click links in text for more info

Political union

A political union is a type of state, composed of or created out of smaller states. The process of creating such a state out of smaller states is called unification. Unification of states that used to be together and are reuniting is referred to as reunification. Unlike a personal union or real union, the individual states share a central government and the union is recognized internationally as a single political entity. A political union may be called a legislative union or state union. A union may be effected in many forms, broadly categorized as, Incorporating union Incorporating annexation Federal union Federative annexation Mixed unions. In an incorporating union a new state is created, the former states being dissolved into the new state. Incorporating unions have been present throughout much of history, such as the Acts of Union, 1707 between the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England creating Great Britain, in 1910 the colonies of the Cape of Good Hope, Orange River Colony, Transvaal were incorporated into the Union of South Africa, between the years of 1037 to 1479 Spain was in the process of Incorporating the Crown of Castile and Navarre into the Kingdom of Spain, though the process wasn't completed until 1716 and 1833, the Acts of Union 1800 united the Kingdom of Ireland and the Kingdom of Great Britain into the United Kingdom, in 1990 the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen united with Yemen Arab Republic to form the Republic of Yemen, in 1783 the Articles of Confederation were signed by each of the Thirteen Colonies, uniting them into the United States of America.

A full incorporating union may preserve the laws and institutions of the former states, as happened in the creating of the United Kingdom. This may be a matter of practice or to comply with a guarantee given in the terms of the union; these guarantees may be to ensure the success of a proposed union, or in the least to prevent continuing resistance, as occurred in the union of Brittany and France in 1532, a guarantee was given as to the continuance of laws and of the Estates of Brittany. The assurance that institutions are preserved in a union of states can occur as states realise that whilst a power imbalance exists, it is not so great that it precludes the ability of concessions to be made; the Treaty of Union for creating the unified Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707 contained a guarantee of the continuance of the civil laws and the existing courts in Scotland, significant for both parties. The Scottish, despite economic troubles during the Seven ill years preceding the union, still had remaining negotiating power.

This marks a delineation of states that are able to ensure a preservation of interests, there has to be some mutually beneficial reasoning behind the formal or informal preservation of interests. In the Union creating the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801, no such guarantee was given for the laws and courts of the Kingdom of Ireland, though they were continued as a matter of practice; the informal recognition of such interests represents the different circumstances of the two Unions, the small base of institutional power in Ireland at the time had faced revolution in the Irish Rebellion of 1798, as a result there was an institutional drive toward unification, limiting the Irish negotiating power. However, informal guarantees were given to preclude the possibility of further Irish unrest in the period following the French Revolution of 1789 and the 1798 rebellion; these types of informal arrangements are more susceptible to changes, for example Tyrol was guaranteed that its Freischütz companies would not be posted to fight outside Tyrol without their consent, a guarantee revoked by the Austrian republic.

This can be juxtaposed with the continued existence of the Scottish Parliament and a separate body of Scottish Law distinct from English Law. In an incorporating annexation a state or states is united to and dissolved in an existing state, whose legal existence continues. Annexation may be voluntary or, more by conquest. Incorporating annexations have occurred at various points in history such as in 1535 and 1542 under the two Laws in Wales Acts in which the Kingdom of England formally annexed the Principality of Wales, in 1822 the Republic of Spanish Haiti was annexed by the Republic of Haiti, Prussia/Germany used incorporating annexation to unite many of the German Princes during the Second Schleswig War, the Austro-Prussian War, the Franco-Prussian War, Sardinia annexed many of the Duchies and City-states in Italy during the period of Italian unification, in 1918 during the Podgorica Assembly the Kingdom of Serbia annexed the Kingdom of Montenegro, in 1949 and 1951 the People's Republic of China annexed Tibet and East Turkestan.

In a federal or confederal union the states continue in existence but place themselves under a new federal authority. The federal state alone will be the state in international law though the federated states retain an existence in domestic law. Confederal unions have a known history such as Australia and Herzegovina, Canada, Federal Republic of Central America, German Empire, Malaysia, West Pakistan and East Pakistan. Furthermore, there are some more historic confederal union form

Zhi Yao

Zhi Yao, Xun Yao, or Zhi Boyao, posthumously known as Zhi Xiangzi, was the ruler of Zhi, a vassal state of Jin during the late Spring and Autumn period. He was the son of Zhi Shen, he was the last Zhongjunjiang of Jin before its partition. Zhi Yao's dramatic death was a significant event in Chinese history; as the dominant vassal state, he asked Kangzi of Han, Huanzi of Wei and Xiangzi of Zhao to cede their lands to the Zhi clan. Han and Wei did so according to Zhi's wish. However, Zhao refused to give lands to Zhi clan. Xiangzi was triggered and led his army, along with the army from Han and Wei, laid siege on the Zhao capital Jinyang; the siege lasted. Zhao conspired with Han and Wei's ruler, Xiangzi was defeated. Zhao massacred his entire family of over 200 members. After the fall of Zhi clan, no vassals in Jin could once again match the power of Zhao and Wei; the Duke of Jin was turned into a figurehead. This led to the Partition of Jin and the establishment of Han and Wei as independent states acknowledged by the Zhou dynasty King of China, marking the end of the Spring and Autumn period and the beginning of the Warring States period.

When choosing Xiangzi as his successor, Xuanzi of Zhi was warned by his clansman Zhi Guo who believed that Xiangzi's personality did not fit the quality of a ruler. However, Xuanzi dismissed Guo's opinion. In 472 BC; the third year of Duke Chu of Jin's rule. Xiangzi led, he managed to defeat Qi's troops in the battle of Liqiu. Zuo Qiuming recorded this battle in his work Zuo Zhuan. In the Zuo Zhuan, it is shown that Xiangzi of Zhi resented oracles of I Ching because Zhi believed in his own power. In 468 BC, Xiangzi of Zhi invaded the state of Zheng. Zheng's retainer Sihong asked Qi for reinforcement. With the intervention of Qi, Zhi had to abandon his plan of invading Zheng. In 464 BC, Zhi once more entered Zheng's realm with the troops from Zhao clan. Zheng's Sihong organized resistance against them. In 458 BC, Zhi united the army of Han and Wei, he attacked and exterminated two major clans of Jin: the Fan and the Zhonghang. On the one hand Zhi took most parts of Fan and Zhonghang's fief, on the other hand he climbed to the top of Jin's court.

Zhao clan, in charge before Zhi's sudden rise, was substituted. In an occasion of banquet, Xiangzi of Zhi and Xiangzi of Zhao met. According to Han dynasty scholar Liu An, Zhi slapped on Zhao's skull; this insult offended Zhao's retainers but strengthened Zhao's patience. Xiangzi conquered the vassal state Qiuyou of Zhongshan. In 457 BC, He greedily claimed lands from Han and Zhao. Unexpectedly, Xiangzi of Zhao refused Zhi's request harshly. Xiangzi of Zhi was enraged by Zhao's response to him, he led his troops marched to Zhao's territory with the help of Wei. Xiangzi of Zhao, upon seeing his strong forces, decided to retreat to Jinyang. In 453 BC. Xiangzi of Zhi ordered the water attack of Zhao's Jinyang, he diverted the water of Fen river to Jinyang. As a consequence, Zhao's capital was flooded and its army was starving. Xiangzi of Zhi was content about the situation of Zhao, he told Kangzi of Han and Huanzi of Wei that "At first, I did not know water can exterminate a nation, now I know." Kangzi and Huanzi were frightened by Xiangzi's words because they may themselves be in Zhao's predicament one day.

At this point of time, Zhao sent its strategist Zhang Mengtan to work on Wei. Mengtan spoke out about the fear of Han and Wei in front of their rulers----Zhi will turn its arm against Han and Wei once Zhao is gone. In 453 BC. Zhao's army destroyed the dam. Han and Wei, on the other hand, began flanking the Zhi army. Xiangzi of Zhao led the storm himself. Xiangzi of Zhi was decapitated, his skull was used as Zhao's wine cup as a symbol of glorious victory. Every member of Zhi clan was killed by Zhao; the battle marked the end of Zhi clan and the beginning of the Partition of Jin

Therese Wiet

Therese Wiet was an Austrian operetta and concert singer whose career was based in Leipzig. She was married to composer Rudi Gfaller. Wiet was born in Vienna, she studied at the conservatory there and trained as a singer in Heidelberg with her aunt, Helene Wiet, a prominent opera singer in Prague and Vienna until her retirement from the stage in 1899. She made her debut at the Stadttheater in Heidelberg as Fiametta in Franz von Suppé's operetta Boccaccio, she was engaged by the Neuen Operetten-Theater in Leipzig where she sang leading soprano roles in numerous operettas, including the title role in the first Leipzig performance of Emmerich Kálmán's Die Csárdásfürstin. It was in Leipzig that Wiet met her future husband, Rudi Gfaller, at the time a tenor singing with the company and an operetta composer himself; the couple married in 1912. When Gfaller became the director of Leipzig's Panorama Künstlerspiele in 1926, she moved to that theatre. A critic for Die Weltbühne noted in 1931 that she could have had international stardom had she not remained "riveted" to Leipzig.

The Panorama was destroyed by Allied bombing in 1943, after which the couple retired to their house in the Austrian spa town of Bad Ischl. She remained active in the musical life of the town until her death in 1971 at the age of 85, her husband died a year later. They are buried together in the Bad Ischl Cemetery; the grave of Therese Wiet and Rudi Gfaller in the Bad Ischl Cemetery. The page has images of their house in Bad Ischl and Rudi Gfaller in his years

Parvati Hill

Parvati Hill is a hillock in Pune, India. The hillock rises to 2,100 feet above sea level. Atop the hillock is the Parvati Temple, one of the most scenic locations in Pune; the temple is the oldest heritage structure in Pune and was built during the rule of the Peshwa dynasty. For visitors, Parvati hill is an observation point that offers a panoramic view of Pune, it is the second highest point in Pune. The hill has 103 steps leading to the top of the hill; the hill was owned by the Patil named Taware. Peshwa purchased the hill from this patil to build a temple of shiv; the Devi temple was believed to be of Taware’s kulswami who’s angara was able to cure kashibai, peshwa’s mother’s injuries. Since Peshwa was the regular visitor of this temple The main temple, Devdeveshwara, is made of blackstone, it was completed under Balaji Baji Rao, in 1749. Other temples are dedicated to Vitthal and Rukmini and Kartikeya. Parvati Hill has 5 temples atop it: Devdeveshwar temple Kartikeya Temple Vishnu Temple Vitthal Temple Rama TempleAlong with other temples of surya and Bhawani mandir The temples open at 5:00 am and close at 10:00 pm.

Besides the temple, the Peshwa Museum is situated there. The samadhi of Balaji Baji Rao lies. Parvati water tank supplies water to the half of the city of Pune. Half way up the hill, on the south-eastern side, there is an old Buddhist cave. Though unfinished, it is believed to be contemporary with the Pataleshwar caves

Genbox Family History

Genbox Family History is genealogy software for Microsoft Windows, developed by Thoughtful Creations. It functions as a database, a research planner and task organizer, a data analyzer, a chart producer, a report writer. Genbox has evolved since its first release in 1993 as a DOS family tree charting application, it is now a complete genealogy software package, with project organisation features, support for data and media storage, source citations, the production of complex and customizable charts and reports. Some of its features include: Support for complex relationships among individuals, dates and source citations: multiple personal names and identifiers, optionally linked to defining events, can be stored for individuals. Accurate relationships between each child and any number or type of parents can be stored. Any number of event types and flags can be defined. Witnesses to events can be recorded, along with their roles. An unlimited number of event types and source types are supported with a sophisticated, multi-language template system.

Event sentences and citation formats can be customized by the user. Reports can be generated in HTML format. Multimedia support for images and video Full Unicode support, GEDCOM import and export. Genbox version 1.0 was released in 1992 as a DOS-based charting application. Genbox version 2.0 was released in 1994. Work began on the Windows version of Genbox Family History in August 1998 Genbox 3.0: Feb 02, 2003. Included support for multiple names and parent relationships, templates for event and source citations. Genbox 3.1.5: Oct 18, 2003 Genbox 3.2: Jun 20, 2004 Genbox 3.3: Oct 23, 2004 Genbox 3.4: Apr 30, 2005 Genbox 3.5: Jul 9, 2005 Genbox 3.6: Oct 2, 2005 Genbox 3.7: Feb 3, 2007 Genbox 3.7.1: Nov 16, 2007 Genbox's underlying database engine is stored using the Microsoft Jet Database Engine: the Genbox database can be opened in Microsoft Access. Format and structure of Genbox databases -Last Updated: 3 July 2006 for Version 3.6.5 Official website Genbox FAQ

Battle of Legareville

The Battle of Legareville was fought on December 25, 1863, during the American Civil War. Confederate forces tried to surprise Union forces near Legareville on Johns Island but failed to destroy the federal forces or drive them away from Legareville. Major Edward Manigault, commanding the South Carolina Siege Train or Manigaults Battalion wrote the only in depth record of confederate artillery preparation in his diary though he was never present for their construction, he reported that there were 5 artillery positions, the 1st Upper Battery commanded by Capt. Benjamin C. Webb of Company A, South Carolina Siege Train with two 30-lb. Parrot Guns, the 2nd Upper Battery commanded by 1st Lt. Ralph Nesbit of Company B, South Carolina Siege Train with two 8-inch Siege Howitzers, the Lower Battery commanded by Captain Frederick C. Schultz of Company F, 3rd SC Artillery Battalion with two 3.5-inch Blakely rifles, one 10-pdr Parrott, along with an 8-inch howitzer, the Legareville Road Battery commanded by 1st Lt. John P. Strohecker of the Marion Light Artillery with two 12-lb.

Napoleons, the Inglis Light Artillery Battery commanded by Capt. William E. Charles with two 3.5-inch Blakey Rifles and two 12-lb. Howitzers; the artillery batteries all fell under the command of Lt. Col. Delaware B. Kemper, but the artillery and infantry elements both had different commanders, which did not allow the surprise, planned for Christmas 1863 to follow through like it had been planned. Col. Powhatan R. Page of the 26th Virginia Infantry had two companies of his own regiment and five of the 59th Virginia Infantry and commanded them as the infantry element of this force. A small force of some 200 infantrymen from the division of Brigadier General George Henry Gordon, they occupied the area just outside of Legareville and had support from only one union navy vessel, the USS Marblehead. The Marblehead was under the command of Lieutenant Commander Richard Worsam Meade, the nephew of Major General George Gordon Meade; the Marblehead boasted a XI-inch Dahlgren Gun, two 24-lb smootbore guns, one 20-lb rifle.

Further down the Stono River, which ran along Johns Island past Legareville and into the Atlantic, two other gunboats were posted near the Stono Inlet. They were the USS Pawnee, commanded by George Balch and with the firepower of eight IX-inch Dahlgren guns, one 100-lb Parrot Rifle, one 50-lb Dahlgren Rifle, two 12-lb boat howitzers; the other boat was the USS C. P. Williams, a mortar schooner that mounted a couple 8-inch mortars and was under the command of Acting Master S. N. Freeman. At around 6 am on Christmas morning the howitzers of the 2nd Upper Battery opened fire and not long afterwards the lower Battery opened fire as well, but their fire was ineffective; when artillery fire started, Union Lieutenant Commander Richard Meade, wearing only his nightclothes, ordered his men to respond with artillery fire. With steam in only one of the Marblehead's boilers, the ship lifted anchor and maneuvered downstream and continued to fire on the confederates. Despite Confederate accuracy and casualties among the gun crew, Boatswain's Mate William Farley, captain of the XI-inch pivot gun, got off the Marblehead's response.

Meade's servant, escaped slave Robert Blake helped with the guns after a crew member was shot down. One crew member, Charles Moore, was wounded and bleeding profusely, but refused to leave and continued to help with artillery efforts. Quartermaster James Miller stepped up to the foredeck and cast the lead and led the ship safely away, saving it from possible destruction of running aground. Acting Ensign George Winslow helped to rally the crew to the guns; the remaining guns of the 1st Upper battery, the Legareville Road Battery, the Inglis Light Artillery Battery opened fire on the union forces in town. Though the confederates had an advantage, Colonel Page refused to advance the infantry until the Marblehead was disabled. Instead of advancing Page tried to induce the small detachment to surrendered but failed because of the fact that the Marblehead was still in action. By this time the Pawnee and C. P. Williams were moving into action. At 6:35 the C. P. Williams was enfilading confederate positions.

With the Pawnee joining in, the union bombardment disrupted the confederate artillery. By 7:30 am the confederates stopped firing, the federals followed soon afterwards. Colonel Page soon order the withdrawal of confederate forces. Lt. Colonel Delaware Kemper had to leave two 8-inch howitzers behind, he had his men wait behind Abbapoola Creek to recover them but fire from the C. P. Williams refused them the chance to regain them. Union casualties were 3 4 wounded, compared to confederate 3 killed and 8 wounded. After the battle, Colonel Page blamed poor artillery for the inconclusive battle. Delaware Kemper defended his men with the fact that the range did not allow their fire to disable the Marblehead. With his report, General P. G. T. Beauregard took both accounts in, he reported that "The failure to destroy or drive away the Marblehead is due to the inefficiency of the artillery through bad ammunition and primers, bad service of the guns. The 8-inch howitzers, objected to by Lieutenant-Colonel Kemper, were intended to kill the enemy."

Unknown to the confederates, their artillerists fired with some degree of accuracy. The Marblehead recorded 30 hits. " We have one 30-pounder shell, lodged in the steerage and did not explode..." Meade recorded two other unexploded shells lodged in the ship. Overall Meade reported extensive, but superficial, damage. Farley, Miller and Moore received the Medal of Honor for their actions on Christmas Day 1863. Manigault, E. & Ripley, W.. S