Historically Inadequate Trivia Quiz

Answer: George A. Custer

Custer was undoubtedly a brave man; perhaps too brave. He had a good battle record in the Civil War, and up to this point in the Indian Wars. Had he had a greater respect for his enemies, he might have done better. (And also, had he properly valued the accurate information his scouts reported; and had he refrained from dividing his forces in hostile territory, and from assuming that his own battle plan would go unchallenged.) In the end he, and every man under his direct command, were wiped out at the Little Big Horn.
J.E.B. Stuart was a Confederate cavalry general in the American Civil War.
McClellan is best remembered for the McClellan saddle.
Crook delivered an average performance in the Apache Wars.

Answer: Neville Chamberlain

The Munich Agreement (between France, Germany, Britain and Italy) was an attempt to buy Hitler off by letting him have the Sudetenland - the economic and defensive mainstay region of Czechoslovakia - if Hitler would promise to be satisfied with that. Czechoslovakia (today the Czech Republic and Slovakia) was not consulted.
On 30 September 1938 Neville Chamberlain announced to crowds outside Buckingham Palace that he had secured "peace for our time".
In fact, Hitler regarded Chamberlain - and the Agreement - with contempt. Within six months Hitler had effectively annexed the remainder of Czechoslovakia, and almost exactly 11 months after the Munich Agreement, on 1 September 1939, Hitler's Germany invaded Poland. Britain declared war on Germany, honouring their treaty with Poland (and by now realising that Hitler would have to be stopped by force), two days later, on the 3rd September, 1939.
Asquith, MacDonald and Churchill all served as Prime Minister in the first half of the 20th Century.

Answer: Phyrrus of Epirus

Pyrrhus took on the Romans - not an easy task. He won some early victories, but his victorious battle at Aesculum came at such a great cost that his military force was effectively gutted. "One more such victory," said Pyrrhus (loosely translated), "and I will be utterly defeated."
In fact Pyrrhus later successfully took Eryx, but his next great battle against the Romans was at Beneventum, which ended inconclusively. However, his army was now so weakened that he was forced to withdraw fom Italy.
Pyrrhus, at the Battle of Aesculum, gave us the modern term "a Phyrric victory", which means a victory won at such a crippling cost that the winner is effectively taken out of play, and the term is now used in many more fields than the military.
Leonidas I of Sparta commanded at Thermopylae against Persia, a long time earlier.
Alexander Papagos fought the Germans in World War II.

Answer: King John of England

"Bad King John" was a real fan of cold, hard cash. Especially when he began his reign by losing so many provinces, notably in France. Taxing the poor was proving rather unsuccessful, since they didn't have much to start with. So he came up with the idea of taxing the rich instead.
Now the rich, generally, were nobles of the realm, each of whom maintained a personal military force, for the policing and protection of their domains. They ranged from barons with not much more than a personal guard of say, ten or twenty knights and a hundred or so peasant infantry (provided it was not harvest season), up to Dukes and Earls who could each call up forces comprising hundreds of knights, thousands of archers, and ten or twenty thousand footsoldiers. The English nobles were, to put it mildly, not terribly pleased with John's new tax deal. In fact, siding with an invading French king, they hounded him right out of office as king, first forcing him to sign the Magna Carta (the Great Charter, by which England took a great step toward becoming a constitutional rather than an absolute monarchy), and within a year after that John was fleeing for his life. To avoid a rebel strongpoint, John tried to cross a marshy area by the seaside, but lost the crown jewels to an incoming tide. This was the last straw for him and he went mad, got sick, and died.
Richard I was John's brother and rival; he spent too much time away at the Crusades.
Edward the Confessor was much earlier; prior to the Norman Conquest.
King Arthur is a legend; the facts are lost in the myths of time.

Answer: Pieter Willem Botha

PW Botha was not an easy man to get along with, nor one to yield to pressure. In 1985, he was widely expected - and privately urged - to make some significant conciliatory gestures to the anti-Apartheid movement, including, for example, to release Nelson Mandela. From Foreign Minister 'Pik' (no relation) Botha's 1998 testimony before the Truth and Reconciliation Committee, it would appear that in 1985 there was already significant support within the President's own National Party for such moves. President Botha's view of the Rubicon differed from everyone else's:
the Rubicon he was crossing led only to a stubborn last stand for Apartheid. PW Botha had to retire in 1989 after a stroke, but had showed no signs of moderating or modifying his position. FW De Klerk, who succeeded him as President, by contrast, recognised the inevitable, released Nelson Mandela, and negotiated a transfer of power to a democratic majority - and incidentally picked up a joint Nobel Peace Prize (1993) which he shared with 'Madiba' (Mandela's affectionate national nickname).
Note: The original Rubicon was a river, the crossing of which Julius Caesar recognised as an irrevocable commitment to his course of action.
Hendrik Verwoerd was the architect of Apartheid, and Prime Minister (not President) in the early 1960s.

Answer: Arthur Zimmerman

Fearing that in spite of American determination to avoid being drawn into the war, the USA would soon have to become involved (when the Germans escalated to unrestricted submarine warfare), Arthur Zimmerman, German Foreign Minister, hatched a plan to distract America by having to fight Mexico. In January 1917 he sent a coded telegram to Mexico in which he proposed that Mexico should declare war on America with the aim of reclaiming former Mexican territories in the USA (Texas, New Mexico and Arizona), and for which Germany would pay their war expenses. Unfortunately for Zimmerman, British intelligence obtained a copy of the telegram and successfully decoded it, communicating their discovery to America on 24 February. The Germans were forced to confess that it was genuine, and this played a major part in bringing the USA into World War I against Germany soon afterwards.
The Mexicans, not being that stupid, had anyway ignored the proposal.
Woodrow Wilson made a public announcement on the telegram on 1 March 1917, which caused outrage across America. The USA declared war on Germany on 6 April, just over a month later - just the opposite of the result Zimmerman had aimed for. The Zimmerman telegram is regarded as one of the greatest diplomatic gaffes of history.
Erich Ludendorff was a military commander in World War I;
Joachim von Ribbentrop and Joseph Goebbels were, respectively, Hitler's Foreign Minister and Propaganda Minister during World War II.

Answer: General Sir George Colley

Colley was not the only bad British commander, but his was the most critical loss. The 1st Anglo-Boer war can be summarised thus:
The Transvaal Republic declares its independence. Lt.Col. Anstruther at once marches on Pretoria with the 94th Foot. He is met, asked politely to turn back, and equally politely refuses. The Boers then open fire from ambush, immediately inflicting over 50% casualties on the British force, which surrenders. British forts in the Transvaal are then all besieged. Colley responds (after issuing an ultimatum, but without waiting for any reinforcements) by marching towards the Transvaal from Natal with a force of around 1200 men. On reaching the border, he fights the battle of Laing's Nek (outnumbered twice over, losing, and suffering about 200 casualties), and a month later occupies Majuba Hill with a force of about 400 men during the night. The Boers use their superior marksmanship and outstanding tactics to take it away from him, Colley losing about 70% of his men and his own life in the process. The British have had enough. Gladstone is not prepared to expend the money or military resources in regaining control of a territory whose citizens plainly do not want British government. Peace breaks out.
Note: Given the facts that Colley's troops were veterans at fighting indigenous guerillas, and were armed as well as their opponents, military historians attribute the rout of Majuba primarily to Colley's poor decisions and leadership. Colley was so confused about what was going on that at one point during the battle he signalled that the Boers were in retreat!
The incorrect choices are all from the 2nd Anglo-Boer War (1899-1902), not the first: Roberts was one the Victorian era's great generals; Buller was another bonehead, if with bulldog determination, and De Wet was a wily campaigner for the other side.

Answer: King Guy of Lusignan

Saladin, the famous Saracen leader, hatched a plan to lure King Guy of Lusignan (of the Kingdom of Jerusalem) away from his strong defensive positions at Jerusalem (where Guy had abundant water) and into open battle in a desert area. So Saladin besieged Tiberias. Even Raymond of Tripoli, who 'owned' Tiberias (and whose wife was caught in the siege there) was among the many who advised Guy to sit tight. King Guy ignored all advice and marched against Saladin, for some reason continuing to advance from his last water source when he did not have enough time to get to more water without first defeating Saladin. To cut a long story short, his thirsty troops were easily defeated by Saladin's Saracens near Tiberias in the Battle of Hittin (aka Hattin), the Crusaders' military power was broken in the region, and Saladin went on to take Jerusalem with relative ease.
Richard I's efforts in the Holy Land were severely handicapped by King Guy's mistake.
Edward II's main battles were with the Scots.
In the movie, 'Kingdom of Heaven' the history is somewhat deformed, but the essential actions of King Guy, Saladin, and the aftermath of the Battle of Hittin, are reasonably well represented.

Answer: Mandarins of the Ming Dynasty, in China

The Mandarins governing Chinese provinces during the Muromachi period (mid 14th C to late 16th Century) were fed up with constant raids and attacks from what they saw as Japanese "barbarians". They had a bright idea - instead of fighting endless battles against these raiders, why not just disarm them by buying their swords from them? It turns out the Japanese craftsmen could make as many swords as the Chinese cared to buy - yet the Mandarins' policy was kept in place for over 250 years!
British magistrates only appeared in the late 19th Century.
Communism did not appear in China until the 20th Century.
Bhuddists practiced poverty, and would not have had the funds to sustain such a policy.

Answer: All of these

Conceived, planned and executed by the CIA, at the instigation of General Eisenhower and with the approval of President Kennedy, the horribly flawed plan made use of internal Cuban dissidents, Cuban exiles and American servicemen (mostly airmen) and equipment. Ignoring that fact that the upcoming 'secret' invasion was announced as imminent by Radio Moscow, broadcasting in English, just four days before launching the attack, it went ahead anyway.

The Cubans, as we all know, trashed the invasion, seriously embarrassing the USA and the Kennedy administration. One of the results of this fiasco was it caused the Russians to misread Kennedy's decisiveness, and thus led almost directly to the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962.

It is fair to say that, in all likelihood, had there been no Bay of Pigs, there would have been no Cuban Missile Crisis. Kennedy and Eisenhower had many good qualities and made many better decisions at other times (I am less confident of the CIA!), but in this instance their judgement was certainly not equal to the standard of historical adequacy.

Answer: Napoleon Bonaparte

Napoleon led his Grand Army of 600 000 men to Moscow. The Russians emptied the city of valuables, evacuated, and torched it. There was nothing to eat, drink or wear in the bitter cold. By the time Napoleon had marched back to France, he had lost 500 000 men.
Frederick the Great was probably smarter (or less arrogant) than Napoleon, but in any case he had died in 1786.
Attila the Hun rampaged over Europe in the final years of the Roman Empire, but never invaded Russia.
Genghis Khan invaded Europe from the East, about 600 years before Napoleon's day, but penetrated no more than the southern half of what is Russia today, and that more in passing than as a direct invasion.

Answer: Adolf Hitler

Having learned absolutely nothing from Napoleon's experience, and not yet having defeated the British, whether by conquest of England or any of Britain's colonial empire, and not yet having achieved victory in North Africa, Hitler decided to go to war on a second front: Operation Barbarossa. The sheer size of Russia, the bitter winter climate, the enormous numbers of troops who could be thrown in his way - as for Napoleon, so for Hitler.
Himmler was responsible for the German Reich's internal security, not for invasion of anywhere.
Mussolini, the Italian Fascist dictator, was entirely too concerned with his African adventures to be bothering with Russia.
De Gaulle was the leader of the Free French, in exile in 1941, and only interested in kicking the Germans out of France.

Answer: Bonnie Prince Charlie

Whatever misty-eyed Scots romantics may believe, 'Bonnie' Prince Charlie was never made of the stuff of adequacy.
He was barely even Scottish! Born and raised in Italy, he was by bloodline perhaps 1/16 of Scots descent, the remainder being Polish, Italian, French and German (in descending proportion). However, he was at least a Roman Catholic, and his surname was Stuart, so he was the only viable candidate for the Jacobite cause. (Jacobites were interested in restoring the Stuart line to the British throne, and many wanted to restore Roman Catholicism in Britain.) In 1745, having failed to obtain the promised French army in support, this proper Charlie went ahead and invaded anyway, landing at Eriskay with seven (7) companions. Scottish Jacobites rose in support, and some early successes were won, in Scotland at least. However, when he attempted to march south into England, the English Jacobites remained unmoved, and he was forced to withdraw back into Scotland. The Duke of Cumberland brought him to battle at Culloden, where Charlie directed matters (badly) from the back of the field, and then ran away when things went wrong. He fled, via Skye, back to France. Apart from a single, brief, visit incognito to London, where he pretended to convert to Protestantism, he spent the remainder of his life dreaming of one day returning to claim the Stuart throne, drinking heavily, and consorting with a number of different women, whether or not he was married to them.
Robert the Bruce was a Norman noble with a very pragmatic - and effective - approach to politics; he became one of Scotland's great kings.
Rob Roy was not a royal; more of a cattle rustler and Robin Hood type.
William Wallace was a freeholder whose outrage at English atrocities drove him to lead a Scottish rebellion. Mel Gibson portrayed his story in 'Braveheart'.

Answer: The Magistrates of Antwerp

In 1584, Antwerp was in deep trouble. It was during the Dutch War of Independence and The Duke of Parma, Alexander Farnese, was besieging the city. Fortunately, the Duke was not particularly strong at sea, and blockade runners were able to continue to supply the city with food, more or less indefinitely. Of course, food prices do tend to go up in a siege, so the Antwerp magistrates decided to cap the price of gain. Turns out the blockade runners weren't prepared to go on taking risks if they weren't going to make any money out of it, so they stopped bringing in the grub. Starving, Antwerp was forced to surrender in the following year. The magistrates never reviewed their decision to fix prices???
Note: Modern national boundaries tended to be more flexible back then. Antwerp was for a brief time a Dutch city (in fact, the capital of the Dutch Revolt) during the Dutch War of Independence, until taken by the Duke of Parma.
The "Captains of Amsterdam" and the "Merchants of Utrecht" are made up names.
The Burghers of Calais are historical figures of defeat, and Calais is in France, not the Netherlands. Auguste Rodin's great sculpture is well worth seeing.

Answer: Emperor Joseph II of Austria

The Emperor Joseph II decided to attack Turkey. He began by encamping his army of well over 100 000 men in a marsh, and suffered some tens of thousands of casualties to malaria. He advanced with the remaining 100 000 towards Karansebes, with mounted scouts ahead of the main force probing for the Turks. These hussars encountered some gypsies, who offered to sell them schnapps - an offer which was eagerly accepted. Some infantry arrived at the party, and there was a dispute over who was or was not entitled to drink. One imagines that by now the hussars were not real reasonable. The details are not that clear, but a fight broke out, and shots were fired. Some soldiers assumed that they had located the enemy and began to cry out, "The Turks! The Turks!" The inebriated hussars thought the Turks had arrived, and fled back through the lines. Other cries arose, and since there were at least three major language groups in the great army, many of these cries were misunderstood. The fleeing hussars may have been mistaken for a Turkish cavalry charge, and some units tried to engage them, while others, probably hit by stray shots from these units, engaged units firing on them, as they thought. In the end the entire army broke and ran for it. When the Ottoman Turks finally did arrive, two days later, they found about 10 000 Austrian casualties on the field of 'battle'.
Perhaps "Historically Inadequate" is rather too mild a description!
The supplied red herrings are genuine historical figures, but of an earlier time period.