The final jeopardy question today was: “From 1894-1901 the group managed to kill the heads of state of France, Spain, the United States, and Great Britian (I think)” The answer was Anarchists (sorry if this ruined it for anyone). What I am wondering about is how come I have never heard of this before (apparently none of the contestants had either)? What ever came of this? Were other attempts made on leaders? Wouldn’t the scheme have to be fairly elaborate to accomplish this so doesn’t that partially go against anarchy? Basically I am curious as to anything you can tell me to fight my ignorance.
I wonder how they got that question to fit in a little box?
The final jeopardy is an answer, not a question. What is your question? Is it about Trial of the Thirty?
Hmm, a little slick there Alex.
Calling anarchists a group is at best misleading. I haven’t seen any evidence that these people knew each other existed, much less acted as a part of an organized group. As a political philosophy, each of the assasins may have been able to claim anarchy, but it’s not like it was part of an international conspiracy.
The only info I have to add is that Sacco and Vanzetti were Anarchists, FWIW.
Okay, one more item, but this is only an educated guess – though they are titled “Anarchists” their goal wasn’t chaos. It’s possible to experience anarchy and order at the same time. Taken literally, “anarchy” means “no leaders”. It is conceivable, though IMHO highly unlikely, to have an orderly society that has no leaders.
Kind of like the United States at the moment.
The question didn’t specifically mention ‘group’ IIRC; it was something to the effect of “Individuals professing this political philosophy took the lives of…” or something vague like that. The question didn’t exactly sit very well with me, though, because there seemed to be a fuzzy implication that they were acting in consort. Those Jeopardy questions are really starting to get on my nerves, not to mention Alex. He’s so… so… SMUG.
Here is a link to Everything you Always Wanted To Know About Anarchists
They seem to have a long and colorful hisory. I leave it to your judgement whether they are organized or not.
ANARCHY RULES! 
Can anyone name the four heads of state? (Off the top of your head to demonstrate true Jeopardy mad skillz)
Isn’t the point of anarchy to not rule?
Well the question is wrong. The head of state of Great Britain from 1894-1901 was Queen Victoria. There was an anarchist who took a shot at her son, Prince Albert, later King Edward.
I believe the only PM to be assassinated Spencer Perceval and that was back in 1812.
The US Prez was Wm. McKinley.
Of course, even if unorganized as a whole, there were cells which took marching orders from (one of my favorite oxymorons) “anarchist leaders.” 
The anarchist leaders were freely chosen. You could choose to follow or not follow, plus many desicions were concensous descions.
Also, you had syndaclists, who were pretty similar to anarchists, and shared many of the same traits.
smackfu asked;
Who were President McKinley of the USA, King Umberto I of Italy, President Sadi Carnot of France and Prime Minister Antonio Canovas del Castillo of Spain? [true Jeopardy skills require that it be in the form of a question -actually though I cheated and looked it up]. An anarchist also assasinated Empress Elizabeth, wife of Franz Josef of Austria-Hungary.
I’m not so sure about calling them all anarchists. It seems to me anyone who kills a head of state could be branded an anarchist, no matter what his motives, since such an act could lead to anarchy. I seem to recall that the group that assassinated Alexander II of Russia was called anarchist, but I don’t think it really was.
Not really–the People’s Will were populist socialists, not anarchists, though all those groups tended to read each other’s stuff. They were populist in that they rejected Marx’s emphasis on the working class and the progressive nature of capitalism, and put their emphasis instead on the Russian peasant commune as the proper road to socialism, without going through the mess of industrialization.
I think at the time, at the turn of the 20th century, the Anarchists were perceived as a discrete social and political movement, not just anyone who committed an act of anarchy. Is everyone who believes in democracy a Democrat?
Although bibliophage is on to something. It was common to label those who commited terrorist acts, or even had opposing political beliefs, as anarchists, as an attempt to discredit them. Much like Red baiting in the 60’s and even today.
What sickened me is that on a Daily Double, the question (to the answer of “For water, it’s 0 degrees Celsius; for tungsten, it’s 3000-some”) given was “What’s the freezing point,” and the “official” answer was “What’s the melting point.”
Um… those are both the same thing. And they never gave him the money back. I probably would have answered “What is the fusion point,” which probably would have confused them until I’d pointed them to a Perry’s Handbook…
Grrr…
LL
“We’re an anarcho-syndaclist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs but by a two-thirds majority…”
Somebody had to say it.