I don't know how many times I've tried "Ithaka", and it wouldn't accept it, then thinking it must be something else. A little more spelling leniency perhaps, please?
Reasonable guess pieced together from bits of information that you had - nothing wrong with that. Most of the names in the Matrix have some mythological, historical, or symbolic meaning behind them, but they are drawn from a large variety of sources.
Great quiz. For Odysseus can I suggest you also accept Mycenian? Culturally he was Mycenian. In the Trojan War for instance all the Greeks there were all Mycenie. But yes, Odysseus was the king of Ithica, so it is correct... though he was most likely a client king.
If you aren't native speaker like myself, it would be much easier if spellings such as itacha were approved. In different languages, pronounciation ja different and hard spellings can be easily missed eventhough the person knows the answer.
Could you maybe accept Abyssinia as well as Ethiopia for Haile Selassie as that was the name while he was in power? We do this as a part of my History course and that is the term we were used, so I kept trying different spellings before I thought to try Ethiopia!
eh..... no, not really. Though in contemporary usage, "nation" and "state" have become synonymous.... largely because the concept of nationalism has become so pervasive that virtually ALL countries in the world consider themselves "nation states"... the idea of a "nation" comes from the concept of nationalism which only emerged in the early 19th century. This was the concept that there existed groups of people- connected through common heritage, language, religion, history, geography and/or genetics (an ethnicity, in other words)... and that these groups of people- "nations"- were entitled to self-rule by one of their own.
This was in stark contrast to what was the rule of the day and had been for most of history- which was that people were organized into multi-ethnic kingdoms/empires/principalities ruled over by monarchs and emperors that more often than not shared little in common with their subjects.
So... nationalism is a new concept. Relatively speaking. Even though everyone these days has been conditioned to take it for granted. And even though, at a fundamental level, the idea is complete bullpoop.
City-states, on the other hand, were more of a thing in ancient history. Back when the limitations of bureaucracy, infrastructure and communications technology made it much more practical most of the time for cities to be locally governed. Today we are left with only a handful but from antiquity up through the 19th century- right around when nationalism as an idea was catching on, in fact- there were tons.
How about Scots for Robert the Bruce ? He's often referred to as King of the Scots. (I know there's only a small step to get to Scotland, but it would help me forgive myself for not taking said step. I might be taking these quizzes too seriously...)
No she wasn't. She was just Queen of England & Ireland. Wales was considered a part of England, while Scotland was added via the Acts of Union in 1707. In fact James VI of Scotland would inherit the English/Irish throne from Elizabeth thereby becoming James I of England & Ireland.
She was also Queen of France, by title. The monarchs of England/Great Britain didn't give up their claim to the French throne until after the French Revolution.
For the record, Napoleon was also King of Italy, Mediator of the Swiss Confederation, Protector of the Confederation of the Rhine and Co-Prince of Andorra. Also later Sovereign of the Isle of Elba. If we're being pedantic, Italy, Switzerland, the Confederation of the Rhine (arguably 'Germany'), Andorra and Elba should work.
Ferdinand and Isabella were not kings of Spain ... Ferdinand was king of Aragon and never of Castile, and Isabella was queen of Castile and never of Aragon. There was no Spain at the time.
There was more than one Cosimo de' Medici. And several of them were Grand Dukes of Tuscany, so for Cosimo de' Medici, Tuscany/Toscana should be accepted.
it still annoys me that "ithaka" isn't a valid type-in for "ithaca", considering that they are both valid romanizations of the greek name of the island
It might upset some people, but Solomon is about as apocryphal as Odysseus. There's little evidence a united Israel kingdom ever existed, similar to the evidence that the Trojan War occurred as written.
Delighted that HRE was understood and accepted for Otto. Chagrined that after making the effort to type in Austro-Hungarian for Franz-Joseph, only "Austria" was needed. Perhaps while either should be accepted, the revealed answer should give the full name.
BTW--agree with those who for years have said "Ithaka" should be accepted. If the reference is to the home of Cornell University, the "c" would be required. But the c/k variation in Greek names is a matter of transliteration. If strict accuracy is required, then Ιθάκη would be the only acceptable answer.
What do you think the "state" in "city-state" means?
This was in stark contrast to what was the rule of the day and had been for most of history- which was that people were organized into multi-ethnic kingdoms/empires/principalities ruled over by monarchs and emperors that more often than not shared little in common with their subjects.
City-states, on the other hand, were more of a thing in ancient history. Back when the limitations of bureaucracy, infrastructure and communications technology made it much more practical most of the time for cities to be locally governed. Today we are left with only a handful but from antiquity up through the 19th century- right around when nationalism as an idea was catching on, in fact- there were tons.
BTW--agree with those who for years have said "Ithaka" should be accepted. If the reference is to the home of Cornell University, the "c" would be required. But the c/k variation in Greek names is a matter of transliteration. If strict accuracy is required, then Ιθάκη would be the only acceptable answer.