Descent.

Richard of York was born on 22 September 1411, the son of Richard, Earl of Cambridge (1385–1415), and his wife Anne Mortimer (1388–1411). Both his parents were descended from King Edward III of England (1312–1377): his father was son of Edmund, 1st Duke of York (founder of the House of York), fourth surviving son of Edward III, whereas his mother Anne Mortimer was a great-granddaughter of Lionel, Duke of Clarence, Edward's second son. After the death in 1425 of Anne's childless brother Edmund, Earl of March, this ancestry supplied her son Richard, of the House of York, with a claim to the English throne that was arguably superior to that of the reigning House of Lancaster, descended from John of Gaunt, the third son of Edward III.  Richard

Childhood and upbringing.

Upon the death of the Earl of Cambridge, Richard became a ward of the crown. As he was an orphan, his property was managed by royal officials. Despite his father's plot against the king, along with his provocative ancestry – one which had been used in the past as a rallying point by enemies of the House of Lancaster – Richard was allowed to inherit his family estates without any legal constraints. His considerable lands as duke of York meant that his wardship was a valuable gift of the crown, and in December 1423 this was sold to Ralph Neville, 1st Earl of Westmorland.  Little is recorded of Richard's early life. As a royal ward, in 1416 he was placed under the guardianship of the Lancastrian retainer Sir Robert Waterton, under whose tutelage he remained until 1423, in a low public profile. Then, as ward of the Earl of Westmorland, York was brought up in the

The war in France.

As York reached majority, events were unfolding in France which would tie him to the events of the ongoing Hundred Years' War. In the spring of 1434, York attended a great council meeting at Westminster which attempted to conciliate the king's uncles, the dukes of Bedford and Gloucester (heads of the regency government), over disagreements regarding the conduct of the war in France. Henry V's conquests in France could not be sustained forever, as England either needed to conquer more territory to ensure permanent French subordination, or to concede territory to gain a negotiated settlement. During Henry VI's minority, his Council took advantage of French weakness and the alliance with Burgundy to increase England's possessions, but following the Treaty of Arras of 1435, Burgundy ceased to recognise the English king's claim to the French throne.  In May 1436, a few months after Bedford's death, York was appointed to succeed him as commander of the English forces in France. York's appointment was one of a number of stop-gap measures after the death of Bedford to try

France again.

Henry VI turned to York again in 1440 after peace negotiations failed. He was reappointed Lieutenant of France on 2 July, this time with the same powers that the late Bedford had earlier been granted. As in 1437, York was able to count on the loyalty of Bedford's supporters, including Sir John Fastolf, Sir William Oldhall, and Sir William ap Thomas. He was promised an annual income of £20,000 to support his position. Duchess Cecily accompanied him to Normandy, and his children Edward, Edmund and Elizabeth were all born in Rouen.  York reached France in 1441 and quickly moved down the Seine towards Pontoise, which was besieged by the French. Though York failed to bring the French to battle, he and Lord Talbot – in what would be the highlight of York's military career – led a brilliant campaign involving several river crossings around the Seine and Oise, chasing them almost up to the walls of Paris. In the end, all of York's efforts were in vain, for the French took Pontoise by assault in September 1441. This was to be York's only military action during his second lieutenancy.  In 1442, York continued to

Role in politics before 1450.

York appears to have kept a low profile in English politics before his final return to England, in 1445. King Henry VI seems to have been reluctant to employ York, who was not invited to the first royal council at the end of the regency in November 1437. York returned to England on 20 October 1445 at the end of his five-year appointment in France. He must have had reasonable expectations of reappointment. However, he had become associated with the English in Normandy who were opposed to the policy of Henry VI's Council towards France, some of whom had followed him to England (for example Sir William Oldhall and Sir Andrew Ogard). Eventually (on 24 December 1446) the lieutenancy went to Edmund Beaufort, 2nd Duke of Somerset, who had succeeded his brother John. During 1446 and 1447, York attended meetings of Henry

Leader of the Opposition, 1450–1453.

In 1450, the defeats and failures of the English royal government of the previous ten years boiled over into serious political unrest. In January Adam Moleyns, Lord Privy Seal and Bishop of Chichester, was lynched. In May the chief councillor of the king, William de la Pole, 1st Duke of Suffolk, was murdered on his way into exile. The House of Commons demanded that the king take back many of the grants of land and money he had made to his favourites.  In June, Kent and Sussex rose in revolt. Led by Jack Cade (taking the name Mortimer), they took control of London and killed James Fiennes, 1st Baron Saye and Sele, the Lord High Treasurer of England. In August, the final towns held in Normandy fell to the French and refugees flooded back to England.  On 7 September, York landed at Beaumaris, Anglesey. Evading an attempt by Henry to intercept him, and gathering followers as he went, York arrived in London on 27 September. After an inconclusive (and possibly violent) meeting with the king, York continued to recruit, both in East Anglia and the west. The violence in London was such that Somerset, back in England after the collapse of English Normandy, was put in the Tower of London for his own safety. In December Parliament elected York's chamberlain, Sir William Oldhall, as speaker.  York's public stance was that of a

Protector of the Realm, 1453–1455.

By the summer of 1453, York seemed to have lost his power struggle. Henry embarked on a series of judicial tours, punishing York's tenants who had been involved in the debacle at Dartford. The Queen consort, Margaret of Anjou, was pregnant, and even if she should miscarry, the marriage of the newly ennobled Edmund Tudor, 1st Earl of Richmond, to Margaret Beaufort provided for an alternative line of succession. By July, York had lost both of his offices, Lieutenant of Ireland and Justice of the Forest south of the Trent.  Then, in August 1453, Henry VI suffered a catastrophic mental breakdown, perhaps brought on by the news of the defeat at the Battle of Castillon in Gascony, which finally drove English forces from France. He became completely unresponsive, unable to speak, and had to be led from room

Confrontation and aftermath, 1455–1456.

According to the historian Robin Storey: "If Henry's insanity was a tragedy, his recovery was a national disaster." When he recovered his reason in January 1455, Henry lost little time in reversing York's actions. Somerset was released and restored to favour. York was deprived of the Captaincy of Calais (which was granted to Somerset once again) and of the office of Protector. Salisbury resigned as Chancellor. York, Salisbury, and Salisbury's eldest son, Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, were threatened when a Great Council was called to meet on 21 May in Leicester (away from Somerset's enemies in London). York and his Neville relations recruited in the north and probably along the Welsh border. By the time Somerset realised what was happening, there was no time to raise a large force to support the king.  Once York took his army south of Leicester, thus barring the route to the Great Council, the dispute between him and the king regarding Somerset would have to be settled by force. On 22 May, the king and Somerset arrived at St Albans with a hastily assembled and poorly equipped army of around 2,000. York, Warwick, and Salisbury were already there with a larger and better-equipped army. More importantly, at least some of their soldiers would have had experience in the frequent border skirmishes with the Kingdom of Scotland and the occasionally rebellious people of Wales.  The First Battle of St Albans that followed hardly deserves the term battle. Possibly

Uneasy peace, 1456–1459.

Although Margaret of Anjou had now taken the place formerly held by Suffolk or Somerset, her position, at least at first, was not as dominant. York had his Lieutenancy of Ireland renewed, and he continued to attend meetings of the Council. However, in August 1456 the court moved to Coventry, in the heart of the queen's lands. How York was treated now depended on how powerful the queen's views were. York was regarded with suspicion on three fronts: he threatened the succession of the young Prince of Wales; he was apparently negotiating for the marriage of

Civil war breaks out, 1459.

In June 1459 a Great Council was summoned to meet at Coventry. York, the Nevilles and some other lords refused to appear, fearing that the armed forces that had been commanded to assemble the previous month had been summoned to arrest them. Instead, York and Salisbury recruited in their strongholds and met Warwick, who had brought with him his troops from Calais, at Worcester. Parliament was summoned to meet at Coventry in November, but without York and the Nevilles. This could only mean that they were to be accused of treason.

The wheel of fortune (1459–1460).

York's flight worked to his advantage. He was still Lieutenant of Ireland and attempts to replace him failed. The Parliament of Ireland backed him, providing offers of both military and financial support. Warwick's (possibly inadvertent) return to Calais also proved fortunate. His control of the English Channel meant that pro-Yorkist propaganda, emphasising loyalty to the king while decrying his wicked councillors, could be spread around southern England. Such was the Yorkists' naval dominance that Warwick was able to sail to Ireland in March 1460, meet York and return to Calais in May. Warwick's control of Calais was to prove to be influential with the wool-merchants in London.  In December 1459 York, Warwick and Salisbury suffered attainder. Their lives were forfeit, and their lands reverted to the king; their heirs would not inherit. This was the most extreme punishment a member of the nobility could suffer, and York was now in the same situation as Henry of Bolingbroke (the future King Henry IV) in 1398. Only a successful invasion of England would restore his fortune. Assuming the invasion was successful, York had three options: become Protector again, disinherit the king's son so that York would succeed, or claim the throne for himself.  On 26 June, Warwick and Salisbury landed at Sandwich. The men of Kent rose to join them. London opened

Final campaign and death.

While this was happening, the Lancastrian loyalists were rallying and arming in the north of England. Faced with the threat of attack from the Percys, and with Margaret of Anjou trying to gain the support of the new King of Scotland James III, York, Salisbury and York's second son Edmund, Earl of Rutland, headed north on 2 December. They arrived at York's stronghold of Sandal Castle on 21 December to find the situation bad and getting worse. Forces loyal to Henry controlled the city of York, and nearby Pontefract Castle was also in hostile hands. The Lancastrian armies were commanded by some of York's implacable enemies such as Henry Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland and John Clifford, whose fathers had been killed at the Battle of Saint Albans, and included several northern

Legacy.

Within a few weeks of Richard of York's death, his eldest surviving son was acclaimed King Edward IV and finally established the House of York on the throne following a decisive victory over the Lancastrians at the Battle of Towton. After an occasionally tumultuous reign, he died in 1483 and was succeeded by his twelve-year-old son, Edward V, who was himself succeeded after 86 days by his uncle, York's youngest son, Richard III.

Issue.

His twelve children with Cecily Neville are:

Richard of York, 3rd Duke of York (22 September 141130 December 1460), also named Richard Plantagenet, was a leading English magnate, a great-grandson of King Edward III through his father, and a great-great-grandson of the same king through his mother. He inherited vast estates and served in various offices of state in Ireland, France, and England, a country he ultimately governed as Lord Protector during the madness of King Henry VI.

Richard Plantagenet, 3. vévoda z Yorku (21. září 1411 – 30. prosince 1460), byl členem anglické královské rodiny, který zastával důležité státní pozice ve Francii na konci stoleté války a v Anglii v době kdy Jindřich VI. trpěl záchvaty šílenství. Jeho spor s Jindřichem VI. byl hlavním politickým konfliktem a asi nejdůležitější příčinou války růží. I když se nestal králem, byl otcem dvou anglických panovníků Eduarda IV. a Richarda III.


Theory.

History.

Operationalization is the scientific practice of "operational definition", where even the most basic concepts are defined through the operations by which we measure them. The practice originated with the philosophy of science book "The Logic of Modern Physics" (1927), by Percy Williams Bridgman, whose methodological position is called operationalism.  Bridgman wrote that in the theory of relativity a concept like "duration" can split into multiple different concepts. In refining a physical theory, it may be discovered that what was thought to be one concept is actually two or more distinct concepts. Bridgman proposed that if only operationally defined concepts are used, this will never happen.  Bridgman's theory was criticized because "length" is measured in various ways (e.g. it's impossible to use a measuring rod to measure the distance to the Moon), so "length" logically isn't "one" concept but "many", some concepts requiring knowledge of geometry. Each concept is to be "defined by" the measuring operation used. Another example is the radius of a sphere, obtaining different values depending on the way it is measured (say, in metres and in millimeters). Bridgman said the concept is defined on the measurement. So the criticism is that there are potentially infinite concepts, each defined by the methods that measured it, such as angle of sighting, day of the solar year, angular subtense of the moon, etc. which were gathered together, some astronomical observations taken over a period of thousands of years.

Operationalization.

The practical 'operational definition' is generally understood as relating to the theoretical definitions that describe reality through the use of theory.  The importance of careful operationalization can perhaps be more clearly seen in the development of General Relativity. Einstein discovered that there were two operational definitions of "mass" being used by scientists: "inertial", defined by applying a force and observing the acceleration, from Newton's Second Law of Motion; and "gravitational", defined by putting the object on a scale or balance. Previously, no one had paid any attention to the different operations used because they always produced the same results, but the key insight of Einstein was to posit the Principle of Equivalence that the two operations would always produce the same result because they were equivalent at a deep level, and work out the implications of that assumption, which is the General Theory of Relativity. Thus, a breakthrough in science was achieved by disregarding different operational definitions of scientific measurements and realizing that they both described a single theoretical concept. Einstein's disagreement with the operationalist approach was criticized by Bridgman as follows: "Einstein did not carry over into his general relativity theory the lessons and insights he himself has taught us in his special theory." (p. 335).

In the social sciences.

Operationalization is often used in the social sciences as part of the scientific method and psychometrics. Particular concerns about operationalization arise in cases that deal with complex concepts and complex stimuli (e.g., business research, software engineering) where unique threats to validity of operationalization are believed to exist.

Anger example.

For example, a researcher may wish to measure the concept "anger." Its presence, and the depth of the emotion, cannot be directly measured by an outside observer because anger is intangible. Rather, other measures are used by outside observers, such as facial expression, choice of vocabulary, loudness and tone of voice; after Damasio, Lesion studies.  If a researcher wants to measure the depth of "anger" in various persons, the most direct operation would be to ask them a question, such as "are you angry", or "how angry are you?". This operation is problematic, however, because it depends upon the definition of the individual. Some people might be subjected to a mild annoyance, and become slightly angry, but describe themselves as "extremely angry," whereas others might be subjected to a severe provocation, and become very angry, but describe themselves as "slightly angry." In addition, in many circumstances it is impractical to ask subjects whether they are angry.  Since one of the measures of anger is loudness, the researcher can operationalize the concept of anger by measuring how loudly the subject speaks compared to his normal tone. However, this must assume that loudness is uniform measure. Some might respond verbally while other might respond physically.

Economics objections.

One of the main critics of operationalism in social science argues that "the original goal was to eliminate the subjective mentalistic concepts that had dominated earlier psychological theory and to replace them with a more operationally meaningful account of human behavior. But, as in economics, the supporters ultimately ended up "turning operationalism inside out". "Instead of replacing'metaphysical' terms such as 'desire' and 'purpose'" they "used it to legitimize them by giving them operational definitions." Thus in psychology, as in economics, the initial, quite radical operationalist ideas eventually came to serve as little more than a "reassurance fetish" for mainstream methodological practice."

Tying to conceptual frameworks.

The above discussion links operationalization to measurement of concepts. Many scholars have worked to operationalize concepts like job satisfaction, prejudice, anger etc. Scale and index construction are forms of operationalization. There is not one perfect way to operationalize. For example, in the United States the concept distance driven would be operationalized as miles, whereas kilometers would be used in Europe.  Operationalization is part of the empirical research process. Take for example an empirical research question: Does job satisfaction influence job turnover? Both job satisfaction and job turnover need to be measured. The concepts and their relationship are important — operationalization occurs within a larger framework of concepts. When there is a large empirical research question or purpose the conceptual framework that organizes the response to the question must be operationalized before the data collection can begin. If a scholar constructs a questionnaire based on a conceptual framework, they have operationalized the framework. Most serious empirical research should involve operationalization that is transparent and linked to a conceptual framework.  To use an oversimplified example, the hypothesis "Job satisfaction reduces job turnover" is one way to connect (or frame) two concepts – job satisfaction and job turnover. The process of moving from the idea "job satisfaction" to the set of questionnaire items that form a job satisfaction scale is operationalization.  Operationalization uses a different logic when testing a formal (quantitative) hypothesis and testing working hypothesis (qualitative). For formal hypotheses the concepts are represented empirically (or operationalized) as numeric variables and tested using inferential statistics. Working hypotheses (particularly in the social and administrative sciences), on the other hand, are tested through evidence collection and the assessment of the evidence. The evidence is generally collected within the context of a case study. The researcher asks - Is the evidence sufficient to'support' the working hypothesis? Formal operationalization would specify the kinds of evidence needed to support the hypothesis as well as evidence which would "fail" to support it. Robert Yin recommends developing a case study protocol as a way to specify the kinds of evidence needed during the data collection phases. He identifies six sources of evidence 1) documentation; 2) archival records; 3) interviews; 4) direct observations; 5) participant observation and 6) physical or cultural artifacts.  In the field of public administration, Shields and Tajalli (2006) have identified five kinds of conceptual frameworks (working hypothesis, descriptive categories, practical ideal type, operations research, and formal hypothesis). They explain and illustrate how each of these conceptual frameworks can be operationalized. They also show how to make conceptualization and operationalization more concrete by demonstrating how to form conceptual framework tables that are tied to the literature and operationalization tables that lay out the specifics of how to operationalize the conceptual framework (measure the concepts).

In research design, especially in psychology, social sciences, life sciences and physics, operationalization or operationalisation is a process of defining the measurement of a phenomenon that is not directly measurable, though its existence is inferred by other phenomena. Operationalization thus defines a fuzzy concept so as to make it clearly distinguishable, measurable, and understandable by empirical observation. In a broader sense, it defines the extension of a concept—describing what is and is not an instance of that concept. For example, in medicine, the phenomenon of health might be operationalized by one or more indicators like body mass index or tobacco smoking. As another example, in visual processing the presence of a certain object in the environment could be inferred by measuring specific features of the light it reflects. In these examples, the phenomena are difficult to directly observe and measure because they are general/abstract (as in the example of health) or they are latent (as in the example of the object). Operationalization helps infer the existence, and some elements of the extension, of the phenomena of interest by means of some observable and measurable effects they have.

Operacionalizace v sociálních vědách je procedurou překládání pojmů z teoretického do observačního jazyka. Je procesem rozvinutí specifických výzkumných procedur (operací), které vyústí v empirickém pozorování daných abstraktních konceptů v reálném světě.


Foundation.

In June 1221 it appears to have been approved by Pope Honorius III, who gave it permission to observe the ordinances of the Order of the Temple of Solomon. In July the Pope appears to have transferred all authority over the foundation of the order (and therefore its survival) to the papal legate Conrad of Urach.  The specific purpose of the founding was "to promise aid and succour to Amaury de Montfort and his heirs, for the defence of his person and domains" and as inquisitors for the "seeking out and destruction of evil heretics and their lands and also of those who rebel against the faith of the holy church." This was confirmed by Honorius in two letters of the summer of 1221. The order has been described as a penitential confraternity rather than a full-fledged military order, but nevertheless it was founded at the height of the Albigensian Crusade to fight Catharism and had requested of the pope the right to fight in Languedoc like the Templars did in the Holy Land. Its first master was Pierre Savary (Peter Savaric), who called himself the "humble and poor master of the militia of the order of the faith of Jesus Christ" in a document of Carcassonne dated 9 February 1221. Despite the formal organisation and the papal approval, it seems that Conrad of Urach intended to disband the order when it was no longer needed, for in February 1221 he ordered that all lands which had been or would be granted it by Amaury or any other patron should revert to the donors.

Merger with the Dominicans.

It has been asserted that a letter of Gregory IX in 1231 shows the Militia, lacking even support from Amaury, being merged into the Order of Santiago, but the militia being referred to is the Order of the Faith and Peace and not the Faith of Jesus Christ. It has also been asserted that the Militia was brought across the Alps and established in Italy as the Milizia di Gesù Cristo, but the soundness of this hypothesis is unknown. Neither Militia should be confused with the modern Militia Jesu Christi, which is unaffiliated with either. Nor is the Militia to be confused with the 19th-century Italian movement known as the Order of the Holy Ghost or "Santafedisti", though there were some commonalities.  The Militia of the Faith of Jesus Christ appears to have been under heavy Dominican influence at this time. In a bull of 18 May 1235, Gregory IX confided the Militia to the care of Jordan of Saxony, second master-general of the Dominican Order. In the same year he decreed for the knights a Dominican-inspired habit of black and white. Lastly, the Militia was very largely influenced by a famous Dominican, Bartolomeo of Braganza (or of Vicenza).  According to the research of Raymund of Capua, who became a Dominican about 1350, the Militia was merged with the Dominican Order of Penance ("Ordo de Poenitentia Sancti Dominici") to form the Third Order of Saint Dominic. The constitutions of the two orders, that of Gregory IX for the Militia in 1235 and that of Muñón de Zamora for the Order of Penance in 1285, were very similar, though Muñón de Zamora expressly forbids the carrying of arms except in defence of the Church, which may have covered the Militia's activities. According to later Bollandist historiography, the amalgamation of the orders became general in the 14th century.

The Militia or Order of the (Holy) Faith of Jesus Christ () was an ephemeral military order founded in Languedoc in or shortly before 1221. It owed its origins probably to Folquet de Marselha, the Bishop of Toulouse; Simon de Montfort, 5th Earl of Leicester, leader of the Albigensian Crusade; and possibly to Dominic of Caleruega, the founder of the Friars Preachers.

Milice Víry Ježíše Krista nebo Řád svaté víry Ježíše Krista (latinsky "Militia Jesu Christi") byl rytířský řád založený v Languedoku r. 1221 sv. Dominikem, Simonem z Montfortu a Folquetem de Marselha, biskupem z Toulouse. Podobného názvu užíval i Řád Svatého Spasitele z Monrealu, zvaný též "Milicia de Cristo" a Milice Ježíše Krista (italsky "Milizia di Gesù Cristo"), založený roku 1233 v Lombardii.


History.

In warmer climates the houses of the wealthy were often built around a courtyard, but in northern areas manors were built around a great hall. The hall was home to the hearth, and was where all the residents of the house would eat, work, and sleep. One common example of this form is the longhouse. Only particularly messy tasks would be done in separate rooms on the periphery of the hall. Still today the term "hall" is often used to designate a country house such as a hall house, or specifically a Wealden hall house, and manor houses.  In later medieval Europe, the main room of a castle or manor house was the great hall. In a medieval building, the hall was where the fire was kept. As heating technology improved and a desire for privacy grew, tasks moved from the hall to other rooms. First the master of the house withdrew to private bedrooms and eating areas. Over time servants and children also moved to their own areas, while work projects were also given their own chambers leaving the hall for special functions. With time, its functions as dormitory, kitchen, parlour and so on were divided off to separate rooms or, in the case of the kitchen, a separate building.  Until the early modern era that majority of the population lived in houses with a single room. In the 17th century even lower classes began to have a second room, with the main chamber being the hall and the secondary room the parlor. The hall and parlor house was found in England and was a fundamental, historical floor plan in parts of the United States from 1620 to 1860.  In Europe as the wealthy embraced multiple rooms initially the common form was the enfilade, with rooms directly connecting to each other. In 1597 John Thorpe is the first recorded architect to replace multiple connected rooms with a rooms along a corridor each accessed by a separate door.

Other uses.

Collegiate halls.

"This section is linked from "Aularian"."  Many institutions and buildings at colleges and universities are formally titled "_______ Hall", typically being named after the person who endowed it, for example, King's Hall, Cambridge. Others, such as Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford, commemorate respected people. Between these in age, Nassau Hall at Princeton University began as the single building of the then college. In medieval origin, these were the halls in which the members of the university lived together during term time. In many cases, some aspect of this community remains.  Some of these institutions are titled "Hall" instead of "College" because at the time of their foundation they were not recognised as colleges (in some cases because their foundation predated the existence of colleges) and did not have the appropriate Royal Charter. Examples at the University of Oxford are:  At colleges in the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, the term "Hall" is also used for the dining hall for students, with High Table at one end for fellows. Typically, at "Formal Hall", gowns are worn for dinner during the evening, whereas for "informal Hall" they are not. The medieval collegiate dining hall, with a dais for the high table at the upper end and a screen passage at the lower end, is a modified or assimilated form of the Great hall.

Meeting hall.

A hall is also a building consisting largely of a principal room, that is rented out for meetings and social affairs. It may be privately or government-owned, such as a function hall owned by one company used for weddings and cotillions (organized and run by the same company on a contractual basis) or a community hall available for rent to anyone, such as a British village hall.

Religious halls.

In religious architecture, as in Islamic architecture, the prayer hall is a large room dedicated to the practice of the worship. (example : the prayer hall of the Great Mosque of Kairouan in Tunisia). A hall church is a church with nave and side aisles of approximately equal height. Many churches have an associated church hall used for meetings and other events.

Public buildings.

Following a line of similar development, in office buildings and larger buildings (theatres, cinemas etc.), the entrance hall is generally known as the foyer (the French for fireplace). The atrium, a name sometimes used in public buildings for the entrance hall, was the central courtyard of a Roman house.

Types.

In architecture, the term "double-loaded" describes corridors that connects to rooms on both sides. Conversely, a single-loaded corridor only has rooms on one side (and possible windows on the other). A blind corridor doesn't lead anywhere.

In architecture, a hall is a relatively large space enclosed by a roof and walls. In the Iron Age and early Middle Ages in northern Europe, a mead hall was where a lord and his retainers ate and also slept. Later in the Middle Ages, the great hall was the largest room in castles and large houses, and where the servants usually slept. As more complex house plans developed, the hall remained a large room for dancing and large feasts, often still with servants sleeping there. It was usually immediately inside the main door. In modern British houses, an entrance hall next to the front door remains an indispensable feature, even if it is essentially merely a corridor.

Slovem hala obvykle označujeme zastřešený prostor, místnost, síň či sál větších rozměrů, který neslouží pro ubytování osob. Může se jednat i o označení pro samostatnou budovu, která takovouto velkou místnost obklopuje.


Conception and predecessor.

Guy Ligier and racing teammate, business partner and close friend Jo Schlesser talked about together building a car that overcame the shortcomings of the cars they were driving. Following Schlesser's death Ligier retired from racing and established Automobiles Ligier in 1968.  The JS2 was the company's second product, the first having been the JS1. That car was built on an aluminum chassis designed by Chief Engineer Michel Têtu with fibreglass bodywork by Frua. Four different engines were used at different times - two versions of the Cosworth FVA DOHC inline four-cylinder engine and two versions of the Ford Cologne OHV V6 engine. The Cosworths were mated to Hewland transaxles while the Fords were bolted to a modified transaxle from the Citroën SM. Due to there only ever being three JS1s built it was limited to racing in the Prototype class.

History and features.

To qualify to race in the GT class, 500 copies of a car had to have been built. Ligier's plan was to reach that goal with the JS2. The letters in the name of the car, like the JS1 before it, are a tribute to Schlesser.  The new car's appearance was similar to that of the JS1. Bodywork was again by Frua, but Guy Ligier insisted that the proportions of the cabin be adjusted so that the car was not too wide and had a low centre of gravity and good outward visibility. His requirement that it also be practical necessitated wide doors for ease of access and a usable trunk. The road-car was built on a backbone chassis made of a layer of polyurethane foam sandwiched between sheets of steel. Suspension was by wishbones and coil springs on all four corners. Braking was by power-assisted discs. Anti-roll bars were mounted front and rear. Minor components like door-handles and tail-lights were sourced from major brands like Peugeot and Citroën. Weight is variously given as 980 or 1030 kg.  The JS2's first public showing was at the 1970 Salon de l'Auto in Paris. This car was powered by a 2.6 litre Ford V6. Ford was planning on using this engine in their own GT70, a mid-engined sports coupé being developed as a smaller companion to their successful GT40. Ford declined to supply engines to Ligier for the JS2.  A deal was struck with Raymond Ravenel, Managing Director of Citroën, to use the Maserati C114 V6 from the SM in the JS2. This engine was designed by Giulio Alfieri of Maserati, which company Citroën had purchased in 1968. Alfieri produced a 90-degree DOHC V6 with hemispherical combustion chambers and 12 valves. Built from light alloy the engine displaced 2675 cc and weighed, but produced.  Têtu redesigned the rear cradle of the chassis to accommodate the Maserati engine, stretching the car by 50 mm. At the same time Ligier had coachbuilders Pichon-Parat make some final revisions to the car's appearance. This revised JS2 with its new Italian motor debuted at the 1971 Salon de l'Auto. The car was priced at 74,000 francs (roughly US$13,350.00 at the time). The first cars were delivered in November 1972. 48 copies were built in 1972.  In February 1973 the JS2 received a larger C114 engine shared with the Maserati Merak. Displacement was now up to 2965 cc, power up 25 CV to, and the price up 500 francs to 74,500. 80 cars were built this year.  In 1974 Ligier entered into an agreement to sell their cars through Citroën's dealership network, which would also provide after-sales service. By the end of this year Citroën had also transferred assembly of the SM to Ligier's factory in Abrest. 114 copies of the JS2 were built in 1974.  In 1975 a revised "Series 2" JS2 debuted. The nose had been redesigned with hidden headlamps and the car received five-lug wheels. The price had risen to 80,000 francs. At the same time the 1973 Oil Crisis had caused the market for specialty vehicles to shrink dramatically. Only 7 of the Series 2 JS2s were built.  Citroën, facing severe financial difficulties, was eventually forced to merge with Peugeot. One of the casualties of the merger was to be the SM.  On May 22, 1975 Citroën issued an announcement saying that Maserati had been put into receivership. Control of the company eventually passed to De Tomaso, who would end production of the C114 V6, leaving Ligier without an engine for the JS2 and bringing production of the road-going model to an end.

Motorsports.

The racing version of the JS2, like the JS1, used a chassis made of aluminum instead of steel.  Other French racing drivers who piloted Ligier JS2s include Guy Ligier himself, as well as Michel Leclère, Henri Pescarolo, François Migault, Jean-Pierre Beltoise, and Jean-Pierre Jarier.

The Ligier JS2 is a mid-engined sports coupé that was built by Ligier in the French commune of Abrest near Vichy in the department of Allier between 1971 and 1975. Road-going and competition versions were built.

Ligier JS2 byl jediný sportovní automobil, který vyráběla francouzská společnost Ligier. Vyráběl se v letech 1971 až 1975. Vyrobeno bylo asi 150 kusů.


Biography.

Early life.

Stjepan Radić was born in Desno Trebarjevo, Martinska Ves near Sisak in the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia within Austria-Hungary as the ninth of eleven children. After being expelled from his gymnasium in Zagreb, he finished at the Higher Real Gymnasium in Karlovac. In 1888 Radić travelled to Đakovo where he met with bishop Josip Juraj Strossmayer to request help for a trip to the Russian Empire. Strossmayer recommended Radić to Metropolitan Mihailo of Belgrade who referred him to a Russian teacher in Kiev. Radić travelled to Kiev and was allowed to stay at the city's Monastery of the Caves where he remained for six weeks before returning to Croatia.  In September 1891 he enrolled in law at the University of Zagreb. He was selected as a representative of the student body at the celebration of the 300th anniversary of the Battle of Sisak in 1893. After criticizing the ban of Croatia Károly Khuen-Héderváry during the ceremony and referring to him as a "Magyar hussar", Radić was sentenced to four months in prison which he served in Petrinja. He was among a group of students who set fire to the Hungarian tricolour on 16 October 1895 during the visit of Emperor Franz Joseph to Zagreb. For this, Radić received a prison sentence and was expelled from the University of Zagreb, as well as barred from all universities in the Monarchy. After spending some time in Russia and, later, Prague, Radić continued his studies at the École libre des sciences politiques in Paris, where he graduated in 1899.

Lead up to the first Yugoslavia.

After World War I he had opposed the merging of Croatia with the Kingdom of Serbia without guarantees of Croatian. Radić was selected as a member of the National Council of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. On 24 November 1918 he famously urged delegates attending a session that would decide the country's political future not to "rush like geese into fog". He was the lone member of the National Council's central committee to vote against sending a delegation to Belgrade to negotiate with the Kingdom of Serbia. On 26 November, he was removed from the central committee.  Under pressure from the Great powers (British Empire, France, United States), as well as honouring the secret deals that were struck between the Entente and the Kingdom of Serbia, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was established and two representatives of Radić's party (by then named the Croatian Common-people Peasant Party) were appointed to the Provisional Representation which served as a parliament until elections for the Constituent could be held. The party's representatives, however, decided not to take their seats.

Arrest.

On 8 March 1919 the central committee passed a resolution penned by Radić that declared ""Croatian citizens do not recognize the so called Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes under the Karađorđević dynasty because this kingdom was proclaimed other than by the Croatian Sabor and without any mandate of the Croatian People."" The full statement was included in a Memorandum which was translated into French and sent abroad to be addressed to the Paris Peace Conference. This act provoked a decision by the government to arrest Radić along with several other party members.  He was to be held some 11 months until February 1920, just before the first parliamentary elections of the Kingdom of SHS to a Constitutional Assembly which were held on 28 November. The result of the November election was 230,590 votes, which equaled to 50 seats in the parliament out of 419. On 8 December, before the first sitting of parliament, Radić held a massive rally in front of 100,000 people in Zagreb. Stjepan Radić and the CCPP held an extraordinary meeting, in which a motion was put forward and voted on that the party will not be part of parliamentary discussions before matters are first resolved with Serbia on the matters of governance, the most sticking issues being the minorisation of the Croatian people and the overt powers of the King with the central government in Belgrade. The party was subsequently renamed to the Croatian Republican Peasant Party, highlighting the party's official stance. In December, ban of Croatia Matko Laginja was dismissed by the cabinet of Milenko Radomar Vesnić for allowing the rally to take place.

The new Constitution.

On 12 December 1920, the Parliament of SHS had their first sitting, without the representatives of CPP (50 representatives) and the Croatian Party of Rights (2 representatives). A total of 342 representatives presented their credentials out of a total of 419. On 28 June 1921, the Constitution of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was made law after a vote of 223 representatives out of the present 285, the total number representatives in the parliament being 419. The representatives turnout and subsequent vote is quite poor considering that it was a constitutive parliament, which was supposed to have created the new constitution. The constitution was commonly known as the Vidovdan (St. Vitus Day) Constitution after the anniversary of the Serbian Battle of Kosovo, also the anniversary of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914.  In the next parliamentary elections, which were held in March 1923, the stance of Stjepan Radić and the CPP against the central government managed to turn into extra votes. The results of the election were, 70 seats or 473.733 votes, which represented the majority of the Croatian vote in Northern and Southern parts of Croatia, as well as the Croatian votes in Bosnia, as well as Herzegovina.

Again imprisoned.

Radić still held on to the idea of an independent Croatia, and kept the party out of parliament in protest. This in effect afforded Serbian prime minister Nikola Pašić the opportunity to consolidate power and strengthen his Serb-dominated government. Returning from an unsanctioned overseas trip in 1923 in which Stjepan Radić visited England (for 5 months), Austria (5 months) and the Soviet Union (2 months). upon his return in 1924, Radić was arrested in Zagreb and sentenced for associating with Soviet Communists and imprisoned. The trip was used for the purpose of internationalising the plight of Croatians in the Kingdom of SHS.  After his release, Stjepan Radić soon reentered politics, but this was not without problems. On 23 December, the Serb dominated central government declared that the political party CRPP was in contravention of the Internal security law of 1921 in the infamous Obznana declaration, and this was confirmed by King Alexander on 1 January 1924, thus arresting the CRPP executive on 2 January 1925, and finally arresting Stjepan Radić on 5 January.  After the parliamentary elections in February 1925, the CRPP even with its whole executive team behind bars, and with only Stjepan Radić at its helm, CRPP managed to win 67 parliamentary seats with a total of 532,872 votes. Even though the vote count was higher than at the previous election, the gerrymandering by the central government ensured that CRPP received fewer parliamentary seats. In order to increase his negotiating power the CRPP entered into a coalition with the Independent Democratic party (Samostalna demokratska stranka), Slovenian People's Party (Slovenska ljudska stranka) and the Yugoslav Muslim Organization (Jugoslavenska muslimanska organizacija).

Return to Parliament.

Immediately after the parliamentary elections in March 1925, the CRPP changed the party name to Croatian Peasant Party (Hrvatska seljačka stranka). With the backing of the coalition partners, the CPP made an agreement with the major conservative Serbian party - the People's Radical Party (Narodna radikalna stranka), in which a power-sharing arrangement was struck, as well as a deal to release the CPP executive from jail. The CPP had to make certain concessions like recognising the central government and the rule of the monarch, as well as the Vidovdan constitution in front of the full parliament on 27 March 1925. Stjepan Radić was made the Minister for Education, whereas other CPP party members obtained ministerial posts: Pavle Radić, Nikola Nikić, Benjamin Šuperina, and Ivan Krajač. This powersharing arrangement was cut short after the passing away of the president of the Peoples Radical Party, Nikola Pašić, on 10 December 1926.  Radić soon resigned his ministerial post in 1926 and returned to the opposition, and in 1927 entered into a coalition with Svetozar Pribićević, president of the Independent Democratic Party, a leading party of the Serbs in Croatia. The Peasant-Democrat coalition had a real chance to end the Radicals' long-time stranglehold control of the Parliament. Previously they had long been opponents, but the Democrats became disillusioned with the Belgrade bureaucracy and restored good relations with the Peasant Party with which they were allies in the time of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. With this arrangement, Stjepan Radić managed to obtain a parliamentary majority in 1928. However, he was not able to form a government. The Peasant-Democrat coalition was opposed by some of the Croatian elite, like Ivo Andrić, who even regarded the followers of the CPP as ""...fools following a blind dog..."" (the blind dog being Stjepan Radić).  In his elder days, Radić was nearly blind.

Assassination in Parliament.

Death threats and threats of violent beatings were made against Stjepan Radić in parliament, without any intervention by the president of the Assembly (Parliamentary speaker). On the morning of 20 June 1928, Radić was warned of the danger of an assassination attempt against him and was begged to stay away from the Assembly for that day. He replied that he was like a soldier in war, in the trenches and as such it was his duty to go but he nevertheless promised not to utter a single word.  In the Assembly, Puniša Račić, a member of People's Radical Party from Montenegro, got up and made a provocative speech which produced a stormy reaction from the opposition but Radić himself stayed completely silent. Finally, Ivan Pernar shouted in response, ""thou plundered beys"" (referring to accusations of corruption related to him). In an earlier speech Radić accused Račić of stealing from civilian population and later refused to apologize when Račić asked him to. Puniša Račić made his way to the speaker podium facing the Croats. He put his hand in his pocket, where he held the revolver, and faced the president Ninko Perić and told him: "I ask of you, Mr. president, to sanction Pernar. If you fail to stop me, I shall punish him myself!" After that threat shouting started in the room. But Račić continued his threats: "Whoever tries to stand between me and Pernar will be killed!" At that moment Puniša Račić took out his parabellum. Minister Vujičić, sitting at the bench behind Račić, grabbed his hand in order to stop him. At the same time, minister Kujundžić came to his aid, but Račić, however, being very strong, broke himself free. At exactly 11:25 AM shots were fired - Pernar was hit 1 cm above the heart. When he collapsed, Račić took aim at Stjepan Radić. Đuro Basariček noticed this and leaped to help him. Račić, however, turned his way and shot him, bullet entering his loins and exiting around his scapula. Basariček fainted immediately. Ivan Granđa ran in front of Stjepan Radić and Račić shot him in the arm. As soon as he was down, Račić aimed at Stjepan Radić, and shot him in the chest. At that point Pavle Radić jumped towards Račić, who didn't get confused, but remarked: "Ha! I've been looking for you!" and shot him 1 cm below the heart. It was believed Račić would shoot Svetozar Pribičević, sitting next to Stjepan Radić, next, but Račić instead left the room through the ministers' chambers. The whole assassination was over in less than a minute. It was one of the first assassinations in a government building in history. Radić was left for dead and indeed had such a serious stomach wound (he was also a diabetic) that he died several weeks later at the age of 57. His funeral was officiated by archbishop Antun Bauer of Zagreb. His burial was massively attended and his death was seen as causing a permanent rift in Croat-Serb relations in the old Yugoslavia.  What exactly happened to Puniša Račić is still contested. One version (conservative) states that he was sentenced to 20 years of house arrest and later pardoned by the Serb authorities while another (communist) contends that he was sentenced to 20 years of hard labour and freed by the invading Nazis in WWII. He led a normal life during the Nazi occupation of Serbia and was captured and killed by Communist partisans in 1945 or 1946.  Following the political crisis triggered by the shooting, in January 1929, King Aleksandar Karađorđević abolished the constitution, dissolved the parliament, banned all ethnic, regional and religious political parties, and declared a royal dictatorship.  Radić is buried in the Mirogoj cemetery in Zagreb.

Legacy.

Radić's violent death turned him into a martyr and an icon of political struggle for the peasantry and the working class, as well as an icon of Croatian patriots. The iconography of Stjepan Radić was later used not only by his successor Vladko Maček, but also by other political options in Croatia: right wing or left wing.  The Ustaše used the death of Stjepan Radić as proof of Serbian hegemony, and as an excuse for their treatment of Serbs. However, a number of leading CPP figures who became political opponents of the Ustashe were imprisoned or killed by the regime. The Partisans on the other hand used this as a recruiting point with CPP members who were disillusioned with the Independent State of Croatia, and latter had one brigade named after Antun and Stjepan Radić in 1943.  The image of Stjepan Radić was used extensively during the Croatian Spring movement in the early 1970s. There are many folk groups, clubs, primary and secondary schools which bear the name of Stjepan Radić. Many Croatian cities have streets and squares in his name. In 2008, a total of 265 streets in Croatia were named after him, making Radić the third most common person eponym of streets in the country. Statues of Stjepan Radić are also common. His portrait is depicted on the obverse of the Croatian 200 kuna banknote, issued in 1993 and 2002. Since 1995 the Republic of Croatia has awarded the Order of Stjepan Radić. In 2015 the Croatian Parliament declared 20 June to be the Memorial Day for Stjepan Radić and the June Victims.  In 1997, a poll in Croatian weekly "Nacional" named Stjepan Radić as the most admired Croatian historic personality.

Anti-clericalism.

Stjepan Radić was a Roman Catholic, but at the same time extremely anti-clerical. In a 1924 rally in Krašić, birthplace of the late Cardinal Aloysius Stepinac, he stated: "Priests or bishops are teachers of the faith and as such we are listening to them in church, and even outside the church. But when they mistake religion with politics, with such gentile politics of revenge, blood, arrogance and gluttony, they are not teachers, but destroyers of faith and church. (...) When our bishops write a political letter, and when they want to be political leaders to the Croatian people, then it is my and our duty to decipher it and if necessary, condemn it." In an interview for Nova revija in 1926 he stated that "clericalism means abuse of the most sacred feelings of religion in order to destroy the family, to demolish people in order to gain political power." He would often repeat the slogan: Believe in God, but not in the priest. He supported the establishment of the Indigenous Croatian Catholic Church, and its separation from the Vatican. The secularist association "Voice of Reason - The Movement for a Secular Croatia" uses his portrait as its logo.

Stjepan Radić (11 June 1871 – 8 August 1928) was a Yugoslav politician and founder of the Croatian People's Peasant Party (HPSS).

Stjepan Radić (Trebarjevo Desno u Sisaku 11. červen 1871 – 8. srpen 1928, Záhřeb) byl chorvatský politik v časech království Srbů, Chorvatů a Slovinců. Jako předseda a zakladatel chorvatské selské strany byl vlivným politickým představitelem a reprezentantem nemalého počtu chorvatských obyvatel tehdejší Jugoslávie.


Overview.

In the wake of the failed peace negotiations, Demosthenes initially attempted to starve out the Spartans on Sphacteria, but was unable to blockade the island tightly enough. In Athens there was concern that the approach of winter would necessitate abandoning the blockade, unless the impasse was swiftly broken. The politician Cleon took out reinforcements from Athens and joined forces with Demosthenes, and the Athenians launched an assault on Sphacteria. Landing in great force on a weakly defended point, the Athenians swamped the beachfront defenses and moved inland, harassing the Spartans with missile fire whenever they attempted to come to grips with the Athenian hoplites. The Spartans retreated to the northern end of the island and dug in behind their fortifications, but when the Messenian general Comon succeeded in bringing his troops through seemingly impassable terrain into their rear, the Spartans surrendered.  The capture of over 292 hoplites (120 of which were Spartans) by Athens radically shifted the balance of power in the war. Athens threatened to execute its prisoners if Sparta invaded Attica, and the annual invasions which had occurred since the war's declaration were thus halted. Athens, meanwhile, with increased prestige and confidence, went on to pursue the war with more vigor and initiative for several years, returning to the negotiating table only after a string of defeats had eroded its position.

Prelude and early moves.

After the Battle of Pylos, which resulted in the isolation of over 400 Spartan soldiers on the island of Sphacteria, Sparta sued for peace, and, after arranging an armistice at Pylos by surrendering the ships of the Peloponnesian fleet as security, sent an embassy to Athens to negotiate a settlement. These negotiations, however, proved fruitless, and with the news of their failure the armistice came to an end; the Athenians, however, refused to return the Peloponnesian ships, alleging that assaults had been made against their fortifications during the truce. Hostilities resumed immediately, with the Athenians guarding the island night and day against attempts at rescue or resupply.  Demosthenes, commanding the force at Pylos, initially planned to starve the Spartans out rather than attack them, but as time wore on it became clear that the Spartans would be able to hold out for longer than anticipated. By offering freedom to Helots and monetary rewards to free men who would volunteer to carry food across to the island, the Spartans were able to bring in a small but critical stream of food. Some of these men reached the island by approaching from the seaward side at night during rough weather; others swam underwater towing bags of food. The Athenians, meanwhile, found themselves frequently short on rations, and the entire force was forced to depend on a single spring for its fresh water. In these adverse circumstances, the Athenians began to doubt that they could resolve the issue by siege before winter forced them to lift their blockade.

Debate at Athens.

This downturn of fortunes was the source of much concern at Athens, the decision to reject Sparta's peace offer became an item of much popular regret. Noting this turn of popular opinion, Cleon, who had been the principal advocate of rejecting the peace offer, claimed that the reports brought back from the scene must be inaccurate. When Nicias, a political opponent of his and a strategos for that year, proposed to send a commission, with Cleon among its members, to verify the reports from Pylos, Cleon attacked him for proposing to waste time that should have been spent attacking. Nicias countered this rhetorical thrust by offering to stand aside as a general, and allow Cleon to take command of an expeditionary force to Pylos. Although he had no authority to make this offer, the assembly, caught up in the enthusiasm of the moment, went along with him, urging Cleon to back up his words with action.  Cleon was probably aware that an attack was already being planned at Pylos, as he was likely to have been in communication with Demosthenes, but once he realized that Nicias's offer was more than a rhetorical ploy he attempted to back down from his challenge. The crowd, however, refused to permit this, and Cleon was eventually compelled to accept command. Reassuming the bold attitude he had taken at the start of the debate, Cleon proclaimed that, with the force he had been given, he would either kill or capture the Spartans within twenty days. Naming Demosthenes as his partner in command, he set out from Athens with a force composed of Athenian sailors and ships carrying allied peltasts and archers.

Attack on Sphacteria.

Demosthenes had already been planning an attack on Sphacteria, as the difficulty of the circumstances his men were in had led him to doubt the viability of a prolonged siege. Moreover, a fire on the island, ignited by Athenian sailors sneaking across to cook a meal away from the crowded confines of Pylos, had denuded the island of vegetation and allowed Demosthenes to examine both the contours of the island and the number and disposition of the defenders. Seeing that only thirty Spartans were detailed to guard the southern end of the island, away from Pylos, Demosthenes landed his 800 hoplites on both the seaward and landward sides of the island one night. The Spartan garrison, thinking that the Athenian ships were only mooring in their usual nightly watch posts, was caught off guard and massacred. At dawn, the remainder of the Athenian force streamed ashore; these included some 2,000 light troops (psiloi) and archers and some 8,000 rowers from the fleet, armed with whatever weapons could be found.  The Spartans, under their commander Epitadas, attempted to come to grips with the Athenian hoplites and push their enemies back into the sea, but Demosthenes detailed his lightly armed troops, in companies of about 200 men, to occupy high points and harass the enemy with missile fire whenever they approached. When the Spartans rushed at their tormentors, the light troops, unencumbered by heavy hoplite armor, were easily able to run to safety; dust and ash from the recent fire, stirred up by the commotion, further contributed to the Spartans' predicament by obscuring their attackers from their sight. Unable to make any headway, the Spartans withdrew in some confusion to the northern end of the island, where they dug in behind their fortifications and hoped to hold out. A stalemate took hold for some time, with the Athenians trying unsuccessfully to dislodge the Spartans from their strong positions. At this point, the commander of the Messenian detachment in the Athenian force, Comon, approached Demosthenes and asked that he be given troops with which to move through the seemingly impassable terrain along the island's shore. His request was granted, and Comon led his men into the Spartan rear through a route that had been left unguarded on account of its roughness. When he emerged with his force, the Spartans, in disbelief, abandoned their defenses; the Athenians seized the approaches to the fort, and the Spartan force stood on the brink of annihilation.

Surrender and aftermath.

At this point, Cleon and Demosthenes declined to push the attack further, preferring to take as many Spartans as they could prisoner. An Athenian herald offered the Spartans a chance to surrender, and the Spartans, throwing down their shields, agreed at last to negotiate. Cleon and Demosthenes met with the Spartan commander Styphon (Styphon had initially been the third in command, but Epitadas had been killed and his first successor was severely wounded and had been left for dead). Styphon requested to send a herald to the mainland to seek advice; the Athenians refused to allow any of the trapped men to leave, but permitted as many heralds from the mainland as were desired to pass back and forth. Several messengers did so, the last of whom left Styphon with the message "The Spartans order you to make your decision yourselves, so long as you do nothing dishonorable." Styphon and his men, with no hope of victory or escape, surrendered. Of the 440 Spartans who had crossed over to Sphacteria, 292 survived to surrender; of these, 120 were men of the elite Spartiate class.  "The outcome," Donald Kagan has observed, "shook the Greek world." Spartans, it had been supposed, would never surrender. Now, with Spartiate hostages in their hands, the Athenians issued an ultimatum; any invasion of Attica would lead to the execution of their prisoners. For the first time since the beginning of the war, the Athenians could farm their crops securely. At Pylos, a Messenian garrison was installed, and these men, launching raids into country that had once been their home, did significant damage to the Spartans and instigated the desertion of numerous Helots. At Athens, Cleon, his seemingly mad promise fulfilled, was the man of the hour; he was granted meals at the state's expense in the prytaneum (the same reward granted to Olympic champions), and most scholars see his hand in the legislation of the following months, the most prominent item of which was an increased levy of tribute on the empire. Sphacteria had changed the nature of the war. The next few years would see a newly aggressive Athens, and it would take a string of Athenian reverses to diffuse the impetus that the surrenders had given and bring the two sides to the table to negotiate the Peace of Nicias in 421 BC.

The Battle of Sphacteria was a land battle of the Peloponnesian War, fought in 425 BC between Athens and Sparta. Following the Battle of Pylos and subsequent peace negotiations, which failed, a number of Spartans were stranded on the island of Sphacteria. An Athenian force under Cleon and Demosthenes attacked and forced them to surrender.

Bitva u Sfakterie se odehrála v roce 425 př. n. l. jako součást Peloponéské války. Střetla se v ní vojska Athén a Sparty.


Report.

Background.

Going into the round, Brawn GP driver Jenson Button led the Drivers' Championship by 6 points from teammate Rubens Barrichello. Barrichello led Sebastian Vettel of Red Bull Racing and Timo Glock of Toyota F1 by 5 points in second. Brawn GP led the Chinese Grand Prix winners Red Bull Racing by 161⁄2 points in the Constructors' Championship. Toyota were a further point back and the only other team to hit double figures.  Ferrari were yet to score a point, and failure to do so in Bahrain would have resulted in Ferrari's worst ever start to a season in Formula One. Their previous worst start also came when they were Constructors' Champions; in the 1980 season the team scored no points until the fourth race, the 1980 United States Grand Prix West, where Jody Scheckter finished fifth.  Force India introduced a revised floor and diffuser in Bahrain for the Force India VJM02, as well as an upgraded front wing and reprofiled sidepods. Force India driver Giancarlo Fisichella welcomed the upgrades, hoping the car's lack of downforce would be addressed by the new modifications.

Practice and qualifying.

Three practice sessions were held before the race; of which two were held on Friday April 24, 2009, with the first in the morning and the second in the afternoon. Both sessions lasted 90 minutes with weather conditions hot and dry throughout. The third session was held on Saturday morning and lasted for 60 minutes.  At the end of the first practice session, Lewis Hamilton set the fastest time of 1:33.647 in his McLaren car, ahead of the two BMW Sauber cars of Nick Heidfeld and Robert Kubica. Williams' Nico Rosberg continued his quick practice form with the fourth fastest time, followed by the Brawn of Jenson Button, the McLaren of Heikki Kovalainen, Brawn's Rubens Barrichello, and Ferrari's Felipe Massa. Red Bull's Mark Webber and the other Ferrari of Kimi Räikkönen shared the ninth fastest time, completing the top ten. Nico Rosberg was fastest in Friday's second practice session, topping the timesheets with a time of 1:33.339, followed by Fernando Alonso in the Renault and Jarno Trulli in the Toyota. The Red Bulls of Sebastian Vettel and Mark Webber were fourth and fifth, with Button close behind. Adrian Sutil of Force India put in an impressive laptime to finish seventh in the standings, with Toyota's Timo Glock, Brawn's Rubens Barrichello, and Williams' Kazuki Nakajima rounding out the top 10. The BMWs of Heidfeld and Kubica could not repeat their times from the first session, and were classified in seventeenth and twentieth, respectively.  In third practice, Glock managed the fastest time with a 1:32.605 before his car rolled to a halt due to brake problems, and there were improved times from Ferrari and McLaren. Felipe Massa managed the second fastest time, with Räikkönen in fifth. Rosberg was third fastest, and Hamilton posted the fourth fastest time. Nelson Piquet, Kubica, Nakajima, Trulli and Heidfeld made up the top ten.  The qualifying session on Saturday afternoon was split into three parts. Jarno Trulli achieved his fourth career pole position, and his first since 2005, whilst his teammate Timo Glock qualified second. This marked the first time Toyota had put both cars on the front row of the grid. Sebastian Vettel qualified third, with Jenson Button behind him. In fifth was the McLaren of Lewis Hamilton, with Rubens Barrichello in sixth. Renault's Fernando Alonso managed seventh place, and behind him Felipe Massa, Nico Rosberg and Kimi Räikkönen completed the top ten. Kovalainen, Nakajima, Kubica, Heidfeld and Piquet made up 11th to 15th on the grid. Those knocked out in the first session and classified 16th to 20th were Sutil, Buemi, Fisichella, Webber and Bourdais. Webber was controversially blocked by Sutil near the end of his qualifying lap (Sutil claimed he didn't realise Webber was on a flying lap), preventing him from posting a fast time. As a result, the stewards gave Sutil a three-place grid penalty, demoting him to 19th position.

Race.

Timo Glock got off to a perfect start from second on the grid and took the lead. Jarno Trulli was running second, but had to fight off Lewis Hamilton in the first corner, who had passed Jenson Button and Sebastian Vettel from fifth on the grid after a flying start with the help of his KERS. Button had also overtaken Vettel, who was running a heavier fuel load. Kimi Räikkönen, meanwhile, had pushed his Ferrari up to sixth place, making up four positions from the start. Further back in the field, there was damage sustained to the cars of Felipe Massa, Nick Heidfeld, Robert Kubica and Kazuki Nakajima, all of whom had to pit early to replace their front wings, whilst Heikki Kovalainen lost track position after running wide. Massa also complained of problems with his KERS system due to a temperature problem, and was advised to turn it off.  At the start of lap 2, Button overtook Hamilton to claim third position. The KERS-aided McLaren of Hamilton then kept Vettel's Red Bull at bay, and only when Hamilton entered the pits on lap 15 did Vettel finally pass him.  Since both the Toyotas were running light on fuel, they made their pit stops early, with Glock in on lap 12 and Trulli on lap 14. The Toyota team opted to put both their drivers onto the slower, harder compound tyres for the middle stint of the race, opposite to the strategy being run by the other teams. By the time Button had made his stop on lap 15 on the softer tyres, he had made up enough ground over Trulli in just one lap to come out in front. Glock, who had once led the race, had lost so much time on the tyres that he stayed behind Hamilton in seventh place even after the McLaren driver had completed his pit stop.  Vettel's pit stop on lap 18 placed him ahead of Hamilton, but just thirty metres behind the slower-lapping car of Trulli, preventing him from challenging Button for the lead. Button took this opportunity to pull out a 7.5 second gap between himself and Trulli by lap 22.  By lap 34, Button had increased his lead to 15.6 seconds, putting him in clear control of the race. By the time the second round of pit stops were completed for the front runners, Button was ahead of anyone else, this time on the harder tyres. Toyota's tyre strategy had not paid off, and Vettel, on the softer tyres, put in some fast lap times once Trulli had his second stop and was no longer in Vettel's path. After his own stop, Vettel (now on the harder compound tyre) ended up just in front of the Toyota driver, the very opposite of the situation after the first pit stops.  On lap 44 there was drama with Räikkönen and Glock fighting for sixth position, with the Finn just edging out Glock at turn four. Rubens Barrichello had lost a lot of time earlier in the race after failing to pass the KERS-equipped Renault of Nelson Piquet. However, he showed the pace of the Brawn car by ending up just in front of Räikkönen, even after having one pit stop more, then pulled away from him in the final laps.  On lap 48, spiking oil pressure on the Williams of Nakajima caused the only retirement of the race as he crawled into the pits.  Button drove home to his third victory of the season, 7 seconds clear of Vettel, who was pushing particularly hard in the last laps. Trulli crossed the line 2 seconds behind Vettel, with Hamilton finishing fourth. Barrichello took fifth, Räikkönen sixth, Glock less than a second behind in seventh, and Fernando Alonso finished eighth, 52 seconds behind Button. Nick Heidfeld equalled Michael Schumacher's record of 24 consecutive finishes, bringing home his BMW Sauber in 19th and last place.

Classification.

Qualifying.

"Cars that used KERS are marked with" "‡"

The 2009 Bahrain Grand Prix was a Formula One motor race held on 26 April 2009 at the Bahrain International Circuit, Sakhir, Bahrain. It was the sixth Bahrain Grand Prix and fourth race of the 2009 Formula One season.

Grand Prix Bahrajnu 2009 (V Gulf Air Bahrain Grand Prix), 4. závod 60. ročníku mistrovství světa jezdců Formule 1 a 51. ročníku poháru konstruktérů, historicky již 807. grand prix, se již tradičně odehrála na okruhu v Manamy.


Early life.

Jelena Dokić was born in Osijek, SR Croatia, SFR Yugoslavia to a Serb father Damir Dokić and a Croat mother, Ljiljana (née Podnar). She has a younger brother, Savo, eight years her junior. Her

Tennis career.

Junior career.

In 1998, she won the US Open girls singles title and the French Open doubles with Kim Clijsters, ending

1999–2000: Major breakthrough.

Dokic started the year by teaming up with Mark Philippoussis to win the Hopman Cup title. Until 2016, it was Australia's lone victory at the event. She then received a wildcard into the Australian Open, becoming a victim to world No. 1 Martina Hingis 6–1, 6–2. At Wimbledon, Dokic made her professional breakthrough.  As a qualifier, Dokic caused one of the biggest upsets in tennis history, defeating world No. 1 Hingis 6–2, 6–0, in the first round. Ranked No. 129 at the time, she was the lowest-ranked player to have defeated the top seed in a Grand Slam tournament during the open era. She also defeated ninth-seeded Mary Pierce in straight sets before losing 6–3, 1–6, 6–3 to Alexandra Stevenson in the quarterfinals. Dokic also reached her first WTA doubles final

2001: First WTA titles and top 10.

Beginning with the Australian Open, she began playing for Yugoslavia. Her father, Damir, claimed irregularities in the draw after her first-round loss to Lindsay Davenport and was banned from the tournament due to abusive behaviour. Damir later said, "I think the draw is fixed just for her". After the Australian Open, her family moved to the United States. In May, she won her first singles title in the Rome Masters, defeating Amélie Mauresmo in

2002: Highest ranking.

Dokic reached the final of the Open Gaz de France, where she was forced to hand a walkover to Venus Williams, after her first victory over Monica Seles a day earlier, due to a right thigh strain suffered in her win. In April, she won her fourth singles title in Sarasota, Florida, defeating Tatiana Panova 6–2, 6–2 in the final. At the Hamburg event, Dokic collected a 7–6, 7–6 win over Justine Henin, before having to retire in the semifinals. Dokic was unable to defend her Rome Masters title, losing to 11th-seeded Anastasia Myskina in the third round.  In Strasbourg, she reached her fifth final, losing to Silvia Farina Elia, 4–6, 6–3, 3–6. At the French Open, she was defeated by top-seeded Jennifer Capriati in the quarterfinals, 6–4, 4–6, 6–1. Dokic

2003–2004: Out of the top 10.

In 2003, Dokic hired Borna Bikić from Croatia to replace her father as her trainer. She played 30 events, reaching one final, one semifinal, and seven quarterfinals. At Wimbledon she narrowly lost in the third round 4–6, 4–6 to a 16-year-old Maria Sharapova. At Zürich, she beat the then world No. 1 player, Clijsters, but lost to Henin in the final. She and Petrova also reached a final in doubles in Rome. She played in

2005–2008: ITF Circuit.

Representing Australia for the first time in five years, Dokic received a wild card into the ASB Classic in Auckland, but lost her first-round match to Julia Schruff, 5–7, 7–6, 6–1, hitting 51 unforced errors and 28 double faults. Dokic then earned a wildcard berth at the Australian Open after winning the wildcard playoff. She held a match point on her opponent Virginie Razzano's serve and hit a forehand winner that caught the line, only to have the umpire rule the ball out. She went on to lose the match, 3–6, 7–6, 6–1, hitting over 70 unforced errors.  Later that year, Dokic played in the qualifying tournament for Wimbledon, where she received a wildcard but suffered a 6–4, 6–7, 2–6 loss to Alexandra Stevenson. Under the guidance of new coach Nikola Pilić, after over three months away from the tour due to injury, Dokic qualified for a $10,000 tournament and reached the semifinals of the main draw before losing to Astrid Besser, 6–3, 3–6, 6–7. In November 2006, Dokic denied reports from her father that she had been kidnapped by her boyfriend, Tin Bikić.  In her interview, she said she would not play in the 2007 Australian Open because she was not ready and her aim was to get back into the top 30. Shortly after, Dokic left the Nikola Pilić tennis academy. She was due to sign a contract to be in the academy for a year, but instead returned to Borna Bikić, her coach. Dokic said she was not satisfied with the contract Pilić's Academy offered her. After withdrawing from several ITF events in the early 2007, Dokic lost in the early rounds of two $10,000 events in Rome. She then continued to withdraw from events. Back in Australia on 17 October, Dokic released a statement through Tennis Australia that she would use their

2009: Big comeback.

Dokic was knocked out of the Brisbane International by Amélie Mauresmo in straight sets in the first round. Dokic was up 5–3 in the first set before Mauresmo came back to win the tiebreak 11–9. In the second set, Dokic was down 3–5 but rallied to lead 6–5 before Mauresmo won the set in a tiebreak, 7–5. Dokic then received a qualification wildcard into the Moorilla Hobart International tournament but withdrew before her first match because of an Achilles tendon injury.  Dokic won her first round match at the Australian Open against Tamira Paszek of Austria, 6–2, 3–6, 6–4. It was her first Grand Slam match win since 2003. She then defeated world No. 17 Anna Chakvetadze in the second round, 6–4, 6–7, 6–3 and 11th-seeded Caroline Wozniacki in the third round 3–6, 6–1, 6–2. This was the first time she had reached the fourth round of the Australian Open. Dokic then advanced to the quarterfinals of a Grand Slam tournament for the first time since 2002 after defeating 29th-seeded Alisa Kleybanova 7–5, 5–7, 8–6. Dokic's run ended when she was defeated by Dinara Safina in the quarterfinals 6–4, 4–6, 6–4. Because of this tournament, her ranking improved to world No. 91.  In an interview after her first-round win at the Australian Open, Dokic said that she still has no contact with her father, but is building relationships again with her mother and younger brother, and that she has been dating her boyfriend, Tin Bikić, for five years.  In Fed Cup, Australia was in the Fed Cup Asia/Oceania Zone Group I. Dokic defeated all three of her opponents in straight sets, Lee Jin-A of Korea, Suchanun Viratprasert of Thailand, and Diane Hollands of New Zealand. Australia advanced into the World Group II Playoffs in April. At the Cellular South Cup in Memphis, Tennessee, she won two qualifying matches to reach the main draw, where she lost in the first round to top-seeded Wozniacki 1–6, 2–6 in 48 minutes.  Her next tournament was the BNP Paribas Open, a Premier Mandatory event in Indian Wells where she lost to American Jill Craybas in the first

2010: Out of the top 100.

Prior to the first Grandslam Event, Dokic participated in two Australian Open warm-up tournaments. She opened the season at the Brisbane International, where she lost to former world No. 1 Ana Ivanovic by three sets, 5–7, 6–1, 3–6, in the first round. She then travelled to Hobart to play the Hobart International where she defeated Elena Baltacha 6–4, 6–2 in the first round but lost to second seed, Shahar Pe'er, in a disappointing second round match 2–6, 2–6 with Dokic making over 40 unforced errors. She was seen breaking down on court as well as crying after this match. As well as the singles, Dokic also participated in the doubles event at this tournament, trying to start a new combination with compatriot Alicia Molik. However, the pair lost in the first round to Chan Yung-Jan and Monica Niculescu by 7–6, 6–7, [2–10].  She then travelled to Melbourne to compete at the Australian Open. Dokic was defeated there in the first round by 27th seed Alisa Kleybanova 6–1, 7–5. The loss caused Dokic's rank to drop to world No. 96. She also played doubles, partnering with Petra Kvitová, but the pair lost in the first round. In a recent article, Dokic decided to withdraw from Australia Fed Cup after dealing with emotions on and off court; however in the aftermath she said, "I have had a lot to deal with in my career but I am not done yet" and "I will be back."  Dokic withdrew from the Pattaya Open in Thailand and Malaysian Open due to a mysterious illness. She lost in the qualifying rounds of Monterrey Open and the first round of BNP Paribas Open in Indian Wells. She was then offered a wildcard into 2010 Sony Ericsson Open in Miami but declined it due to another injury. Jelena then continued to withdraw from WTA events in Marbella and Barcelona, Spain, and Fes, Morocco, still troubled by injuries.  Her clay season started in May, where she played at an 50,000 tournament at Prague where she was seeded third. She lost in the quarterfinals to Corinna Dentoni. Her next tournament was

2011: First WTA trophy after eight years.

Dokic started her 2011 campaign by receiving three main draw wildcards during the Australian summer, in Brisbane, Sydney, and Melbourne. She comfortably won her first match in Brisbane 6–4, 6–3 against qualifier Anastasia Pivovarova but then lost to in-form, eventual finalist, Andrea Petkovic 0–6, 1–6. After the match Dokic cited a stomach virus as the reason to the loss. In Sydney, she lost to Svetlana Kuznetsova by 2–6, 2–6 in the first round.  In the Australian Open, Dokic easily dispatched Czech Zuzana Ondrášková 6–3, 6–2 in the first round, but fell to Barbora Záhlavová-Strýcová 6–7, 1–6 in the second round. She also received wildcard to participate in doubles, partnering with Sally Peers where they faced sixteenth seed, Timea Bacsinszky and Tathiana Garbin, in the first round. The pair lost 1–6, 4–6.  At the Open GDF Suez in Paris, Dokic won all three qualifying matches for a spot in the main draw. Dokic then upset the 30th ranked Lucie Šafářová, a 2010 finalist, 4–6, 6–3, 6–4 for a spot in the second round. This victory was Dokic's first victory over a top-30 player since the 2009 Australian Open. She backed up her strong performance by defeating fifth seed and former doubles partner, Nadia Petrova in straight sets, 6–4, 7–6 in the second round to advance to her first WTA quarterfinals appearance since the 2009 Australian Open. However, her run ended after Kim Clijsters beat her 6–3, 6–0, despite leading 3–0 in the first set, in a victory that brought Clijsters back to world No. 1. Nevertheless, Dokic's strong performance in the Premier event brought Dokic back to the top 100, at No. 91, and a main-draw wildcard of the 2011 Dubai Tennis Championships.  In the first round of Dubai, Dokic, hindered by illness, committed 41 unforced errors and 11 double faults to give victory to an in-form Flavia Pennetta losing 2–6, 2–6. Following the loss, Dokic travelled to Doha to participate at the qualifying draw of 2011 Qatar Ladies Open. She comfortably won her first match but lost in the second match to fellow Australian, Jarmila Groth.  Dokic traveled to Kuala Lumpur where she scored her biggest win of the year by upsetting world No. 5, 2010 French Open champion, and top seed Francesca Schiavone 2–6, 7–6, 6–4 in the first round, despite serving 15 double faults. This is her first win against a top-5 player since 2003, where she defeated then world number one player Kim Clijsters in Zurich. She then defeated Japan's Kurumi Nara in the second round, 3–6, 7–6, 6–2, to advance to her second WTA quarterfinal this year. She reinforced this win by upsetting an in-form Bojana Jovanovski, the eighth seed, in straight sets 7–6, 6–2. This victory saw Dokic advance to her first WTA semifinals since Toray Pan Pacific Open in Japan in February 2004. Dokic faced a resurgent Michaëlla Krajicek of the Netherlands, who had defeated defending champion Alisa Kleybanova in the second round and prevailed 6–2, 6–3 to advance to her first WTA

2012–2014: Struggles with form, injury.

Dokic began her 2012 season in Auckland where she lost in the first round 6–7, 1–6 to Mona Barthel. Then, she received a wildcard to compete in Sydney. In the first round, she defeated fellow Australian Isabella Holland 6–0, 6–0 to set up a clash against eight seeded Marion Bartoli in the second round where she lost 0–6, 3–6. She also played doubles with Sofia Arvidsson where she reached the quarterfinals before losing to Raquel Kops-Jones and Abigail Spears. One week later, Dokic took part in the Australian Open. She began her campaign by defeating Anna Chakvetadze in the first round 6–2, 6–1. In the second round, she met Bartoli for the second time in two weeks. Dokic's nine double faults (some at crucial points) cost her and she lost 3–6, 2–6. Despite that loss, Dokic stated she had played much better than in Sydney. She also participated in doubles and mixed doubles competitions, partnering with Kateryna Bondarenko and Paul Hanley respectively, but lost in the first rounds of both.  Dokic travelled to Bogotá where she was the fourth seed, but lost to Paula Ormaechea 4–6, 6–3,

Post-retirement.

Dokic kept a low profile after her playing career. She was engaged by Tennis Australia as a coach immediately following her retirement, and was pictured coaching rising Australian star Daria Gavrilova at a training camp in Italy in June 2014. She also wrote for "Australian Tennis Magazine"

Jelena Dokic (; ; born 12 April 1983, in Osijek, Croatia) is an Australian tennis coach, commentator, writer, and former professional tennis player. Her highest ranking as a tennis player was world No. 4 in August 2002. She won WTA Tour events on all surfaces during her career.

Jelena Dokićová skutečným jménem Jelena Dokić/Јелена Докић, (* 12. duben 1983, Osijek, Chorvatsko, Jugoslávie) je australská profesionální tenistka jugoslávského původu.