The Austrian Empire (, modern spelling , ), officially known as the Empire of Austria, was a multinational European great power from 1804 to 1867, created by proclamation out of the realms of the Habsburgs. During its existence, it was the third most populous monarchy in Europe after the Russian Empire and the United Kingdom. Along with Prussia, it was one of the two major powers of the German Confederation. Geographically, it was the third-largest empire in Europe after the Russian Empire and the First French Empire.

The empire was proclaimed by Francis II in 1804 in response to Napoleon's declaration of the First French Empire, unifying all Habsburg possessions under one central government. It remained part of the Holy Roman Empire until the latter's dissolution in 1806. It continued fighting against Napoleon throughout the Napoleonic Wars, except for a period between 1809 and 1813, when Austria was first allied with Napoleon during the invasion of Russia and later neutral during the first few weeks of the Sixth Coalition War. Austria emerged victorious in the war, and became a leading member of the German Confederation along with Prussia after the Congress of Vienna.

The Kingdom of Hungary—as Regnum Independens—was administered by its own institutions separately from the rest of the empire. After Austria was defeated in the Austro-Prussian War of 1866, the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 was adopted, joining the Kingdom of Hungary and the Empire of Austria to form Austria-Hungary.

History

Foundation

Changes shaping the nature of the Holy Roman Empire took place during conferences in Rastatt (1797–1799) and Regensburg (1801–1803). On 24 March 1803, the Imperial Recess () was declared, which reduced the number of ecclesiastical states from 81 to only 3 and the free imperial cities from 51 to 6. This measure was aimed at replacing the old constitution of the Holy Roman Empire, but the actual consequence of the Imperial Recess was the end of the empire. Taking this significant change into consideration, Holy Roman Emperor Francis II created the title Emperor of Austria for himself and his successors, thereby becoming Francis I of Austria. This new title and state were created to safeguard his dynasty's imperial status as he foresaw either the end of the Holy Roman Empire, or the eventual accession of Napoleon as Holy Roman Emperor, who had earlier that year adopted the title Emperor of the French and established the First French Empire. Initially Francis II/I continued to hold both titles but abdicated the throne of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806.

This new empire or "" () comprised all the lands of the Habsburg monarchy, which had until them been legally separate realms in personal union (a composite monarchy) under Francis and his predecessors. By contrast, the Austrian Empire was legally a single state, although the overarching structure and the status of its component lands at first stayed much the same as they had been under the composite monarchy. This was especially demonstrated by the status of the Kingdom of Hungary, a country that had never been a part of the Holy Roman Empire and which had always been considered a separate realm – a status that was affirmed by Article X, which was added to Hungary's constitution in 1790 and described the state as a . Hungary's affairs remained administered by its own institutions (King and Diet) as they had been beforehand; thus no Imperial institutions were involved in its government.

The fall and dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire was accelerated by French intervention in the Empire in September 1805. On 20 October 1805, an Austrian army led by General Karl Mack von Leiberich was defeated by French armies near the city of Ulm. The French victory resulted in the capture of 20,000 Austrian soldiers and many cannons. Napoleon's army won another victory at Austerlitz on 2 December 1805. Francis was forced into negotiations with the French from 4 to 6 December 1805, which concluded with an armistice on 6 December 1805.

The French victories encouraged rulers of certain imperial territories to ally themselves with the French and assert their formal independence from the Empire. On 10 December 1805, Maximilian IV Joseph, the prince-elector and Duke of Bavaria, proclaimed himself king, followed by the Duke of Württemberg Frederick III on 11 December. Charles Frederick, Margrave of Baden, was given the title of Grand Duke on 12 December. Each of these new states became French allies.

Francis II agreed to the humiliating Treaty of Pressburg, signed in Pressburg (today Bratislava, Slovakia) on 26 December 1805, in which he recognised these new titles and ceded large amounts of territory to Napoleon's German allies and the French Satellite Kingdom of Italy. In practice this meant the dissolution of the long-lived Holy Roman Empire and a reorganization under a Napoleonic model of the German states. Austrian claims on those German states were renounced without exception.

On 12 July 1806, the Confederation of the Rhine was established, comprising 16 sovereigns and countries. This confederation, under French influence, de facto put an end to the Holy Roman Empire. On 6 August 1806, Francis proclaimed the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire, as he did not want Napoleon to succeed him.

The dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire was not recognized by George III of the United Kingdom who was also the Elector of Hanover (formally Brunswick-Lüneburg) and Duke of Saxe-Lauenburg; Hanover and Lauenburg were incorporated into the French satellite Kingdom of Westphalia in 1807, having been occupied several times since 1801, but Britain remained at war with France and no treaty was signed recognising their annexation. His claims were later settled by the creation of the Kingdom of Hanover which was held by George IV and William IV as Kings of Hanover. Succession could only be in the male line, so on Queen Victoria's accession to the British throne, her uncle, Ernest Augustus, succeeded as King of Hanover, thus ending the personal union with Great Britain that dated to 1714.

Metternich era
Klemens von Metternich became Foreign Minister in 1809. He also held the post of Chancellor of State from 1821 until 1848, under both Francis I and his son Ferdinand I. The period of 1815–1848 is also referred to as the "Age of Metternich". During this period, Metternich controlled the Habsburg monarchy's foreign policy. He also had a major influence in European politics. He was known for his strong conservative views and approach in politics. Metternich's policies were strongly against revolution and liberalism. In his opinion, liberalism was a form of legalized revolution. Metternich believed that absolute monarchy was the only proper system of government. This notion influenced his anti-revolutionary policy to ensure the continuation of the Habsburg monarchy in Europe. Metternich was a practitioner of balance-of-power diplomacy. His foreign policy aimed to maintain international political equilibrium to preserve the Habsburgs' power and influence in international affairs. Following the Napoleonic Wars, Metternich was the chief architect of the Congress of Vienna in 1815. The Austrian Empire was the main beneficiary from the Congress of Vienna and it established an alliance with Britain, Prussia, and Russia forming the Quadruple Alliance. The Austrian Empire also gained new territories from the Congress of Vienna, and its influence expanded to the north through the German Confederation and also into Italy. Due to the Congress of Vienna in 1815, Austria was the leading member of the German Confederation. Following the Congress, the major European powers agreed to meet and discuss resolutions in the event of future disputes or revolutions. Because of Metternich's main role in the architecture of the Congress, these meetings are also referred to as the "Metternich congress" or "Metternich system". Under Metternich as the Austrian foreign minister, other congresses would meet to resolve European foreign affairs. These included the Congresses of Aix-la-Chapelle (1818), Carlsbad (1819), Troppau (1820), Laibach (1821), and Verona (1822). The Metternich congresses aimed to maintain the political equilibrium among the European powers and prevent revolutionary efforts. These meetings also aimed to resolve foreign issues and disputes without resorting to violence. By means of these meetings and by allying the Austrian Empire with other European powers whose monarchs had a similar interest in preserving conservative political direction, Metternich was able to establish the Austrian Empire's influence on European politics. Also, because Metternich used the fear of revolutions among European powers, which he also shared, he was able to establish security and predominance of the Habsburgs in Europe.

Under Metternich, nationalist revolts in Austrian north Italy and in the German states were forcibly crushed. At home, he pursued a similar policy to suppress revolutionary and liberal ideals. He employed the Carlsbad Decrees of 1819, which used strict censorship of education, press and speech to repress revolutionary and liberal concepts. Metternich also used a wide-ranging spy network to dampen down unrest.

Metternich operated very freely with regard to foreign policy under Emperor Francis I's reign. Francis died in 1835. This date marks the decline of Metternich's influence in the Austrian Empire. Francis' heir was his son Ferdinand I, but he suffered from health issues. Ferdinand's accession preserved the Habsburg dynastic succession, but he was not capable of ruling. The leadership of the Austrian Empire was transferred to a state council composed of Metternich, Francis I's brother Archduke Louis, and Count Franz Anton Kolowrat, who later became the first Minister-President of the Austrian Empire. The liberal Revolutions of 1848 in the Austrian Empire forced Metternich's resignation. Metternich is remembered for his success in maintaining the status quo and the Habsburg influence in international affairs. No Habsburg foreign minister following Metternich held a similar position within the empire for such a long time nor held such a vast influence on European foreign affairs.

Historians generally consider the Metternich era as a period of stability: the Austrian Empire fought no wars nor did it undergo any radical internal reforms. However, it was also thought of as a period of economic growth and prosperity in the Austrian Empire. The population of Austria rose to 37.5 million by 1843. Urban expansion also occurred and the population of Vienna reached 400,000. During the Metternich era, the Austrian Empire also maintained a stable economy and reached an almost balanced budget, despite having a major deficit following the Napoleonic Wars.

Revolutions of 1848

From March 1848 through November 1849, the Empire was threatened by revolutionary movements, most of which were of a nationalist character. Besides that, liberal and even socialist currents resisted the empire's longstanding conservatism. Although most of the revolution plans failed, some changes were made; significant lasting reforms included the abolition of serfdom, cancellation of censorship and a promise made by Ferdinand I of Austria said to implement a constitution throughout the whole Empire.

The Bach years

After the death of Prince Felix of Schwarzenberg in 1852, the Minister of the Interior Baron Alexander von Bach largely dictated policy in Austria and Hungary. Bach centralized administrative authority for the Austrian Empire, but he also endorsed reactionary policies that reduced freedom of the press and abandoned public trials. He later represented the Absolutist (or Klerikalabsolutist) direction, which culminated in the concordat of August 1855 that gave the Roman Catholic Church control over education and family life. This period in the history of the Austrian Empire would become known as the era of neo-absolutism, or Bach's absolutism.

The pillars of the so-called Bach system (Bachsches System) were, in the words of Adolf Fischhof, four "armies": a standing army of soldiers, a sitting army of office holders, a kneeling army of priests and a fawning army of sneaks. Prisons were full of political prisoners, like Czech nationalist journalist and writer Karel Havlíček Borovský who was forcibly expatriated (1851–1855) to Brixen. This exile undermined Borovský's health and he died soon afterwards. This affair earned Bach a very bad reputation amongst Czechs and subsequently led to the strengthening of the Czech national movement.

However, Bach's relaxed ideological views (apart from the neo-absolutism) led to a great rise in the 1850s of economic freedom. Internal customs duties were abolished, and peasants were emancipated from their feudal obligations.

In her capacity as leader of the German Confederation, Austria participated with volunteers in the First War of Schleswig (1848–1850).

Sardinia allied itself with France for the conquest of Lombardy–Venetia. Austria was defeated in the 1859 armed conflict. The Treaties of Villafranca and Zürich removed Lombardy, except for the part east of the Mincio river, the so-called Mantovano.

After 1859

The Constitution of 1861 created a House of Lords () and a House of Deputies (). But most nationalities of the monarchy remained dissatisfied.

After the second war with Denmark in 1864, Holstein came under Austrian, Schleswig and Lauenburg under Prussian administration. But the internal difficulties continued. Diets replaced the parliament in 17 provinces, the Hungarians pressed for autonomy, and Venetia was attracted by the now unified Italy.

After the Austrian army was defeated in the Austro-Prussian War of 1866 and the German Confederation was dissolved, the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 was adopted. By this act, the Kingdom of Hungary and the Empire of Austria as two separate entities joined on an equal basis to form the Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary. The frequent abbreviation K.u.K. (Kaiserliche und Königliche, "Imperial and Royal") does not refer to that dual monarchy but originated in 1745, when the "royal" part referred to the Apostolic Kingdom of Hungary. However, during World War I Austria-Hungary issued military stamps for use in occupied regions, with the text "K.u.K. Feldpost" or K.u.K. Militärpost.

Foreign policy

The Napoleonic Wars dominated Austrian foreign policy from 1804 to 1815. The Austrian army was one of the most formidable forces the French had to face. After Prussia signed a peace treaty with France on 5 April 1795, Austria was forced to carry the main burden of war with Napoleonic France for almost ten years. This severely overburdened the Austrian economy, making the war greatly unpopular. Emperor Francis I therefore refused to join any further war against Napoleon for a long time. On the other hand, Francis I continued to intrigue for the possibility of revenge against France, entering into a secret military agreement with the Russian Empire in November 1804. This convention was to assure mutual cooperation in the case of a new war against France.

Austrian unwillingness to join the Third Coalition was overcome by British subsidies, but the Austrians withdrew from the war yet again after a decisive defeat at the Battle of Austerlitz. Although the Austrian budget suffered from wartime expenditures and its international position was significantly undermined, the humiliating Treaty of Pressburg provided plenty of time to strengthen the army and economy. Moreover, the ambitious Archduke Charles and Johann Philipp von Stadion never abandoned the goal of further war with France.

Archduke Charles of Austria served as the Head of the Council of War and Commander in Chief of the Austrian army. Endowed with the enlarged powers, he reformed the Austrian Army to preparedness for another war. Johann Philipp von Stadion, the foreign minister, personally hated Napoleon due to an experience of confiscation of his possessions in France by Napoleon. In addition, the third wife of Francis I, Maria Ludovika of Austria-Este, agreed with Stadion's efforts to begin a new war. Klemens Wenzel von Metternich, located in Paris, called for careful advance in the case of the war against France. The defeat of French army at the Battle of Bailén in Spain on 27 July 1808 triggered the war. On 9 April 1809, an Austrian force of 170,000 men attacked Bavaria.

Despite military defeats of the Austrian army—especially the Battles of Marengo, Ulm, Austerlitz and Wagram—and consequently lost territory throughout the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars (the Treaties of Campo Formio in 1797, Luneville in 1801, Pressburg in 1806, and Schönbrunn in 1809), Austria played a decisive part in the overthrow of Napoleon in the campaigns of 1813–14. It participated in a second invasion of France in 1815, and put an end to Murat's regime in south Italy.

The latter period of Napoleonic Wars featured Metternich exerting a large degree of influence over foreign policy in the Austrian Empire, a matter nominally decided by the Emperor. Metternich initially supported an alliance with France, arranging the marriage between Napoleon and Francis I's daughter, Marie-Louise; however, by the 1812 campaign, he had realised the inevitability of Napoleon's downfall and took Austria to war against France. Metternich's influence at the Congress of Vienna was remarkable, and he became not only the premier statesman in Europe but the virtual ruler of the Empire until 1848—the Year of revolutions—and the rise of liberalism equated to his political downfall. The result was that the Austrian Empire was seen as one of the great powers after 1815, but also as a reactionary force and an obstacle to national aspirations in Italy and Germany.

During this time, Metternich was able to maintain an elaborate balance between Prussia, the lesser German states, and Austria in the German Confederation. Thanks to his efforts, Austria was seen as the senior partner with Prussia keeping watch over Germany as a whole. Further, Metternich opposed the weakening of France in the years after Napoleon, and viewed the new monarchy in Paris as an effective tool in keeping Russia at bay. From 1815 to 1848, Metternich steered Austria Imperial foreign policy, and indeed the mood of Europe, and managed to keep peace on the continent despite the growing liberal and radical movements inside most major powers. His resignation in 1848, forced by moderates in the court, and revolutionaries in the streets, may have caused the spread of the revolutions throughout the monarchy. It is stipulated that Metternich's departure emboldened liberal factions in Austria and Hungary, but this cannot be confirmed for certain.

During the Crimean War, Austria maintained a policy of hostile neutrality towards Russia, and, while not going to war, was supportive of the Anglo-French coalition. Having abandoned its alliance with Russia, Austria was diplomatically isolated following the war, which contributed to Russia's non-intervention in the 1859 Franco-Austrian War, which meant the end of Austrian influence in Italy; and in the 1866 Austro-Prussian War, with the loss of its influence in most German-speaking land.

Constituent lands

Crown lands of the Austrian Empire after the 1815 Congress of Vienna, including the local government reorganizations from the Revolutions of 1848 to the 1860 October Diploma:
Archduchy of Austria ()
Lower Austria ()
Upper Austria ()
Duchy of Salzburg (), 1815–1850 Salzach District () of Upper Austria
Duchy of Styria ()
Princely County of Tyrol with Vorarlberg (), subdivided in 1861
Kingdom of Illyria (), subdivided in 1849/1850:
Duchy of Carinthia ()
Duchy of Carniola ()
 Littoral ()
Princely County of Gorizia and Gradisca ()
Imperial Free City of Trieste ()
Margraviate of Istria ()
Lands of the Bohemian Crown
Kingdom of Bohemia ()
Margraviate of Moravia ()
Duchy of Silesia ()
Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria () with
Duchy of Bukovina (), split off in 1850
Kingdom of Dalmatia ()
Kingdom of Hungary () with
Kingdom of Croatia ()
Kingdom of Slavonia ()
City of Fiume with its territory (),  under Hungary from 1779; part of French Illyrian Provinces from 1809 then Kingdom of Illyria; restored to Hungary in 1822; to Croatia 1849
Kingdom of Lombardy–Venetia (), lost in 1859/1866
Grand Principality of Transylvania ()
Voivodeship of Serbia and Banat of Temeschwar (), from 1849, merged into Hungary and Slavonia in 1860
Serbian Vojvodina, de facto autonomous entity 1848/49, not officially recognized
Banat of Temeschwar (Banat)
Military Frontier ()
Croatian Military Frontier ()
Slavonian Military Frontier ()
Banat Military Frontier ()
Transylvanian Military Frontier () merged into Transylvania in 1853
The old Habsburg possessions of Further Austria (in today's France, Germany and Switzerland) had already been lost in the 1805 Peace of Pressburg.

From 1850, Croatia, Slavonia, and the Military Frontier constitute a single land with disaggregated provincial and military administration, and representation.

Administratively, most of the crown lands excluding Hungary, Croatia, Slavonia, Transylvania, Lombardy–Venetia and the Military Frontier were divided into  ('circles'), an administrative division introduced under Maria Theresa in the 18th century. Following the revolutions of 1848 a brief attempt was made to introduce modern-style political districts (in addition to the ), but the reforms of Bach in 1853/54 instead instituted a system which delegated the responsibilities of the  among subordinate  ('office districts'), a system which persisted until 1867.

In the course of the post-1848 reforms Transylvania was also divided into  in 1851 (re-divided in 1854); the Voivodeship of Serbia and Banat of Temeschwar was also divided into .

Education
German was the primary language of higher education in the empire.

Gallery

See also
Former countries in Europe after 1815
Austria-Hungary
Cisleithania for the Austrian Empire after the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867

References

Further reading

 Bassett, Richard. For God and Kaiser: The Imperial Austrian Army, 1619–1918 (2016).
 online
 Judson, Pieter M. The Habsburg Empire: A New History (2016) excerpt

  excerpt and text search

 Sked, Alan. "Explaining the Habsburg Empire, 1830–90." in Pamela Pilbeam, ed., Themes in Modern European History 1830–1890 (Routledge, 2002) pp. 141–176.

 Steed, Henry Wickham. The Hapsburg monarchy (1919) online detailed contemporary account
  excerpt and text search

External links

 Austrian Army during the Napoleonic Wars
 The empire of Austria; its rise and present power (Third millennium library)

Austrian Empire

States of the German Confederation
Christian states
Former countries in the Balkans
Former empires
Former monarchies of Europe
19th century in Italy
19th century in Slovenia
19th century in Slovakia
19th century in Austria
19th century in Bohemia
19th century in Hungary
States and territories established in 1804
States and territories disestablished in 1867

1867 disestablishments in the Austrian Empire

Austrian Empire


Liudolf ( – 11/12 March 866) was a Carolingian office bearer and count in the Duchy of Saxony from about 844. The ruling Liudolfing house, also known as the Ottonian dynasty, is named after him; he is its oldest verified member.

Life
Liudolf was the son of a margrave () Brun or Brunhart and his wife, Gisla von Verla. Liudolf had extended possessions in the western Harz foothills and on the Leine river, he also served as a military leader (dux) in the wars of the East Frankish king Louis the German against Viking invasions, and the Polabian Slavs. Later authors called Liudolf a Duke of the Eastern Saxons (dux Orientalis Saxonum, probably since 850) and Count of Eastphalia.

About 830 Liudolf married Oda, daughter of a Frankish princeps named Billung and his wife Aeda. By marrying a Frankish nobleman's daughter, Liudolf followed suggestions set forth by Charlemagne about ensuring the integrity of the Carolingian Empire in the aftermath of the Saxon Wars through marriage. Oda died on 17 May 913, supposedly at the age of 107. They had at least seven children:
 Bruno ( – 880), succeeded his father as a Saxon leader, supposed progenitor of the Brunonids
 Oda of Saxony (c. 845 – 874), married to Lothar I, Count of Stade
 Otto the Illustrious ( – 912), succeeded his brother in 880, father of King Henry the Fowler
 Liutgard ( – 885), married the East Frankish ruler Louis the Younger, second son of King Louis the German, in 874.
 Hathumoda ( – 874), first Abbess of Brunshausen from 852
 Gerberga (d. 896/897), Abbess of Brunshausen from 874
 Christina (d. 919/920), Abbess of Gandersheim from 896/97.

In 845/846, Liudolf and his wife went on a pilgrimage to Rome, and upon approval by Pope Sergius II they founded a house of holy canonesses dedicated to Pope Saints Anastasius and Innocent around 852. The monastery, duly established at their proprietary church in Brunshausen, was consecrated by the Hildesheim bishop Altfrid and Liudolf's minor daughter Hathumoda became its first abbess. The convent was relocated in 881 to form Gandersheim Abbey, elevated to an Imperial monastery by Liudolf's grandson Henry the Fowler in 919.

While King Louis the German was preoccupied with Imperial politics, Liudolf, relying on the rank as well as the allodial lands he had inherited from his ancestors, rose to a leading position among the Saxon nobles – made evident by the marriage of his daughter Liutgard with King Louis the Younger. He is buried in his proprietary monastery of Brunshausen. His successions by his sons Bruno and Otto met with no resistance.

References

Sources

Dukes of Saxony
Ottonian dynasty
9th-century births
866 deaths
9th-century dukes in Europe
9th-century Saxon people
Saxon warriors
Year of birth uncertain
Year of death uncertain
German Roman Catholics

Liudolf, Duke of Saxony


Gil Shaham (Hebrew: גיל שחם; born February 19, 1971) is an American violinist of Jewish descent.

Biography
Gil Shaham was born in Urbana, Illinois, while his Israeli parents were on an academic fellowship at the University of Illinois. His father Jacob was an astrophysicist and his mother Meira Diskin was a cytogeneticist. His sister is the pianist Orli Shaham. His brother Shai Shaham is the head of the Laboratory of Developmental Genetics at Rockefeller University.

Gil Shaham is a graduate of the Horace Mann School in New York. When he was two years old, the family moved to Jerusalem, where he started violin lessons at the Rubin Academy of Music aged seven, winning annual scholarships from the America-Israel Cultural Foundation. He subsequently attended Aspen Music Festival and School in Colorado, studying with Dorothy DeLay and Jens Ellermann, and won a scholarship to the Juilliard School. He and his sister Orli also studied at Columbia University.

Shaham lives in New York City and teaches at Bard College Conservatory of Music. He is married to violinist Adele Anthony. They have three children.

Music career
Shaham debuted as soloist with the Jerusalem Symphony at age 10. He performed with the Israel Philharmonic, Israel's foremost orchestra, less than a year later. Shaham won first prize in the Claremont Competition aged 11, and was admitted to Juilliard, where he studied with Dorothy DeLay and Hyo Kang.

Shaham's career advanced in 1989 when, while a senior at Horace Mann, he replaced an ailing Itzhak Perlman to perform the Bruch and Sibelius violin concertos with the London Symphony Orchestra at the Royal Festival Hall.

Shaham won the Avery Fisher Career Grant in 1990, and the Premio Internazionale of the Accademia Chigiana in Siena in 1992.

Shaham has performed with many leading orchestras, including the New York Philharmonic, Berlin Philharmonic, Toronto Symphony Orchestra, Vienna Philharmonic, Israel Philharmonic Orchestra, Chicago Symphony Orchestra, Boston Symphony Orchestra, Los Angeles Philharmonic, Russian National Orchestra, Academy of St. Martin in the Fields, San Francisco Symphony Orchestra, Philadelphia Orchestra, and National Youth Orchestra of the United States of America.

Shaham has played the "Comtesse de Polignac", a Stradivarius violin of 1699 on loan from Stradivarius Society of Chicago, since 1989.

Discography

 Mendelssohn, Bruch: Violin Concertos (with Giuseppe Sinopoli conducting the Philharmonia Orchestra)  (1990)
 Schumann: Works for Violin and Piano (1990)
 Franck / Saint-Saëns: Violin Sonatas (with Gerhard Oppitz) (1991)
 Paganini: Violin Concerto No. 1 / Saint-Saëns: Violin Concerto No. 3 (with Giuseppe Sinopoli conducting the New York Philharmonic) (1992)
 Wieniawski: Violin Concertos Nos. 1 and 2 (with Lawrence Foster conducting the London Symphony Orchestra) (1992)
 Sibelius/Tchaikovsky: Violin Concertos (with Giuseppe Sinopoli conducting the Philharmonia Orchestra) (1993)
 Samuel Barber: Violin Concerto; Erich Wolfgang Korngold: Violin Concerto and Much Ado about Nothing Suite (with Andre Previn conducting the London Symphony Orchestra) (1994)
 Paganini for Two (with Göran Söllscher) (1994)
 Vivaldi: The Four Seasons (with Orpheus Chamber Orchestra) (1995)
 Prokofiev: Violin Concertos Nos. 1 and 2 (with Andre Previn conducting the London Symphony Orchestra) (1996)
 Violin Romances (with Orpheus Chamber Orchestra) (1996)
 Dvořák for Two (with Orli Shaham) (1997)
 The Fiddler of the Opera (with Jascha Heifetz) (1997)
 Israel Philharmonic 60th Anniversary Gala Concert (1997)
 Berlin Gala: A Salute to Carmen (with Anne Sofie von Otter and Roberto Alagna) (1998)
 American Scenes (Works of Copland, Previn, Barber, Gershwin) (1998)
 Glazunov / Kabalevsky: Meeting in Moscow (1998)
 Bartók: Violin Concerto No. 2 (with Pierre Boulez conducting the Chicago Symphony Orchestra) (1999)
 Pärt: Tabula Rasa (1999)
 Devil's Dance (2000)
 Two Worlds (with Lee Ritenour and Dave Grusin) (2000)
 John Williams: Treesong / Violin Concerto / 3 Pieces from Schindler's List (with John Williams conducting the Boston Symphony Orchestra) (2001)
 Messiaen: Quartet for the End of Time (with Myung-Whun Chung) (2001)
 Brahms: Violin Concerto / Double Concerto (with Jian Wang and Claudio Abbado conducting the Berlin Philharmonic) (2002)
 Schubert for Two (with Göran Söllscher) (2003)
 The Fauré Album (2003)
 Prokofiev: Works for Violin and Piano (with Orli Shaham) (2004)
 Beethoven: Triple Concerto / Septet (with David Zinman and Yefim Bronfman) (2006)
 The Butterfly Lovers' Concerto for Violin / Tchaikovsky: Violin Concerto (2007)
 Mozart in Paris (with Orli Shaham) (2008)
 Elgar: Violin Concerto (with David Zinman conducting the Chicago Symphony Orcherstra) (2008)
 Tchaikovsky: Piano Trio in A Minor (with Yefim Bronfman and Truls Mørk) (2008)
 Sarasate: Virtuoso Violin Works (with Adele Anthony) (2009)
 Haydn: Violin Concertos / Mendelssohn: Octet (with the Sejong Soloists) (2010)
 Nigunim: Hebrew Melodies (with Orli Shaham) (2013)
 1930s Violin Concertos (2014)
 Bach: Sonatas and Partitas for Solo Violin  (2015)

Awards
 Avery Fisher Career Grant (1990)
 Premio Internazionale of the Accademia Chigiana in Siena (1992)
 Grammy Award for Best Chamber Music Performance: André Previn & Gil Shaham for American Scenes (Works of Copland, Previn, Barber, Gershwin) (1999)
 Avery Fisher Award (2008) Presented by his dear friend Gustavo Dudamel at a Live from Lincoln Center private presentation of the music of Pablo de Sarasate in the Stanley H. Kaplan Penthouse.
 Instrumentalist of the Year (2012)

References

External links

 Gil Shaham at Canary Classics
 Gil Shaham in conversation on WGBH Radio Boston

Israeli classical violinists
American classical violinists
Male classical violinists
American male violinists
Jewish classical violinists
Jewish American classical musicians
Grammy Award winners
Juilliard School alumni
Deutsche Grammophon artists
Columbia University alumni
Horace Mann School alumni
American people of Israeli descent
People from Urbana, Illinois
1971 births
Living people
21st-century classical violinists
21st-century American male musicians
21st-century American Jews
21st-century American violinists

Gil Shaham


The principle of double effect or doctrine of double effect is an idea in philosophy.  It says that it can be morally good to do something that has a bad effect so long as it also has a larger good effect.  Here, "double effect" means "second effect" or "side effect." In plain English, the principle of double effect means, "It is acceptable for actions to have bad side effects so long as the good effect is much larger."

History

Historians think Thomas Aquinas was the first person to write about the principle of double effect but they are not sure.  Thomas Aquinas lived in the 1200s.  He wrote about killing in self-defense.  Philosophers from before Thomas Aquinas, for example Augustine of Hippo, said it was never acceptable to kill another person, not even in self-defense.  Thomas Aquinas said it was so long as the person did not kill their attacker on purpose and so long as the person does not fight harder than they need to.  Here, the first effect is saving one's own life.  The double effect (side effect) is killing the attacker.  He wrote this in Summa Theologica.

Rules

In the principle of double effect, it is okay to foresee a bad effect but not to intend it.  This means a person who knows their action will cause something bad might still be acting within the principle of double effect, but a person who wants the bad effect definitely is not.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia says that for an action to follow the principle of double effect:

The action itself must be neutral; it must not be good or bad.
The person must not want the bad thing to happen; if there is another action that would cause the good effect without the bad one, then the person must do that instead.
The good effect must happen before or at the same time as the bad effect.  It must not happen after the bad effect.  Then, it might have been caused by the bad effect.
The good effect must be bigger or more important than the bad effect, enough to be worth the bad effect.

Uses

The principle of double effect is part of Roman Catholic philosophy. Medical doctors can also use it when deciding how to treat patients, especially patients who are in pain and want to die.

Differences

The principle of double effect is not the same as "the ends justify the means." In the principle of double effect, the goal is to make something good happen, and something bad happens too.  The good and bad thing both come from the same action.  In the ends justify the means, the person does something bad to make a good thing happen.  The good thing comes from the bad action.

Criticism

Some philosophers say that foreseeing a bad effect (knowing it will happen) and intending a bad effect (wanting and meaning it to happen) are not different enough for the principle of double effect to be real.  Philosophers have used the trolley problem to study the principle of double effect.

Related pages
Trolley problem
Absolutism
Consequentialism

References

Philosophy

Principle of double effect


Silvio Orlando (born 30 June 1957) is an Italian actor.

Orlando was born and raised in Naples, where he started acting in theatre in 1976. He made his film debut in 1988 with a supporting role in the comedy Kamikazen: Last Night in Milan, directed by Gabriele Salvatores. Since then, he has collaborated multiple times with Salvatores, as well as more prominently with other Italian directors such as Nanni Moretti, Daniele Luchetti, and Carlo Mazzacurati.

During his career, Orlando has been nominated seven times to the David di Donatello Award for Best Actor, winning it in 2006 for his role in Moretti's The Caiman. In 2008 he won the Volpi Cup for Best Actor at the Venice Film Festival for his role in Giovanna's Father. Outside Italy, he is best known as scheming Cardinal Voiello in the internationally co-produced TV series The Young Pope(2016) and its sequel The New Pope(2020), both created by Paolo Sorrentino.

On stage, Orlando most notably directed in 1988 two plays by Peppino De Filippo, Don Rafelo 'o trombone and Cupido scherza e spazza, while in 2008 he acted in Roberto Paci Dalò's L'assedio delle ceneri. His nephew  is also an actor and playwright.

Filmography

Film

Television

References

External links

1957 births
Living people
Male actors from Naples
David di Donatello winners
Nastro d'Argento winners
Ciak d'oro winners
Volpi Cup for Best Actor winners

Silvio Orlando


The Game of the Generals, also called GG or GOG or simply The Generals, is an educational war game invented in the Philippines by Sofronio H. Pasola Jr. in 1970. Its Filipino name is "Salpakan." It can be played within twenty to thirty minutes. It is designed for two players, each controlling an army, and a neutral arbiter (sometimes called a referee or an adjutant) to decide the results of "challenges" between opposing playing pieces that have their identities hidden from the opponent.

The game simulates armies at war trying to overpower, misinform, outflank, outmaneuver and destroy each other. It optimizes using logic, memory, and spatial skills. It simulates the "fog of war" because the identities of the opposing pieces are hidden from each player and can only be guessed at by their location, movements, or from the results of challenges. The game allows only one side's plan to succeed, although a player may change plans during the game. In addition, there are two different ways of winning the game (see below). Certain strategies and tactics, however, allow both sides the chance of securing a better idea of the other's plan as the game progresses. Players can also speak or gesture to their opponents during matches, to create a false impression about the identity of their pieces or their overall strategy.

History
Sofronio H. Pasola, Jr. invented this game with the inspiration of his son Ronnie Pasola.

The Pasolas first tried the Game of the Generals on a chessboard. Even then, the pieces had no particular arrangement. There were no spies in the experimental game; but after Ronnie Pasola remembered the James Bond movies and Mata Hari, he added the Spies. Making the pieces hidden was the idea of the Pasolas after remembering card games.

The Game of the Generals public introduction was on February 28, 1973. After the game was made, it angered many Filipino chess players thinking that Pasola was trying to denigrate or supplant chess.

Objectives and victory conditions
The game's objective is to eliminate or capture the opponent's Flag or to maneuver one's Flag to the far edge of the board (the opposing back rank), subject to the following conditions.

The Flag, if challenged, is eliminated by any opposing piece, including the opposing and challenging Flag. If a player's Flag is eliminated by a challenge, that player loses the game. The Flag that challenges the opponent's Flag wins the challenge and thus wins the game.

When the Flag successfully reaches the opponent's back rank, it has to survive one more turn without being challenged before it can declare a victory. If a Flag reaches the opposing back rank and there is no adjacent opposing piece that can challenge it, the Flag wins the game immediately. If a Flag reaches the opposing back rank directly adjacent to an opposing piece, and that piece does not challenge the Flag immediately on the opponent's subsequent turn, then that Flag wins the game. Any player may reveal their Flag at any time and for any reason, although most often a player reveals their Flag after it has already secured victory at the opposing back rank.

Most games end in a victory for one of the players. One player may have lost so many pieces or their pieces are impractically positioned on the board that they feel they can no longer win the game. However, any player may propose a draw at any time; the opponent can either decline, so play continues, or agree, and thus the game ends in a tie.

At the end of a match, whether as a draw or as a victory for one player, it is courteous but not required to allow the opposing player a view of the surviving pieces before they are taken off the board and of the eliminated pieces.

Equipment

Pieces
The player's set of pieces represents 21 soldiers (combatants) with a hierarchy of ranks and functions. A higher-ranking piece (usually the officers) will eliminate any lower-ranking piece, with the exception of the 2 Spies; the Spies eliminate all pieces except the 6 Privates.

Apart from the Flag (the Philippine Flag) and the Spy (a pair of prying eyes), the rank insignia of the pieces used in the game are those used in the Philippine Army.

The playing pieces are identical-sized plastic or metal flat rectangles bent or molded at a 90-degree- or 80-degree angles. The rank insignia are printed on the rear side to keep them hidden from the opposing player; the game requires that the front side of the pieces should have no distinguishing marks that will help identify the pieces.

In plastic sets, the colors commonly used in the pieces are black and white. There are also sets composed of wooden boards and aluminum pieces. Those pieces have rank insignia that are printed either red or blue. In metal sets, the board's color is commonly brown and the pieces are aluminum colored. Some of the cheaper game sets consist of just a rolled up sheet printed with squares instead of a rigid board, as well as plastic pieces with ranks printed on cardboard.

Note: If both soldiers are of equal rank, both are eliminated (colloquially termed as a "split").

Board

The game is played on a rectangular board with 72 plain squares arranged in 8 ranks and 9 files. To start the game, each player's 21 pieces are placed in various locations within the nearest 3 rows to each player's home side. These are the 27 closest squares, leaving 6 squares open. For example, the Black player in the illustrated example has deployed 21 pieces in Ranks 6, 7, and 8, leaving the squares A8, B8, C8, G8, H8, and I8 open. The White player has also deployed 21 pieces in the nearest 3 Ranks (1, 2, and 3), leaving A2, B3, C3, G2, H3, and I3 open.

A player can consider the half of the board nearest them to be "friendly territory" while the other side's half is the "enemy territory," though this is not an actual rule in the game. The two middle rows (fourth rank from each player's edge of the board) are initially empty at the start of the game and represent "no man's land" or "unconquered territory" that the contending pieces can occupy or leave vacant, depending on each player's strategy.

Although not specifically marked, each player's side of the board can be grouped into three amorphous battle zones, generally consisting of nine squares each: these zones are the "left flank," the "center," and the "right flank," but the boundaries are variable or may be considered psychological.

Initial layout
Unlike chess or its variants, there is no predetermined initial layout for placing the pieces, allowing each player to place the pieces in different squares to their preference or according to his initial strategy. The allocation of spaces (6 vacant squares) is important for the tactical movement of the individual pieces in the first three ranks, because a piece that has friendly pieces in front, behind, and on each side is effectively immobilized until a space opens up on these adjacent squares. Some players like to place the spaces (unoccupied squares) at the rear row, the front row, to one side of the board, or interspersed between the pieces, but that initial placement can be a form of deception to try to mislead the opposing player.

Basic gameplay

Moves
There is also no predetermined order of play. The players can decide who goes first; afterward, they take their turns alternately. Each player can move only one piece per turn.

All pieces have the same move: one square forward, backward, or sideways, as long as it is not blocked by the board's edge or by another friendly piece. A piece cannot move into a square already occupied by a friendly piece. A piece cannot move diagonally nor move two or more squares away from its original position.

If a piece moves adjacent to (in front of, behind, or to the side of, but not diagonally from) an opposing piece, the piece that was stationary can be moved to *challenge* the opposing piece by entering and occupying the adjacent enemy-occupied square. For the result of the challenge, a neutral arbiter examines both pieces and removes the lower-ranking piece without showing the winning player the identity of that eliminated losing piece. If the two opposing pieces are of equal rank, both pieces are eliminated and the square they were on becomes unoccupied.

Challenges and arbitration

Each piece can challenge an opposing piece directly adjacent in front, behind, or to either side of it (identical, in effect, to the way it moves). Thus, a piece does not directly threaten an opposing piece that is situated diagonally to it. However, a piece known or thought to be more assertive can restrict the movement of a weaker opposing piece that is situated diagonally to it by threatening to eliminate it if it moves to a square adjacent to that of the stronger piece.

A player initiates a challenge by placing their piece on the adjacent square where an opposing piece is located.

Notes

The arbiter then examines the ranks of the opposing pieces, removes the lower-ranked piece off the board, and returns it to the owner regardless of who initiated the challenge. The eliminated pieces are not revealed to the opposing player until the game ends. The arbiter must not reveal the ranks of the pieces to the opposition, nor can he give any verbal or non-verbal clues about the rest of the board layout.

The game can also be played without an arbiter. In this case, when a challenge is made, both players must state the rank of their piece after which the lower-ranked piece is eliminated. Therefore, the presence of the arbiter, though not compulsory, is significant to ensure secrecy until the game is over. Official games are conducted with an arbiter.

Determining the results of a challenge
Regardless of which piece initiated the challenge, their ranks determine which piece is to be eliminated and removed from the board.

Any one of the player's pieces can capture the opposing Flag. This includes the player's own Flag.
Any piece, except the Spy and the Flag, eliminates the Private.
Officers eliminate other officers that are lower in rank (e.g. a Four-Star General eliminates a Lieutenant Colonel).
A Spy eliminates all officers (including the Five-Star General). Only the Private can eliminate the Spy.
If both pieces are of the same rank, both are removed from the board (often called a "split" by most players and arbiters).
If a Flag challenges the opponent's Flag, the challenging Flag prevails and wins the game.

If a Flag reaches the opposite edge or farthest rank of the board, the opponent has one turn left although it is not announced. After the turn, the player who advanced his flag waits for the next player to make his move and afterwards, he reveals the Flag. If the Flag was not challenged, the player with the advanced Flag wins the game. If the Flag was challenged, the player with that Flag loses the game.

Application of warfare concepts to the game

Combatant roles of the pieces
The playing pieces can be classified according to the following tactical functions and roles:
 Killers - The two Spies and the two most powerful Generals (Five-Star and Four-Star Generals) have the critical job of eliminating the enemy Sweepers and all other pieces, either by aggressive challenging or ambush, to gain a power-level, numerical, or positional advantage against the opponent.
 Sweepers - The next most powerful officers (Three-Star General down to the Lieutenant Colonel) will take over the Killer function if the Five-Star and Four-Star Generals are eliminated. Their main job is to remove all lower-ranking enemy officers and acquire and retain a numerical or positional advantage of friendly pieces over the enemy.
 Probers - These are sacrificial junior officers from the Major down to the Sergeant. Their job is to challenge untested enemy pieces and determine their power so they can either be avoided, ambushed, or targeted for elimination by the Killers or Privates. By eliminating Privates, Probers often act as bodyguards to the Spies and the Flag.
 Privates - Their main job is to eliminate the Spies (in the opening and middle game) and the Flag (in the end game). They usually accompany the highest-ranking officers in order to eliminate the Spy that targets the officers. While they can be considered sacrificial, once there are only one or two Privates left, it becomes very difficult to eliminate the Spies.
 Flag - This is the only piece that can win victory and must be hidden and protected at all costs, except when it has an unobstructed way to the far edge of the board; then it can go for broke. Often, a Private or low-ranking officer is made to act like a scared Flag to deceive the opponent. Sometimes a Flag can try to move as if it was a mid-level or low-ranking officer, or as a Private, to avoid being challenged by another piece.

Note: The roles of the Sweepers and Probers can be interchanged in various ways, depending on the player's preference.

Common strategies and tactics
An experienced Generals player will have tried out and practiced a number of basic strategies. Each strategy starts out with a particular distribution of strong or weaker pieces in the front line or rear areas, as well as in the left flank, center, or right flank. The most common strategies usually depend on clustering or distributing powerful pieces in different areas of the board. In the list below, the first four can be considered "basic" while the last four are relatively "advanced," depending on the player's experience level or creativity.

 Linear Assault - This is a simplistic strategy mostly used by beginners. It consists of powerful units in the front line forming a shield and weaker units at the side and rear line. The whole front line is advanced as a "lawnmower" to try to eliminate most of the enemy. Sometimes a lower-ranked piece is placed in the front rank to probe because its elimination causes the eliminating piece to be identified as a strong one. This linear assault is not very effective if you immediately lose your front line's strong pieces because the only troops left are the weak ones. The linear formation can be disrupted and broken up by Strongpoints and Clustered Task Forces.
 Blitzkrieg - Amass powerful pieces on one side of the board (left or right), then try to steamroller and blow a hole through the enemy lines by eliminating all the defenders on that flank. Once the way is clear, send the Flag forward with an escort and march on to victory. A Blitz through the center is rare because it requires lining both sides of the corridor with powerful pieces to eliminate possible blockers of your Flag. A disadvantage of the Blitzkrieg is that one flank is strong while sacrificial troops man the other flank; an enemy Blitz that, by chance, is pointed at the weak flank, can punch through it easily.
 Banzai Charge - This is a variation of the Blitzkrieg strategy. Troops are generally divided into three groups. The center group consists of high-ranking units while the two other groups are on the flanks with a few strong units. While trying to blast a hole on either of the two flanks, also send a strong blitzkrieg in the center to make a path for the flag. This strategy can be effective if the opposing player's pieces are immediately eliminated. However, it can be stopped if the attacking Killers and Sweepers are immediately or gradually eliminated and there are not enough reserve units to carry the Flag through.
 Slow-Moving Shield - The most high-ranking pieces are arranged in a central disk or clump with the Spies and top Generals in the middle lane and center for defense. The Flag is placed in the center-rear for maximum defense and is not meant to advance to the back row of the enemy territory. The player using this strategy can try to make a slow-moving massed attack up the center or try to guard against offensive probes into the center. It is somewhat vulnerable to the Rampaging Bulls strategy that can penetrate a flank and eliminate weak pieces in the rear. The Distributed Defense and Clustered Task Forces strategies can slowly reduce the Shield formation to eliminate the Spies and Generals.
 Rampaging Bulls - Send unsupported Generals (Sweepers) into the enemy lines to eliminate as many opposing pieces and try to put them in the enemy rear areas to create havoc and disrupt the enemy's plans and composure. Use them to force the enemy to move his Spies or to weaken his front lines so your other high-ranking pieces can make their own rampage. Try to keep the Rampaging Bulls active and alive as long as possible so they continue to threaten enemy pieces left on the board and to help reveal the enemy Spies by their movements. Divert the enemy's attention from the Rampaging Bulls by making other offensive moves elsewhere on the board.
 Strongholds - The Strongholds strategy consists of assembling five units to form a strong point, and it can be shaped similar to a cross (if you want it revealed to the enemy). The remaining troops, with one Spy, are interspersed at the sides and front of the Strongholds. Diagonally placed privates in each group can defend and support to kill enemy Spies while your Five-Star and Four-Star Generals are reserved in the middle of the groups as ambushers by posing as if they were weak pieces. Probers and some Sweepers at the front can help you determine the enemy's high-ranking pieces while threatening to eliminate the enemy Privates and Probers. The stationary Strongholds can start moving forward into offensive mode after some high-ranking enemy pieces or Spies are eliminated.
 Clustered Task Forces - This is similar to the Strongholds strategy but the combatant groups are actively moving around and switching positions often (to try to make the enemy player forget what pieces they might be and where they are). Group a high-ranking general, a Spy, two Privates, and two to three officers into a "combined arms" task force whose job is to eliminate enemy pieces in one area and to reduce his overall numbers. Switch the attack or defensive maneuvers from one Task Force or side of the board to the other as needed to divert the opponent's attention and make him become confused about the identity of your powerful pieces. Use expert maneuvering to isolate the enemy Flag and eliminate it.
 Distributed Defense - Spread out your powerful pieces with supporting units across the entire playing area to probe and ambush the enemy Killer pieces. Maneuver your pieces to rearrange them as blocking forces and to deceive the opponent as to which pieces are powerful or sacrificial. Ensure there are maneuver spaces where your powerful pieces can move to. Put lower-ranking Generals in the rear areas to take over the defense or bring them forward to assist in the counterattack. Using this strategy, one can make limited strikes into enemy territory then withdraw those forces before they become trapped or ambushed. Force the enemy to redeploy his pieces so you can identify the enemy's strong versus the weaker units. After eliminating most of the troops in the front and sides, send forward some troops to identify and corner the flag.

Switching strategies and changing tactics
An experienced player may want to mix two or more of the above-listed strategies and tactics at different locations on the board. For example, he can amass a powerful task force on one flank to conduct a Blitzkrieg offense while setting up a Stronghold in the center or the other flank to try to destroy a possible enemy attack that has Rampaging Bulls or Probers.

A game can have multiple strategies depending on the outcome of the initial challenges. Loss of high-ranking pieces, especially of the Killers, usually stops an offensive action and forces a player to change plans or to go on the defensive. A player needs to muster and redistribute his remaining higher-ranking pieces to avoid the enemy's Killer pieces while continuing to eliminate the mid- and low-ranking pieces. Once numerical balance or superiority is achieved, or if he can outflank the defenders, a player should be able to shift back to offensive Flag-rushing or Flag-hunting operations.

Deception and psychological warfare can be a major component of the game. Players must memorize the position and probable identity of known enemy pieces because losing track of a possible Killer piece or Private can lead to loss of important pieces. Sometimes a Spy has to be sacrificed against a known enemy Spy in order to clear the way for your Sweepers to eliminate the remaining enemy pieces. Try to keep one or more reserve forces available for various contingencies and to provide multiple tactical options or changes in overall strategy. Maneuvering pieces and allocating empty squares in a crowded area is also important to bring your appropriate pieces against low-level enemy pieces, avoid losses from identified high-powered enemy pieces, or to eliminate the enemy Flag.

Variations
There are many variations made by various people to make the game more exciting and difficult. Many variations involve simple modifications like showing the flag or simply playing with only 11 pieces. These modifications are often combined to make the game more challenging.

Krig
Krig is one of the online variants. Rules are very similar except:

 Players can place one piece in their respective borders
 Players identity is hidden until the end
 Pieces will be revealed at the end

"The Generals Electronic Strategy Game"
In 1980, Ideal released The Generals Electronic Strategy Game. The rules and piece ranks are the same as above, except that the "Spies" are "Agents", and an electronic arbiter determines which piece wins in a confrontation; neither player sees his opponent's pieces. The plastic pieces have selected notches on their bases, which depress certain indentations in the electronic arbiter's twin slots. The lights flash and a short musical phrase plays before a light labeled "battle winner" is illuminated. The losing piece is removed from the board, while the winning piece is placed back on the board. If the flag is placed in the arbiter, it plays "Taps" after the initial musical phrase.

Unlike the original version of the game, if a player's Flag reaches the back row in The Generals Electronic Strategy Game, that player wins, even if an opposing piece occupies an adjacent square on the back row.

Software
Through the years as electronic devices and programming languages evolved and were commercially released, many Filipino computer science students and programmers have created and released their own software versions of Game of the Generals to the public for use on different devices and platforms. The game's rules and mechanics lend themselves well to replacing the human arbiter with an electronic or software version, both to decide the results of challenges, and to indicate if one player has already won the game.

To cite an example, a software app downloadable on the Google Play Store for Android smartphones (with touchscreens) called Game of the Generals Mobile was released on November 19, 2020, by Mawkins Entertainment. It was last updated on July 10, 2022, and is designed for Android version 5.0 and later versions. It has a download size of 47.51 MB and currently has 50,000+ downloads with a user-provided rating of 4.5 out of 5.0. This software package allows online and offline play, allows replays of matches and custom matches, allows play with an AI (artificial intelligence), allows one-on-one play with any player who has the same software, ranks the various players on leaderboards, and allows them to manage their reputations when they start winning matches.

In 1988, three college senior students from the Philippines, Gozon, Lim, and Santos, authored a groundbreaking thesis using Turbo Pascal. Their work focused on creating a computerized version of the strategic board game "Game of the Generals", aiming to emulate human intelligence in decision-making processes. This innovative project showcased their technical skills and creativity, leaving a lasting impact in the fields of computer science and artificial intelligence. The thesis has since served as an inspiration for future generations of students and researchers, highlighting the potential of technology to simulate complex cognitive tasks.

Comparison with Stratego
Generals bears many similarities with Stratego, including a hierarchy/ranking of pieces, invisible enemy piece values, arbitrary initial placement within a player's "home" area, and the use of spies to eliminate high-ranking pieces.

However, unlike Stratego, Generals does not have any bombs, nor miners to defuse them. The Generals spies act as reusable mines, as they will remove almost all pieces when attacked yet are not themselves removed from the board. Generals also does not have scouts, which may cross several spaces across the board in one move. All of the pieces in Generals can move, while both the flag and the bombs in Stratego are stationary. Also, each player has two Spies in Generals, while each only has one Spy in Stratego. In general, Stratego has more pieces than Generals and games accordingly last longer.

In addition, unlike Stratego, which features two "lakes" in the middle of the board, all 72 of the squares on the Generals board are accessible. There are six empty spaces during the initial placement of pieces in the three ranks closest to the player for Generals, while the same three ranks are completely filled in Stratego.

Finally, Generals inherently requires a third-party arbiter to maintain the game's uncertainty all the way to the endgame. Stratego requires that both players' pieces be revealed during a challenge to determine which is removed.

Reviews
 The board game was imported to the United States by Atmar Enterprises and shown at the 1978 Toy Fair; Sid Sackson noted it "offers some new twists on Stratego, including ... an arbiter [which] announces the winner of a challenge, without divulging the strength of the pieces involved."
 The electronic version published by Ideal was briefly profiled as part of the 1980 Games 100 in Games magazine; Sackson's review called it an "intriguing battle game".

References

External links
Krig - Windows 10 app Linux Google Play Galaxy store
Online version of Salpakan (Game of the Generals)
SalpakanOnline Game
Official Rules

A Simplified Summary of the Rules on Linked-In's SlideShare

Board games introduced in 1970
Board wargames
Games like Stratego

Game of the Generals


Ryan Henry (born 14 October 1984) is a former professional tennis player from Australia.

Henry had an eventful year as a junior in 2002. He and partner Todd Reid won the boys' doubles title at the 2002 Australian Open and they also finished runners-up in the 2002 French Open. In Wimbledon that year he created a tournament record when he defeated France's Clément Morel 26–24 in the final set. Constantly interrupted by rain, their encounter lasted three days. He lost to Richard Gasquet in the singles semi-finals of the 2002 US Open, unable to convert three match points.

The following year, he was given wildcard entry into the Australian Open and met Julian Knowle in the first round. He lost the match in four sets. In the men's doubles he was again paired with Reid and they were able to defeat Germans Karsten Braasch and Rainer Schüttler in the opening round. They were unable to get past top seeds Mark Knowles and Daniel Nestor in their next fixture.

Junior Grand Slam finals

Doubles: 2 (1 title, 1 runner-up)

ATP Challenger and ITF Futures finals

Doubles: 1 (1–0)

References

External links

1984 births
Living people
Australian male tennis players
Australian Open (tennis) junior champions
Tennis people from New South Wales
Grand Slam (tennis) champions in boys' doubles
21st-century Australian people
Sportsmen from New South Wales
People from Forster, New South Wales

Ryan Henry


Auguste Herbin (29 April 1882 – 31 January 1960) was a French painter of modern art. He is best known for his Cubist and abstract paintings consisting of colorful geometric figures. He co-founded the groups Abstraction-Création and Salon des Réalités Nouvelles which promoted non-figurative abstract art.

Early life
Herbin was born in Quiévy, Nord. His father was a craftsman. Herbin studied drawing at the École des Beaux-Arts de Lille, from 1899 to 1901, when he settled in Paris.

Career
The initial influence of Impressionism and Post-Impressionism visible in paintings that he sent to the Salon des Indépendants in 1906 gradually gave way to an involvement with Fauvism, and he exhibited at the Salon d'Automne in 1907. He started to experiment with Cubism after his move in 1909 to the Bateau-Lavoir studios, where he met Pablo Picasso, Georges Braque, Otto Freundlich and Juan Gris; he was also encouraged by his friendship with the art collector and critic Wilhelm Uhde. His work was exhibited in the same room as that of Jean Metzinger, Albert Gleizes and Fernand Léger in the Salon des Indépendants of 1910.

In 1914, at the outbreak of World War I, he was exempted from military service because of his short stature and was committed to work in an airplane factory near Paris.

After producing his first abstract paintings in 1917, Herbin came to the attention of Léonce Rosenberg who, after World War I, made him part of the group centred on his Galerie de l'Effort Moderne and exhibited his work there on several occasions in March 1918 and 1921. Herbin's radical reliefs of simple geometric forms in painted wood, such as Colored Wood Relief (1921; Paris, Musée National d'Art Moderne), challenged not only the status of the easel painting but also traditional figure–ground relationships. The incomprehension that greeted these reliefs and related furniture designs, even from those critics most favorably disposed towards Cubism, was such that until 1926 or 1927 he followed Rosenberg's advice to return to a representational style and produced paintings in the New Objectivity style.

Herbin himself later disowned his landscapes, still lifes and genre scenes of this period, such as Bowls Players (1923; Paris, Musée National d'Art Moderne), in which the objects were depicted as schematized volumes. Under the influence of surrealism, he became increasingly critical of the rational forms employed by De Stijl. After 1927, Herbin becomes interested by microphotographs of crystals and plants and completely abandons figurative painting.

In the 1930s, he co-founded the group Abstraction-Création in Paris and served as publisher and author for the journal Abstraction-Création. Art non figurativ. In the second issue of the journal he wrote against the rising Fascism and oppression of all kinds. As a member of the Communist Association des Écrivains et Artistes Révolutionnaires he signed a statement against the political indifference of artists. Critical of Stalinism, he left the Communist party in the 1940s.

Beginning in 1942, Herbin developed a language of form and color, his "alphabet plastique". Increasingly, his paintings consist only of colorful arrangements of triangles, circles and rectangles. In 1946 he was one of the founders of the Salon des Réalités Nouvelles, a successor of Abstraction-Création. He later served as the group's vice-president.

Late life and death
After 1953, Herbin was paralyzed on the right side, forcing him to paint with the left hand. He died in Paris on 31 January 1960. One painting remained unfinished—the motif of the painting was constructed on the word Fin.

During the 2000s, an important series of original Herbin's signed rugs have been realised  by Didier Marien from the Boccara Gallery with the agreement of the rights holders.
Those rugs exhibited in France, but also in Moscow, London and New York played a key role in the worldwide rediscovery of Herbin's artistic creations.

Public collections
Among the public collections holding works by Auguste Herbin are:
 Museum de Fundatie, Zwolle, The Netherlands
 Kröller-Müller Museum, Otterlo, The Netherlands
 National Galleries of Scotland
 Matisse Museum, Le Cateau-Cambrésis, France
 KUNSTEN Museum of Modern Art Aalborg, Denmark
 Museum of Modern Art, Ceret, France

References

External links

 Culture.gouv.fr, Base Mémoire, La Médiathèque de l'architecture et du patrimoine
 Agence Photographique de la Réunion des musées nationaux et du Grand Palais des Champs-Elysées
 Artistic rugs of Auguste Herbin with the Boccara Gallery

1882 births
1960 deaths
Artists from Nord (French department)
Abstract painters
20th-century French painters
20th-century French male artists
French male painters
Modern painters
Cubist artists
Painters of the Return to Order
People of Montmartre
French abstract artists

Auguste Herbin


Daulat Mal Bhandari (16 December 1907 – 10 January 2004) was Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court in India,  a member of the first Lok Sabha and a freedom fighter.

Bhandari took active part in the freedom struggle. In 1942 he formed the "Azad Morcha" in Jaipur and staged satyagrah. He was imprisoned for nine months. He also organised 'Praja Mandal' in Jaipur State.   During the partition of India, he contributed in the rehabilitation of refugees from Sindh and Western Punjab.

He  served as the Development and Agriculture Minister of Jaipur State in 1947 on being elected to the state's Legislative Assembly. Bhandari was a member of the Lok Sabha from 1952 to 1955 representing the Indian National Congress and Jaipur parliamentary constituency of Rajasthan.

Bhandari was a senior advocate on the rolls of the Bar Council of India. He was appointed a judge of the Rajasthan High Court in 1955 and he rose to become the Chief Justice there in 1968. He remained Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court from 18 December 1968 to 15 December 1969.

He also served as Chairman of the Revenue Law Commission constituted by the Government of Rajasthan and as a member of the Krishna Godavari Water Dispute Tribunal constituted by the Government of India. He was a founder member of the Indian Law Institute in New Delhi. He also served as the Chairman of the Governing Body of the Lal Bahadur Shastri College, Jaipur. He had six sons.

Bhandari was born on 16 December 1907. He did MA LLB and practiced law from 1930 at Chief Court, Jaipur. Daulat Mal Bhandari died on 10 January 2004 at Jaipur, Rajasthan at the age of 97.

"My thoughts in that connection go particularly to… Mr Justice D.M. Bhandari…, who have rendered meritorious services to the cause of law and justice. Their noteworthy and valuable contribution in the development of law in the State of Rajasthan deserves special notice and admiration. They laid great traditions and sound foundations". Inaugural address of Justice A S Anand, CJI at the golden celebrations of the Raj HC

DM Bhandari, Justice: "Caste and religion have often exerted baneful influences on the body politic of the State to undermine its strength. These have more often than not been a source of breaking the solidarity of the State. In the political history of India, caste race and religion have played a part dividing the people from one another". AIR 1959 Raj 280

Justice Akil Kureshi referred to Justice Bhandari in his farewell speech as Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court as an outstanding judge.

References

1907 births
2004 deaths
20th-century Indian judges
Rajasthani people
Indian independence activists from Rajasthan
People from Jaipur
India MPs 1952–1957
Lok Sabha members from Rajasthan
Chief Justices of the Rajasthan High Court
Prisoners and detainees of British India
Jain Indian independence activists

Daulat Mal Bhandari


Recife Cinema Festival, also known as Recife Audiovisual Festival or Cine-PE, is a competitive film and audiovisual festival hosted in Recife. It is dedicated to the Brazilian and state production of feature and short films, as well as videos and documentaries.

History
The festival was founded in 1997 by the couple Alfredo and Sandra Bertini, who have been the directors since then. Between 1997 and 2008, there have been 1806 films participating (between competitive applications and national and international invitations) of all types and genres for a public of over 25,0000 people.

The main trophy given by the organization between a specialized and independent judge is designated of Calunga (which is a puppet used by maracatu dancers), for the diverse film categories represented. Also, another important trophy is the Gilberto Freyre, addressed for the feature film that best express the appreciation of Brazilian identity through the concept of racial diversity, that characterizes the Brazilian ethnic formation and culture.  Other prizes are given by independent private partners, usually in money, and distributed by the diverse categories.

The festival is held usually between the end of April/May, in the Conventions Center of Recife (CECON). It also includes seminars, workshops, meetings, musicals, arts exhibition, which attract many Cinema professionals and/or film lovers, making this festival one of the most important in the Brazilian film market.

Awards
List of current awards and their winners in the 12th Recife Cinema Festival - of the Brazilian Cinema, held in 2008.

Brazilian Feature Film Awards
 Best Picture - Nossa vida não cabe num opala, (fiction)
 Best Director - Rodolfo Naunni, (for O retorno), (documentary)
 Best Actor - Chico Santana, (for Simples mortais), (fiction)
 Best Actress - Maria Mendonça, (for Nossa vida não cabe num opala)
 Best Supporting Actor - Eduardo Moraes (for Simples mortais)
 Best Supporting Actress - Cleyde Yacones, (for Bodas de papel), (fiction)
 Best Screenplay - Di Moretti, (for Nossa vida não cabe num opala)
 Best Film Edition - Ligia Walker, (for Brizola tempos de luta), (documentary)
 Best Sound Edition - Fernando Manna & Simone Alves, (for Bodas de papel)
 Best Photography - Roberto Filho, (for O retorno)
 Best Original Music Score - Amalfi & Mario Botolotto, (for Nossa vida não cabe num opala)
 Best Art Direction - Mónica Palazzo, (for Nossa vida não cabe num opala)
 Popular Jury Award - Bodas de Papel, (from André Sturm)

Brazilian Short Films Awards
 Best Picture - Os filmes que não fiz, (from Gilberto Scarpa), (fiction)
 Best Director - Esmir Filho, (for Saliva), (fiction)
 Best Actor - Jonathan Haagesen, (for Comprometendo a atuação), (fiction)
 Best Actress - Helena Albergaria, (for Um ramo), (fiction)
 Best Screenplay - Leandro Maciel & César Cabral, (for Dossiê rê bordosa), (animation)
 Best Film Edition - Caroline Leone, (for Saliva)
 Best Sound Edition - Aurélio Dias & Leonardo Lette, (for Ocidente), (documentary)
 Best Photography - Lula Carvalho, (for Trópico das cabras), (fiction)
 Best Original Music Score - Claúdio Ferreira, (for Dossiê rê bordosa)
 Best Art Direction - Alonso Pafyeze, (for Os filmes que não fiz)

Pernambuco Awards
 Best Feature Film - Amigos de risco, (from Daniel Bandeira), (fiction), PE
 Best Short Film - Miró: Preto, pobre, poeta e periférico, (from Wilson Freire), (documentary from Pernambuco)

Special Awards
 Gilberto Freyre Trophy - Guia prático, histórico e sentimental da cidade do Recife, (from Léo Falcão), (documentary), (PE)

Recife cinema history

Recife and consequently Pernambuco has a tradition in the Brazilian film-making history. Regional movements emerged in the pioneering era of Brazilian cinema. One of those was designated Ciclo de Recife (Recife cycle), between 1922 and 1931. Despite adverse conditions, during this cycle 13 feature films (mostly drama and romance) and seven realistic films (usually ordered by authorities to show their public works) were produced in Recife. Despite the pervasive influence of American cinema and European cinemas in the silent film times, the Recife cycle was one of the most important, regional and productive of them. One of the most important movie was Aitaré da Praia, which is recognized for pioneering the rise of regional themes (1925). Other large successful films was Retribuição (1923) and A Filha do Advogado (1926). Another important phase of the Pernambuco/Recife film history came in the 1970s with a movement called Super 8, often used for home videos and documentaries realized by students, curious and aspirant film makers, due to the utilization of 8 mm film, proportioned by the new technology released by Kodak.

Trying to revitalize the  importance and history of Recife cinema, the Bertinis created this cultural festival in 1997.

References

 Cinema em Recife

See also
Official Website
Cinema of Brazil

Film festivals in Brazil
Recife
Cultural festivals in Brazil
Tourist attractions in Pernambuco

Recife Cinema Festival


Marco Polo was born in 1254 and died on January 8, 1324. He was an Italian trader and explorer. He was one of the first Europeans to explore Central Asia and East Asia. Many other explorers, including Christopher Columbus, looked up to him. He spoke four languages.

Marco Polo was known for the book, Travels of Marco Polo, where he talked about Asia.

Early life
Marco Polo was born in Venice, one of the most successful trading cities. Polo's mother died when he was very young and he was raised by his aunt and uncle. His father and uncle returned from their Silk Road travels when Marco was about 15 years old. Two years later, the three of them started their journey to Cathay (China). His family were well-known merchants, not explorers. He learned about writing, reading, and arithmetic, and how to do business.

Travels
Polo went on a 24-year trip to China with his father and uncle during the Mongol Dynasty. He left Venice at the age of 17 on a boat that went through the Mediterranean Sea, to Acre, and later to Tabriz and Kerman. Then he travelled across Asia getting as far as Beijing. On the way there he went over mountains and through deserts, across scorching hot lands and places where the cold was unbearable. Arriving in Cathay at age 21, he served in Kublai Khan's court for 17 years. He left the Far East and returned to Venice by sea. There was sickness on board and 600 passengers and crew died. Nevertheless, Marco Polo survived the journey. He brought noodles back from China and the Italians invented different sizes and shapes and called it pasta. Polo returned to Venice with treasures like ivory, jade, jewels, porcelain and silk.

Some scholars believe that while Marco Polo did go to China, they doubt that he went to all of the other places described in his book.

"Travels of Marco Polo"
Soon after Polo returned from his journeys he fought in a war against Genoa, got captured and put in prison. When he was in prison, he became friendly with a fellow prisoner, Rusticello, who was a writer of romances and novels. He told the writer about all his adventures, which became a book called The Travels of Marco Polo. The published version was written by Rustichello da Pisa, based on what Polo had told him. It became famous throughout Europe. In the book he said that Kublai Khan's wealthy new empire had a postal system. He also talked about the Chinese people. China used paper money that was made from mulberry bark.

References

1254 births
1324 deaths
Italian explorers
European geographers
People from Venice

Marco Polo


The Official Language Act (No. 33 of 1956), commonly referred to as the Sinhala Only Act, was an act passed in the Parliament of Ceylon in 1956. The act replaced English with Sinhala as the sole official language of Ceylon, with the exclusion of Tamil.

At the time, Sinhala (also known as Sinhalese) was the language of Ceylon's majority Sinhalese people, who accounted for around 70% of the country's population. Tamil was the first language of Ceylon's three largest minority ethnic groups, the Indian Tamils, Sri Lankan Tamils and Moors, who together accounted for around 29% of the country's population.

The act was controversial as supporters of the act saw it as an attempt by a community that had just gained independence to distance themselves from their colonial masters, while its opponents viewed it as an attempt by the linguistic majority to oppress and assert dominance on minorities. The Act symbolizes the post independent Sinhalese majority's determination to assert Ceylon's identity as a Sinhala Buddhist nation state, and for Tamils, it became a symbol of minority oppression and a justification for them to demand a separate nation-state, Tamil Eelam, which was a factor in the emergence of the decades-long Sri Lankan Civil War.

In 1958 Tamil Language (Special Provisions) Act of 1958 was passed giving official status to Tamil for medium of instruction in school and university education and for admission to the public service as well for correspondence and administration in the Northern and Eastern Provinces.

Following pressure from the Indian government in 1987, the Thirteenth amendment to the Constitution was passed, which stated that, "the official language of Sri Lanka is Sinhala" while "Tamil shall also be an official language," with English as a "link language."

British rule
During the British colonial era, English was the official language in Ceylon (known as Sri Lanka since 1972). Until the passage of the Free Education Bill in 1944, education in the English language was the preserve of the Sri Lankan elite and the ordinary people had little knowledge of it. A disproportionate number of English-language schools were located in the mostly Tamil-speaking north. Thus, English-speaking Tamils held a higher percentage of coveted Ceylon Civil Service jobs, which required English fluency, than their share of the island's population.

After their election to the State Council of Ceylon in 1936, the Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP) members N. M. Perera and Philip Gunawardena demanded the replacement of English as the official language by Sinhala and Tamil. In November 1936, a motion that "in the Municipal and Police Courts of the Island the proceedings should be in the vernacular" and that "entries in police stations should be recorded in the language in which they are originally stated" were passed by the State Council and referred to the legal secretary.

In 1944, J. R. Jayewardene moved a motion in the State Council that Sinhala should replace English as the official language.

However, nothing was done about these matters and English continued to be the language of rule until 1956.

Ceylon after independence

Ceylon was granted the status of dominion in the British Empire in 1948 after largely non-violent independence movement, with the transition of sovereignty from Britain to the Sri Lankans being a peaceful process. For the first years of independence, there was an attempt to balance the interests of the elites of the main communities: the Sinhalese and the Tamils. Most Sinhalese did, however, harbour the view that the Tamils had enjoyed a privileged position under the British, and accused them of benefiting from favoritism from the colonial administration. In 1949, at the behest of the foreign plantation owners, the government disenfranchised the Indian Tamil plantation workers, who accounted for 12% of the population.

In 1951, the ambitious Solomon Bandaranaike broke with his party, the conservative United National Party (UNP), and created a new centrist party, the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP). In 1955, the SLFP decided to break ranks with the general consensus on the left to have both Sinhala and Tamil as official languages to campaign on the slogan "Sinhala Only".

Enactment

In the 1956 general elections, the SLFP campaigned on largely nationalist policies, and made the language policy one of their key election promises. The result was a landslide electoral victory for the SLFP lead coallition Mahajana Eksath Peramuna, which paved the way for Bandaranaike's appointment as Prime Minister. The Sinhala nationalist demanded that their new government immediately implement promise to make Sinhala the official state language. When Bandaranaike proceed to make Sinhala the official state language with administrative provisions for Tamil, K. M. P. Rajaratne and Professor J. E. Jayasuriya went on a fast unto death demanded legislation be drafted to make Sinhala the only official state with no concessions to Tamil language. This forced Bandaranaike to drop the administrative provisions for Tamil and The Ceylon (Constitution) Order in Council or Sinhala Only Bill as it was known was passed through parliament and was enacted. The bill was passed with the SLFP and the UNP supporting it, with the leftist LSSP and Communist Party of Sri Lanka as well as the Tamil nationalist parties (Illankai Tamil Arasu Kachchi and All Ceylon Tamil Congress) opposing it.

Tamil and Sinhalese opposition to the Act
The Left bitterly opposed it, with Dr N. M. Perera, leader of the LSSP, moving a motion in Parliament that the Act "should be amended forthwith to provide for the Sinhala and Tamil languages to be state languages of Ceylon with parity of status throughout the Island."

Dr Colvin R. de Silva of the LSSP responded, in what some regard as famous last words: "Do we... want a single nation or do we want two nations? Do we want a single state or do we want two? Do we want one Ceylon or do we want two? And above all, do we want an independent Ceylon which must necessarily be united and single and single Ceylon, or two bleeding halves of Ceylon which can be gobbled up by every ravaging imperialist monster that may happen to range the Indian ocean? These are issues that in fact we have been discussing under the form and appearance of language issue."

The passage of the act was met with demonstrations from Tamils led by the Federal Party who organized a satyagraha (peaceful protest) outside the parliament building. In response, the Sinhalese nationalist group Eksath Bhikkhu Peramuna organized a counter-protest and a mob representing this group attacked the Tamil protesters and was "responsible for unleashing riots that killed nearly 150 Tamils" in the Gal Oya riots between 5 and 6 June 1956.

Partial reversal in 1958
Parts of the act were reversed in 1958, after the so-called "Sinhala Only, Tamil Also" compromise made by the Tamil leaders. On 3 September 1958 the Tamil Language (Special Provisions) Act – which provided for the use of the Tamil language as a medium of instruction, as a medium of examination for admission to the Public Service, for use in state correspondence and for administrative purposes in the Northern and Eastern provinces – was passed. The Left parties continued to demand parity of status until after the Tamil electorate voted overwhelmingly in the 1960 elections for the same leaders who had agreed to the compromise.

Effect
The policy turned out to be "severely discriminatory" and placed the Tamil-speaking population at a "serious disadvantage". As a Sinhalese academic A. M. Navaratna Bandara writes: "The Tamil-speaking people were given no option but to learn the language of the majority if they wanted to get public service employment. [...] A large number of Tamil public servants had to accept compulsory retirement because of their inability to prove proficiency in the official language [....]" The effects of these policies were dramatic as shown by the drastic drop of Tamil representation in public sector: "In 1956, 30 percent of the Ceylon administrative service, 50 percent of the clerical service, 60 percent of engineers and doctors, and 40 percent of the armed forces were Tamil. By 1970 those numbers had plummeted to 5 percent, 5 percent, 10 percent, and 1 percent, respectively." For much of the 1960s government forms and services were virtually unavailable to Tamils, and this situation only partly improved with later relaxations of the law.

Languages today
According to Chapter IV of the 1978 Constitution of Sri Lanka, the Sinhala and Tamil languages are both official and national languages of the country. This constitution was amended in 1987.

According to the Chapter 4: Language of Legislation of the Sri Lanka constitution, previously written act is to be interpreted in Sinhala to avoid mis-interpretation. In the case of a new act the parliament, at the stage of enactment has the authority to determine which version of the legislation prevails in the event of inconsistencies.

Further reading
 Sandagomi Coperahewa, Bhashanuragaye Desapalanya (Colombo: Godage, 1999)

References

1956 in Ceylon
1956 in law
British Ceylon period
Language legislation
Politics of Sri Lanka
Society of Sri Lanka
Sinhala language
Origins of the Sri Lankan Civil War
Acts of the Parliament of Sri Lanka

Sinhala Only Act


Dr. Joseph Cecil Patrick (August 28, 1892 – April 12, 1965) invented Thiokol, America's first synthetic rubber in the early 1920s.  While seeking a formulation for automotive antifreeze, he attempted to hydrolyze ethylene dichloride with sodium polysulfide.  In doing so, he produced a brown, insoluble gum that later became known as Thiokol. He solved commercial production problems by inventing the suspension polymerization process, and solved compounding problems by degrading high molecular weight polymer to a low molecular weight liquid polymer.  This material is one of the principal binders for rocket propellant.

Patrick was the 1958 recipient of the Charles Goodyear Medal.

References

Polymer scientists and engineers
1892 births
1965 deaths
20th-century American chemists

Joseph C. Patrick


Orthographic depth is how much one-to-one relationship there is between the sounds of a language and the letters used to write them, or how much a word is spelled the way it sounds. Writing systems with a close one-to-one relationship between sounds and letters are called orthographically shallow writing systems. This includes the Spanish alphabet, Japanese kana, the Finnish alphabet, the Turkish alphabet, and the Italian alphabet. In these languages, it is easy to figure out how to speak these languages simply by reading them. Writing systems with little one-to-one relationship between sounds and letters are called orthographically deep writing systems. These would include the English alphabet, French alphabet, Mongolian script, and Thai script.

Spelling

Orthographic depth


Chinwendu Ihezuo, ti atun mo si Chinwe Ihezuo (ojo-ibi ogbon ojo Osu Kerin 1997) je agbabolu ile Nàìjíríà ti o je atamatase fun BIIK Kazygurt  ni ile Kazakisitani ati omo  egbe agbabolu obinrin ti ipele ogun ni ile Nijeriya. O ti gba boolu fun Delta Queens ni liigi obinrin Nijeriya. Ni odun 2016, o pari liigi asiwaju obinrin fun UEFA ni 2016-17 pelu BIIK Kazygurt.

Àwọn àkóónú
null bòmọ́lẹ̀
1Early life
2Club career
3International career
3.1Senior national team
3.2U-20 national team
3.3U-17 national team
4See also
5References
6External links

Ibeere Aye
Abi Ihezuo ni ogbon ojo, osu keri odun 1997 ni Ajegunle, Lagos, Nigeria. O lo ibeere aye re ninu palapolo eko. O ga niwon ese bata 5.7. Awon obi re faramo gbigba boolu ni igba ti obere lati mo gba boolu. Iya re faramo gbigba boolu re osi tun ran lowo lati ra awon jesi re ni oja esekuku. Fun gbogbo igba ewe re, o ba awon odomokunrin ni ajegunle lati mo gba boolu papo ni palapolo ajegunle. Adugbo Ajegunle ti pese awon akinkanju ogbontarigi agbabolu okunrin fun Nijeriya. Fun imoriya, ti Ihezuo ba fe se ikeko boolu re, o nife lati keko pelu awon agbaboolu okunrin.

Igba Gbigba Egbe
Ihezuo darapo mo kilobu egbe ojobon ti BIIK Kazygurt fun ilu Kazakhstan ni odun 2016 fun odun kan. Ni akoko ibeere re pelu kilobu yii ti o ti wo aso ti oni ami ookandinlogun, o gba boolu erindinlogun wole ni ifarahan ogun. O dije pẹlu awọn egbe re ni odun 2016-17 UEFA ti asaju liigi obinrin, ti o ti bere ere meji. ti osi gba fun 180 iṣẹju lai gba boolu kankan wole ni akoko yii. O si tun gba kaadi ofeefee ni asekagba egbe re pelu Verona leyin ti won ti gboro eta si okan soju Verona. O gba koriya ni liigi asiwaju nigba ti awon egbe re gboro eeta si okan ni ere won pelu Wexford Youths ni idije iyege.

O gba boolu fun Pelican Star ti ilu Calabar lati odun 2012 si odun 2014 leyin ti o tesiwaju si Delta Queens ti osi wa pelu won titi di ipari odun 2015.

International career

Senior national team
Following her performance at the 2014 FIFA U-20 World Cup, she was invited to attend a national team training camp for potential selection to the side that would compete at an African Women's Championship in Namibia.

In March 2016, she was one of 40 players called up to prepare for the 2016 Africa Women Cup of Nations. She was a member of the senior national side for the 2015 All African Games in Congo.

U-20 national team
Ihezuo was first called up to the team in 2014. She represented Nigeria at the 2014 FIFA U-20 Women's World Cup where the team narrowly lost in the finals to Germany. She was one of the leading goal scorers in the competition. That year, she also played for the team in a friendly against Ghana. She scored the game's only goal that saw Nigeria win 1–0.

In September 2016, she was invited to the 29 member strong national team training camp that was preparing for the 2018 FIFA U-20 Women's World Cup. She joined the team late for the camp in October in Abuja, after the national team coach threatened her and other overseas players with being dropped if they did not arrive by October 8. She had to miss a training session as she needed time to recover from jet lag. As a player, she acknowledged the pressure she felt at camp going into the tournament to perform well.

She scored seven goals for Nigeria in the qualifying competition for the World Cup. One of her goals came in the 16th minute in their return game against South Africa. The goal qualified Nigeria for the FIFA World Cup. Another goal came in Nigeria's 2–1 victory against Congo DR.

U-17 national team
Ihezuo made her international debut for Nigeria at the 2012 FIFA U-17 Women's World Cup in Azerbaijan. She came away from the tournament with six goals. Five of these goals came in one game against hosts Azerbaijan, which her team won 11–0. The win was Nigeria's biggest in any FIFA World Cup appearance. Her five goals were also a record for most goals scored in a single game at the FIFA U-17 Women's World Cup. The record has previously been held by Germany's Kyra Malinowski and South Korea's Yeo Minji, who scored four goals each in the 2010 edition of the tournament. Her fete was matched by Lorena Navarro at the 2016 edition when the Spaniard scored 5 goals against Jordan. Her six goals also earned her the Silver Boot for the tournament. The award was presented to her at the 2012 Annual General Assembly of the Nigerian Football Federation. Her team was eliminated from the tournament after losing to France in the semi-finals.

Not named to the squad in 2013, Ihezuo was also a member of the team in 2014. She again competed at the World Cup, wearing number 19 and playing in the team's game against China where she came on as a substitute.

Àwọn Ìtọ́kasí

Chinwendu Ihezuo


EA-3148 (Substance 100A)  is a "V-series" nerve agent related to the better-known compounds VX and VR. It was studied by both the US and Soviet chemical weapons programmes during the Cold War, and is notable as the only V-series organophosphate nerve agent specifically identified in public domain sources as having a higher absolute potency as an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor than VX (around 50% more potent by weight). However, both the US and Soviet investigations of the compound concluded that despite its high potency, the physicochemical properties of the substance made it unsuitable for weaponisation, and further research was not conducted.

The chemical structure of EA-3148 falls within the scope of compounds designated "Toxic chemicals" under Schedule 1 of the Chemical Weapons Convention and so it is illegal throughout the world under international law and may only be used for certain types of scientific and medical research.

Effects
A healthy American male soldier was given EA-3148, 1.15 µg/kg i.v.. Erythrocyte AChE values dropped precipitously to 22% of normal within 15 min of dosing and to 0% at 48 h; the value recovered to 88% of normal at 72 days post-exposure. Signs of toxicity were evident within 5-8 min of treatment in two comparably dosed subjects who felt dizzy, weak, tired, sweaty, and had hands and feet that were moist. Within 2 h post-exposure, these subjects reportedly were resting, eating, and feeling fine.

A U.S. Army report summarizing experience with EA-3148 noted anorexia, fatigue, poor sleep, unusual dreams, dizziness, euphoria, blurred vision, increased salivation, restlessness; decrements in a test of numerical facility in four individuals and exaggeration of a schizoid personality in one male soldier.

References

Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors
V-series nerve agents
Phosphonothioates
Chemical weapons
Cyclopentanes
Diethylamino compounds

EA-3148