Quizzo News and Notes
- Only One Version of Quizzo This Week! In other words, you can only play once this week. I just have too much stuff to do to get ready for Quizzo Bowl to write up two sets of questions.
- UPDATE: D-Mac to host wild card round at the Bards Thursday night. Should be pretty hilarious.
- Speaking of D-Mac, he and I teamed up with some lovely ladies to finish a disappointing 5th at Irish John's quizzo on Sunday night (that's us dejected, above, after the loss). But I rebounded on Monday, as Gabe and I joined Palestra Jon's team and set a new Dark Horse scoring record, missing only one question (In what country was St. Patrick born? We put Wales, and it was England).
- I will have tickets on me tonight at quizzo, so get your team right and get your tickets tonight.


St. Patrick was born in either southern Scotland or northern England, dependent upon where one draws that line now and/or where one drew the line then. "Britain" should've been a fine answer.
Yeah, I suspect he woulda accept Britain. The question is somewhat flawed. But while he coulda taken Britain, I don't think I can really argue that he shoulda taken Wales.
I did ask him if he would have accepted the UK and he said no.
It's a terrible question because there's no known answer. Sorry QMasterChris, Scotland is almost entirely out, because Padraig was a Romanized Britain and we of Scottish descent are quick to remind others with ancestors from these islands that we never subjected ourselves to Roman authority. Also, there was relative respect for regional tribes within Dal Riata, a kingdom of Padraig's times which geographically covered Ulster and much of the southeast of today's Scotland. I think there's a greater chance it could be Wales, because there seemed greater animosity between now Irish Celtic tribes and now Welsh Celtic tribes. Remember, the first sustained invasion of Ireland circa 1155 was by a Norman-Welsh alliance, although the Irish to this day blame the English.
5 AM postings aren't such a good idea. I meant southwest Scotland when affixing Dal Riata's location using today's countries. Further explanation: I doubt tribes would kidnap and enslave a member of another tribe within the same kingdom. I really believe Scotland is not a choice.
FIFA says there's no such thing as "Great Britain," and when in doubt I defer to their incorruptible authority.
While I am normally quick to take on Dark Horse John's incorruptible (but not always correct) authority, we were going back and forth between England and Wales, so we knew what he was going for and we just got it wrong.
Leaves room for future perfection.
Also, if you'll recall, I didn't say whether or not I would have taken Great Britain from anyone else. Just you guys. (No one else put it, actually, so it didn't come up.) In your case, if you're going for perfection, well, you gotta be perfect.
Also, while the Scotland/England question is SOMEWHAT muddled, Wales is well too far off the mark. How far south "Scotland" might have been considered to go way back when is mildly debatable - and had anyone put it I probably would have accepted Scotland - but Cumbria and it's environs are nowhere near Wales.
Though, again, I know not this "Great Britain" of which you speak.
Adding to the muddle - today's geography or the geography of the times? All in all, a terrible quizzo question. Great Britain was and is an island. Wales, however, is not "well too far of the mark";if needed, I'll direct you to sources as credible as anyother that give Wales far play.
Um, "sorry" Johnni E., but Roman Britain extended well into present-day Scotland by the the 4th century, including areas north of present-day Edinburgh and Glasgow. Check any map, such as http://encarta.msn.com/media_461533976/roman_britain.html
The entirety of present-day Scotland wasn't conquered by the Romans, that much is true. (And how much of that, honestly, was not thinking it was worth it? It's not as if the Roman Empire couldn't have if they set their minds to it...)
In any event there's a hypothesis that Patrick was a synthesis of two different figures, complicating things considerably.
How short-sighted of the Romans to fail to recognize the vast petroleum reserves off the coast of Scotland. There was certainly nothing worthwhile for the Romans in Scotland, but that hadn't stopped them from conquering other peoples with like resouces. Although the Romans certainly explored and won a few battles north of Hadrian's wall, they never established themselves so that a "Romanized Briton" such as Padriag would be born of those parts. Also, Scotland wasn't Scotland until almost 400 years after Padriag. Respectfully, I now bow out of the conversation: I never intended to prove myself more knowledgable than anyone else on this subject - and there have been greatly intelligent responses posted here. I like QMaster Chris' last sentence; then, we agree, it was a terrible quizzo question.