Random trivia
- Thread starter StrangerInAStrangeLand
- Start date
A
Anonymous
Guest
I'll let somebody else ask the next one- I can't think of anything right now.
You'll have to clarify your question. Do you mean "author" in the literary sense (e.g. Fitzgerald or Atwood) or in the academic sense (e.g. an economist like Galbraith?)?
Greatest is a subjective term - what is deemed great by you is probably complete shite to me. Simply winning a Nodel Prize, as a matter of fact, is no measure of greatness. It's a measure of meeting the criteria set forth by the prize's governing bodies. And that says nothing of the fields of study for which Alfred Nobel decided not to support with his endowment: mathematics, history, philosophy, etc.
The greatest author of the last century, in my opinion, to never recieve the King of Sweden's honour is the great French historian of the Annales school Fernand Braudel.
Greatest is a subjective term - what is deemed great by you is probably complete shite to me. Simply winning a Nodel Prize, as a matter of fact, is no measure of greatness. It's a measure of meeting the criteria set forth by the prize's governing bodies. And that says nothing of the fields of study for which Alfred Nobel decided not to support with his endowment: mathematics, history, philosophy, etc.
The greatest author of the last century, in my opinion, to never recieve the King of Sweden's honour is the great French historian of the Annales school Fernand Braudel.
Ah, see, that is why the word 'probably' is in there. Furthermore, it isn't my opinion, it is the Time's opinion, which, granted, doesn't make it any less subjective, but does lend the statement some authority. 
I meant an author of fiction, like Marquez, for example.
I meant an author of fiction, like Marquez, for example.
Anomica
Trooper
The problem with the Nobel prize for literature is that for the last 10 years or so, the committee seems to sit down, think hard about an author nobody every really heard of, and then award the prize to the most obscure, "arty" author they can think of. It's never a matter of popularity or quality in the common sense of the word, it's a matter of the cultural elite legitimizing their place on top of the heap. In my ever so humble opinion...
A
Anonymous
Guest
Me? 
NO, not you Maverick! Ok, since nobody has any suggestions, I shall reveal the answer: Jorge Luis Borges, the author of the short story collection Labyrinths.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Forostar said:
It was a different question two minutes ago...
A
Anonymous
Guest
England?
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Maverick said:
I am new to this game, so I am not sure if I could say the answer already.
Anyway, here it is:
*drumfills, drumfills*
It's Holland, or the so called Dutch republic....
I admit that the term superpower could be interpretated in different ways, though.
It might sound unbelievable what this little country had done around that time, so here an explanation (of course copied from the internet, forgive me for that):
During the 17th century the Dutch republic was involved with countless of wars, many of them at sea. The main goal of the Dutch navy was to protect the trade routes and protecting Dutch soil....
...In the course of the 17th century Dutch wealth and maritime expansion was the source of much envy across Europe, but especially in England. When they announced the act of navigation, which damaged Dutch traders in London, tensions became high. During the First Anglo-Dutch War English fleet operations were fixed on blocking the Dutch merchant fleet, an example of this is the battle of Dungeness in December 1652, in which Maarten Tromp was able to keep the channel open for Dutch trade. In the second Anglo-Dutch War 5 major battles took place, nearly all of them on English territory. It was during this period that the battle of Chatham (1667) took place, arguably the worst naval defeat in English history until this very day. The third Anglo-Dutch war was in fact a conspiracy between France, England, Cologne and Munster to attack the Netherlands and destroy the Dutch republic as the world’s superpower. Although the Dutch fleet was the largest of the world at the time, the combined fleet of France and England quickly put the Dutch in a defensive position, but due to the tactical brilliance of Michiel de Ruyter, they managed to inflict so much damage to both fleets during the Dutch nation's zero-hour that the offensive capabilities of France and England were reduced to almost nothing....etc. etc.
....And "all" Holland did was trading.. :--/
Can you imagine that in the 21th century the rich Switzerland would be attacked by France, England and Germany? Only because Switzerland is so rich?
;--)
A
Anonymous
Guest
Forostar said:
* Grabs his gun and looks for more ammo *
I'm ready.
A
Anonymous
Guest
No need to attack, the invasion has begun already. It's amazing to see the high number of Dutch cars on our roads... mostly the little mountain roads where the poor buggers are scared like shit to drive over 30 Km/h -- and get even more scared when they see me in their rearview mirror arriving at... a substantially higher speed!
I don't think the Dutch Republic would've constituted a "Super power" in the true sense of the word. It definately was a major player in international affairs (mainly through the VOC), and definately "punched above its weight." But a super power? Nah.
France and the Ottoman Empire were the only true Super Powers at the time. Spain's power, although still mighty, was on a slow decline. England was too busy getting its king's head chopped off t do much internationally.
France and the Ottoman Empire were the only true Super Powers at the time. Spain's power, although still mighty, was on a slow decline. England was too busy getting its king's head chopped off t do much internationally.