaced.
I'm afraid you're right, there were many "kings of Italy" (or Rex Italiae in latin) between the 5th et the 16th century. However, since this refers to the unification of Italy in the 19th century, I suggest to say "First king of modern Italy" or "First king of unified Italy", something like that.
So let me get this straight: you include Roberto Benigni but neglect Fellini, Antonioni, Visconti, De Sica, Rossellini, Olmi, Pontecorvo, Tornatore and Leone. One of the greatest film countries in the world represented by... Roberto Benigni. Okay.
I'm pretty sure that Amerigo Vespucci was not a map maker but rather his friend who named the land ,that Vespucci had a wrongfully claimed, "America." in fact Amerigo had never really been to the New World he only wrote fantastic fiction about what he found there. Basically the americas were named after a liar. History cracks me up!
Vespucci WAS a map maker AND an explorer who actually WENT to the Americas and helped conceive the fact that they were indeed a new continent and not part of the Indies.
Your're maybe referring to Marco Polo, whose commentary on his voyages to China were transcripted by a fellow inmate in the prison of Genua. His story ("Il Milione") was very much fantasy, but he actually was there and lived and worked there for years.
I dunno. He said that he'd watch my laptop in Starbucks when I went to the bathroom. I got back and he's standing in line not even looking at it. Seems like a liar to me.
it is somewhat comforting that Berlusconi is way down the top guessed list, definitely not the best sponsor of Italy in the world. I liked your clue anyway.
christopehr himself was born 1451 in genoa, italy, being an italian, but apparently his parents were portuguese and polish, so maybe that's what you mean. ultimately, he was italian though.
I mean, with the PiS party in charge I think they actually do teach that Columbus was Polish in some parts of Poland B. At least from two cases I know this to be the case, but I don't know if that's only anecdotal evidence or part of a bigger pciture.
One woman?? Out of 20? Here are some of you want to add some: Donatella Versace, Isabella Rosselini, I reckon Catherine is more famous than Lorenzo (Medici), Hortensia, Maria Montessori, Monica Bellucci to name a few!
Regarding the spirit of the phrase being in the content of the book, not exactly. As I understand it, Machiavelli argued that, once an end is achieved, the means to have reached it are justified. But if the end isn't achieved, then they aren't. In other words, the legitimacy is derived upon succesful conclusion of the action, not its initiation. A fine distinction, but an important one.
As for the purpose of the book itself, I wasn't aware of the satiric interpretation, which is interesting. The interpretation I got when I studied it was that it was a way to ingratiate himself with Lorenzo De Medici to get a job after he was ousted from public service with the fall of the Republic. And yes, he was a republican through and through.
Over all though, good quiz, I barely got any of the more modern names.
Also Charlemagne is very much considered French.
Your're maybe referring to Marco Polo, whose commentary on his voyages to China were transcripted by a fellow inmate in the prison of Genua. His story ("Il Milione") was very much fantasy, but he actually was there and lived and worked there for years.
So no, Americas were NOT named after a liar.
Disappointment
The first practical radio transmitters and receivers were developed around 1895-6 by Italian Guglielmo Marconi