Split (1)

train · 367k rows

text stringlengths 9 2.4k
Electronic audio broadcasting. The Telefon Hírmondó (Telephone Herald) news and entertainment service was introduced in Budapest in 1893. Two decades before the introduction of radio broadcasting, people could listen to political, economic and sports news, cabaret, music and opera in Budapest daily. It operated over a special type of telephone exchange system. Rail transport. By 1913, the combined length of the railway tracks of the Austrian Empire and Kingdom of Hungary reached . In Western Europe only Germany had more extended railway network (); the Austro-Hungarian Empire was followed by France (), the United Kingdom (), Italy () and Spain (). Railways in Transleithania. The first Hungarian steam locomotive railway line was opened on 15 July 1846 between Pest and Vác. In 1890 most large Hungarian private railway companies were nationalized as a consequence of the poor management of private companies, except the strong Austrian-owned Kaschau-Oderberg Railway (KsOd) and the Austrian-Hungarian Southern Railway (SB/DV). They also joined the zone tariff system of the MÁV (Hungarian State Railways). By 1910, the total length of the rail networks of Hungarian Kingdom reached , the Hungarian network linked more than 1,490 settlements. Nearly half (52%) of the empire's railways were built in Hungary, thus the railroad density there became higher than that of Cisleithania. This has ranked Hungarian railways the 6th most dense in the world (ahead of Germany and France).
Electrified commuter railways: A set of four electric commuter rai lines were built in Budapest, the BHÉV: Ráckeve line (1887), Szentendre line (1888), Gödöllő line (1888), Csepel line (1912) Tramway lines in the cities. Horse-drawn tramways appeared in the first half of the 19th century. Between the 1850s and 1880s many were built : Vienna (1865), Budapest (1866), Brno (1869), Trieste (1876). Steam trams appeared in the late 1860s. The electrification of tramways started in the late 1880s. The first electrified tramway in Austria–Hungary was built in Budapest in 1887. Electric tramway lines in the Austrian Empire: Electric tramway lines in the Kingdom of Hungary: Underground. The Budapest Metro Line 1 (originally the "Franz Joseph Underground Electric Railway Company") is the second oldest underground railway in the world (the first being the London Underground's Metropolitan Line and the third being Glasgow), and the first on the European mainland. It was built from 1894 to 1896 and opened on 2 May 1896. In 2002, it was listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. The M1 line became an IEEE Milestone due to the radically new innovations in its era: "Among the railway's innovative elements were bidirectional tram cars; electric lighting in the subway stations and tram cars; and an overhead wire structure instead of a third-rail system for power".
Inland waterways and river regulation. The first Danubian steamer company, Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft (DDSG), was the world's largest inland shipping company until the collapse of Austria-Hungary. In 1900 the engineer C. Wagenführer drew up plans to link the Danube and the Adriatic Sea by a canal from Vienna to Trieste. It was born from the desire of Austria–Hungary to have a direct link to the Adriatic Sea but was never constructed. Lower Danube and the Iron Gates. In 1831 a plan had already been drafted to make the passage navigable, at the initiative of the Hungarian politician István Széchenyi. Finally Gábor Baross, Hungary's "Iron Minister", succeeded in financing this project. The riverbed rocks and the associated rapids made the gorge valley an infamous passage for shipping. In German, the passage is still known as the Kataraktenstrecke, even though the cataracts are gone. Near the actual "Iron Gates" strait the Prigrada rock was the most important obstacle until 1896: the river widened considerably here and the water level was consequently low. Upstream, the Greben rock near the "Kazan" gorge was notorious.
Tisza River. The length of the Tisza river in Hungary used to be . It flowed through the Great Hungarian Plain, which is one of the largest flat areas in central Europe. Since plains can cause a river to flow very slowly, the Tisza used to follow a path with many curves and turns, which led to many large floods in the area. After several small-scale attempts, István Széchenyi organised the "regulation of the Tisza" (Hungarian: a Tisza szabályozása) which started on 27 August 1846, and substantially ended in 1880. The new length of the river in Hungary was ( total), with of "dead channels" and of new riverbed. The resultant length of the flood-protected river comprises (out of of all Hungarian protected rivers). Shipping and ports. The most important seaport was Trieste (today part of Italy), where the Austrian merchant marine was based. Two major shipping companies (Austrian Lloyd and Austro-Americana) and several shipyards were located there. From 1815 to 1866, Venice had been part of the Habsburg empire. The loss of Venice prompted the development of the Austrian merchant marine. By 1913, the commercial marine of Austria, comprised 16,764 vessels with a tonnage of 471,252, and crews number-ing 45,567. Of the total (1913) 394 of 422,368 tons were steamers, and 16,370 of 48,884 tons were sailing vessels The Austrian Lloyd was one of the biggest ocean shipping companies of the time. Prior to the beginning of World War I, the company owned 65 middle-sized and large steamers. The Austro-Americana owned one third of this number, including the biggest Austrian passenger ship, the SS "Kaiser Franz Joseph I". In comparison to the Austrian Lloyd, the Austro-American concentrated on destinations in North and South America. The Austro-Hungarian Navy became much more significant than previously, as industrialization provided sufficient revenues to develop it. Pola (Pula, today part of Croatia) was especially significant for the navy.
The most important seaport for the Hungarian part of the monarchy was Fiume (Rijeka, today part of Croatia), where the Hungarian shipping companies, such as the Adria, operated. The commercial marine of the Kingdom of Hungary in 1913 comprised 545 vessels of 144,433 tons, and crews numbering 3,217. Of the total number of vessels 134,000 of 142,539 tons were steamers, and 411 of 1,894 tons were sailing vessels. Military. The Austro-Hungarian Army was under the command of Archduke Albrecht, Duke of Teschen (1817–1895), an old-fashioned bureaucrat who opposed modernization. The military system of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy was similar in both states, and rested since 1868 upon the principle of the universal and personal obligation of the citizen to bear arms. Its military force was composed of the Common Army; the special armies, namely the Austrian Landwehr, and the Hungarian "Honvéd", which were separate national institutions, and the Landsturm or levy-en masse. As stated above, the common army stood under the administration of the joint minister of war, while the special armies were under the administration of the respective ministries of national defence. The yearly contingent of recruits for the army was fixed by the military bills voted on by the Austrian and Hungarian parliaments and was generally determined on the basis of the population, according to the last census returns. It amounted in 1905 to 103,100 men, of which Austria furnished 59,211 men, and Hungary 43,889. Besides 10,000 men were annually allotted to the Austrian Landwehr, and 12,500 to the Hungarian Honved. The term of service was two years (three years in the cavalry) with the colours, seven or eight in the reserve and two in the Landwehr; in the case of men not drafted to the active army the same total period of service was spent in various special reserves.
The common minister of war was the head for the administration of all military affairs, except those of the Austrian Landwehr and of the Hungarian Honved, which were committed to the ministries for national defence of the two respective states. But the supreme command of the army was nominally vested in the monarch, who had the power to take all measures regarding the whole army. In practice, the emperor's nephew Archduke Albrecht was his chief military advisor and made the policy decisions. The Austro-Hungarian Navy was mainly a coast defence force, and also included a flotilla of monitors for the Danube. It was administered by the naval department of the ministry of war. 1878–1914: Congress of Berlin, Balkan instability and the Bosnia Crisis. Russian Pan-Slavic organizations sent aid to the Balkan rebels and so pressured the tsar's government to declare war on the Ottoman Empire in 1877 in the name of protecting Orthodox Christians. Unable to mediate between the Ottoman Empire and Russia over the control of Serbia, Austria–Hungary declared neutrality when the conflict between the two powers escalated into a war. With help from Romania and Greece, Russia defeated the Ottomans and with the Treaty of San Stefano tried to create a large pro-Russian Bulgaria.
This treaty sparked an international uproar that almost resulted in a general European war. Austria–Hungary and Britain feared that a large Bulgaria would become a Russian satellite that would enable the tsar to dominate the Balkans. British prime minister Benjamin Disraeli moved warships into position against Russia to halt the advance of Russian influence in the eastern Mediterranean so close to Britain's route through the Suez Canal. The Treaty of San Stefano was seen in Austria as much too favourable for Russia and its Orthodox-Slavic goals. The Congress of Berlin rolled back the Russian victory by partitioning the large Bulgarian state that Russia had carved out of Ottoman territory and denying any part of Bulgaria full independence from the Ottomans. The Congress of Berlin in 1878 let Austria occupy (but not annex) the province of Bosnia and Herzegovina, a predominantly Slavic area. Austria occupied Bosnia and Herzegovina as a way of gaining power in the Balkans. Serbia, Montenegro and Romania became fully independent. Nonetheless, the Balkans remained a site of political unrest with teeming ambition for independence and great power rivalries. At the Congress of Berlin in 1878 Gyula Andrássy (Minister of Foreign Affairs) managed to force Russia to retreat from further demands in the Balkans. As a result, Greater Bulgaria was broken up and Serbian independence was guaranteed. In that year, with Britain's support, Austria–Hungary stationed troops in Bosnia to prevent the Russians from expanding into nearby Serbia. In another measure to keep the Russians out of the Balkans, Austria–Hungary formed an alliance, the Mediterranean Entente, with Britain and Italy in 1887 and concluded mutual defence pacts with Germany in 1879 and Romania in 1883 against a possible Russian attack. Following the Congress of Berlin the European powers attempted to guarantee stability through a complex series of alliances and treaties.
Anxious about Balkan instability and Russian aggression, and to counter French interests in Europe, Austria–Hungary forged a defensive alliance with Germany in October 1879 and in May 1882. In October 1882 Italy joined this partnership in the Triple Alliance largely because of Italy's imperial rivalries with France. Tensions between Russia and Austria–Hungary remained high, so Bismarck replaced the League of the Three Emperors with the Reinsurance Treaty with Russia to keep the Habsburgs from recklessly starting a war over Pan-Slavism. The Sandžak-Raška / Novibazar region was under Austro-Hungarian occupation between 1878 and 1909, when it was returned to the Ottoman Empire, before being ultimately divided between kingdoms of Montenegro and Serbia. On the heels of the Great Balkan Crisis, Austro-Hungarian forces occupied Bosnia and Herzegovina in August 1878 and the monarchy eventually annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina in October 1908 as a common holding of Cisleithania and Transleithania under the control of the Imperial & Royal finance ministry rather than attaching it to either territorial government. The annexation in 1908 led some in Vienna to contemplate combining Bosnia and Herzegovina with Croatia to form a third Slavic component of the monarchy. The deaths of Franz Joseph's brother, Maximilian (1867), and his only son, Rudolf, made the Emperor's nephew, Franz Ferdinand, heir to the throne. The Archduke was rumoured to have been an advocate for this trialism as a means to limit the power of the Hungarian aristocracy.
A proclamation issued on the occasion of its annexation to the Habsburg monarchy in October 1908 promised these lands constitutional institutions, which should secure to their inhabitants full civil rights and a share in the management of their own affairs by means of a local representative assembly. In performance of this promise a constitution was promulgated in 1910. The principal players in the Bosnian Crisis of 1908–09 were the foreign ministers of Austria and Russia, Alois Lexa von Aehrenthal and Alexander Izvolsky. Both were motivated by political ambition; the first would emerge successful, and the latter would be broken by the crisis. Along the way, they would drag Europe to the brink of war in 1909. They would also divide Europe into the two armed camps that would go to war in July 1914. Aehrenthal had started with the assumption that the Slavic minorities could never come together, and the Balkan League would never cause any damage to Austria. He turned down an Ottoman proposal for an alliance that would include Austria, Turkey, and Romania. However, his policies alienated the Bulgarians, who turned instead to Russia and Serbia. Although Austria had no intention to embark on additional expansion to the south, Aehrenthal encouraged speculation to that effect, expecting that it would paralyze the Balkan states. Instead, it incited them to feverish activity to create a defensive block to stop Austria. A series of grave miscalculations at the highest level thus significantly strengthened Austria's enemies.
In 1914, Slavic militants in Bosnia rejected Austria's plan to fully absorb the area; they assassinated the Austrian heir and precipitated World War I. 1914–1918: World War I. Prelude of WW I. The 28 June 1914 assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in the Bosnian capital, Sarajevo, excessively intensified the existing traditional religion-based ethnic hostilities in Bosnia. However, in Sarajevo itself, Austrian authorities encouraged violence against the Serb residents, which resulted in anti-Serb riots in Sarajevo, in which Catholic Croats and Bosnian Muslims killed two and damaged numerous Serb-owned buildings. Writer Ivo Andrić referred to the violence as the "Sarajevo frenzy of hate." Violent actions against ethnic Serbs were organized not only in Sarajevo but also in many other larger Austro-Hungarian cities in modern-day Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Austro-Hungarian authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina imprisoned and extradited approximately 5,500 prominent Serbs, 700 to 2,200 of whom died in prison. Four hundred sixty Serbs were sentenced to death and a predominantly Muslim special militia known as the "Schutzkorps" was established and carried out the persecution of Serbs.
Some members of the government, such as Minister of Foreign Affairs Count Leopold Berchtold and Army Commander Count Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf, had wanted to confront the resurgent Serbian nation for some years in a preventive war, but the Emperor and Hungarian prime minister István Tisza were opposed. The foreign ministry of Austro-Hungarian Empire sent ambassador László Szőgyény to Potsdam, where he inquired about the standpoint of the German emperor, Wilhelm II, on 5 July and received a supportive response. The leaders of Austria–Hungary therefore decided to confront Serbia militarily before it could incite a revolt; using the assassination as an excuse, they presented a list of ten demands called the July Ultimatum, expecting Serbia would never accept. When Serbia accepted nine of the ten demands but only partially accepted the remaining one, Austria–Hungary declared war. Franz Joseph I finally followed the urgent counsel of his top advisers. Over the course of July and August 1914, these events caused the start of World War I, as Russia mobilized in support of Serbia, setting off a series of counter-mobilizations. In support of his German ally, on Thursday, 6 August 1914, Emperor Franz Joseph signed the declaration of war on Russia. Italy initially remained neutral, despite its alliance with Austria–Hungary. In 1915, it switched to the side of the Entente powers, hoping to gain territory from its former ally.
Wartime foreign policy. The Austro-Hungarian Empire played a relatively passive diplomatic role in the war, as it was increasingly dominated and controlled by Germany. The only goal was to punish Serbia and try to stop the ethnic breakup of the Empire, and it completely failed. Starting in late 1916 the new Emperor Karl removed the pro-German officials and opened peace overtures to the Allies, whereby the entire war could be ended by compromise, or perhaps Austria would make a separate peace from Germany. The main effort was vetoed by Italy, which had been promised large slices of Austria for joining the Allies in 1915. Austria was only willing to turn over the Trentino region but nothing more. Karl was seen as a defeatist, which weakened his standing at home and with both the Allies and Germany. Homefront. The heavily rural empire did have a small industrial base, but its major contributions were manpower and food. Nevertheless, Austria–Hungary was more urbanized (25%) than its actual opponents in the war, like the Russian Empire (13.4%), Serbia (13.2%) or Romania (18.8%). Furthermore, the Austro-Hungarian Empire had also more industrialized economy and higher GDP per capita than the Kingdom of Italy, which was economically the far most developed actual opponent of the Empire.
On the home front, food grew scarcer and scarcer, as did heating fuel. Hungary, with its heavy agricultural base, was somewhat better fed. The army conquered productive agricultural areas in Romania and elsewhere, but refused to allow food shipments to civilians back home. Morale fell every year, and the diverse nationalities gave up on the empire and looked for ways to establish their own nation states. Inflation soared, from an index of 129 in 1914 to 1589 in 1918, wiping out the cash savings of the middle class. In terms of war damage to the economy, the war consumed about 20 percent of the gross domestic product. The dead soldiers amounted to about four percent of the 1914 labor force, and the wounded ones to another six percent. Compared to the major countries in the war, the death and casualty rates were toward the high end regarding the present-day territory of Austria. By summer 1918, "Green Cadres" of army deserters formed armed bands in the hills of Croatia-Slavonia, and civil authority disintegrated. By late October, violence and massive looting erupted, and there were efforts to form peasant republics. However, the Croatian political leadership was focused on creating a new state (Yugoslavia) and worked with the advancing Serbian army to impose control and end the uprisings.
Theaters of operations. The Austro-Hungarian Empire conscripted 7.8 million soldiers during the war. General von Hötzendorf was the Chief of the Austro-Hungarian General Staff. Franz Joseph I, who was much too old to command the army, appointed Archduke Friedrich von Österreich-Teschen as Supreme Army Commander (Armeeoberkommandant), but asked him to give Von Hötzendorf freedom to take any decisions. Von Hötzendorf remained in effective command of the military forces until Emperor Karl I took supreme command himself in late 1916 and dismissed Conrad von Hötzendorf in 1917. Meanwhile, economic conditions on the home front deteriorated rapidly. The empire depended on agriculture, and agriculture depended on the heavy labor of millions of men who were now in the army. Food production fell, the transportation system became overcrowded, and industrial production could not successfully handle the overwhelming need for munitions. Germany provided a great deal of help, but it was not enough. Furthermore, the political instability of the multiple ethnic groups within the empire now ripped apart any hope for national consensus in support of the war. Increasingly there was a demand for breaking up the empire and setting up autonomous national states based on historic, language-based cultures. The new emperor sought peace terms from the Allies, but his initiatives were vetoed by Italy.
Serbian front 1914–1916. At the start of the war, the army was divided into two: the smaller part attacked Serbia, while the larger part fought against the formidable Imperial Russian Army. The invasion of Serbia in 1914 was a disaster: by the end of the year, the Austro-Hungarian Army had taken no territory, but had lost 227,000 out of a total force of 450,000 men. However, in the autumn of 1915, the Serbian Army was defeated by the Central Powers, which led to the occupation of Serbia. Near the end of 1915, in a massive rescue operation involving more than 1,000 trips made by Italian, French and British steamers, 260,000 Serb soldiers were transported to Brindisi and Corfu, where they waited for the chance of the victory of Allied powers to reclaim their country. Corfu hosted the Serbian government in exile after the collapse of Serbia and served as a supply base for the Greek front. In April 1916 a large number of Serbian troops were transported in British and French naval vessels from Corfu to mainland Greece. The contingent numbering over 120,000 relieved a much smaller army at the Macedonian front and fought alongside British and French troops.
Russian front 1914–1917. On the Eastern front, the war started out equally poorly. The government accepted the Polish proposal of establishing the Supreme National Committee as the Polish central authority within the empire, responsible for the formation of the Polish Legions, an auxiliary military formation within the Austro-Hungarian Army. The Austro-Hungarian Army was defeated at the Battle of Lemberg and the great fortress city of Przemyśl was besieged and fell in March 1915. The Gorlice–Tarnów Offensive started as a minor German offensive to relieve the pressure of the Russian numerical superiority on the Austro-Hungarians, but the cooperation of the Central Powers resulted in huge Russian losses and the total collapse of the Russian lines and their long retreat into Russia. The Russian Third Army disintegrated. In summer 1915, the Austro-Hungarian Army, under a unified command with the Germans, participated in the successful Gorlice–Tarnów Offensive. From June 1916, the Russians focused their attacks on the Austro-Hungarian Army in the Brusilov Offensive, recognizing the latter's numerical inferiority. By the end of September 1916, Austria–Hungary mobilized and concentrated new divisions, and the successful Russian advance was halted and slowly repelled; but the Austrian armies took heavy losses (about 1 million men) and never recovered. Nevertheless, the huge losses in men and materiel inflicted on the Russians during the offensive contributed greatly to the Russian Revolution of 1917 and caused an economic crash in the Russian Empire.
The Act of 5 November 1916 was then proclaimed to the Poles jointly by the Emperors Wilhelm II of Germany and Franz Joseph of Austria-Hungary. This act promised the creation of the Kingdom of Poland out of the territory of Congress Poland, envisioned by its authors as a puppet state controlled by the Central Powers, with the nominal authority vested in the Regency Council. The origin of that document was the dire need to draft new recruits from German-occupied Poland for the war with Russia. Following the Armistice of 11 November 1918 ending the World War I, in spite of the previous initial total dependence of the kingdom on its sponsors, it ultimately served against their intentions as the cornerstone proto state of the nascent Second Polish Republic, the latter composed also of territories never intended by the Central Powers to be ceded to Poland. The Battle of Zborov (1917) was the first significant action of the Czechoslovak Legions, which fought for the independence of Czechoslovakia against the Austro-Hungarian Army.
Italian front 1915–1918. In May 1915, Italy attacked Austria–Hungary. Italy was the only military opponent of Austria–Hungary which had a similar degree of industrialization and economic level; moreover, her army was numerous (≈1,000,000 men were immediately fielded), but suffered from poor leadership, training and organization. Chief of Staff Luigi Cadorna marched his army towards the Isonzo River, hoping to seize Ljubljana, and to eventually threaten Vienna. However, the Royal Italian Army were halted on the river, where four battles took place over five months (23 June – 2 December 1915). The fight was extremely bloody and exhausting for both sides. On 15 May 1916, Austrian Chief of Staff Conrad von Hötzendorf launched the "Strafexpedition" ("punitive expedition"): the Austrians broke through the front and occupied the Asiago plateau. The Italians managed to resist and in a counteroffensive seized Gorizia on 9 August. Nonetheless, they had to stop on the Carso, a few kilometres away from the border. At this point, several months of indecisive trench warfare ensued (analogous to the Western front). As the Russian Empire collapsed as a result of the Bolshevik Revolution and the Russians ended their involvement in the war, Germans and Austrians were able to transfer much of their manpower to the Western and Southern fronts from the erstwhile Eastern fighting.
On 24 October 1917, Austrians (now enjoying decisive German support) attacked at Caporetto using new infiltration tactics; although they advanced more than in the direction of Venice and gained considerable supplies, they were halted and could not cross the Piave River. Italy, although suffering massive casualties, recovered from the blow, and a coalition government under Vittorio Emanuele Orlando was formed. Italy also enjoyed the support of the Entente: by 1918, large amounts of war materials and a few auxiliary American, British, and French divisions arrived in the Italian battle zone. Cadorna was replaced by General Armando Diaz; under his command, the Italians retook the initiative and won the decisive Second Battle of the Piave River (15–23 June 1918), in which some 60,000 Austrian and 43,000 Italian soldiers were killed. The final battle at Vittorio Veneto was lost by 31 October 1918 and the armistice was signed at Villa Giusti on 3 November. Romanian front 1916–1917. On 27 August 1916, Romania declared war against Austria–Hungary. The Romanian Army crossed the borders of eastern Hungary (Transylvania), but despite initial successes, by November 1916, the Austro-Hungarian, German, Bulgarian, and Ottoman armies had defeated the Romanian and Russian armies, and occupied the southern part of Romania (including Oltenia, Muntenia and Dobruja). Within three months of the war, the Central Powers approached Bucharest, the Romanian capital. On 6 December, Bucharest was captured, and part of the population moved to the unoccupied Romanian territory, in Moldavia, together with the Romanian government, royal court and public authorities, which relocated to Iași. In 1917, after several defensive victories (managing to stop the German-Austro-Hungarian advance), with Russia's withdrawal from the war following the October Revolution, Romania was forced to drop out of the war.
Role of Hungary. Although the Kingdom of Hungary comprised only 42% of the population of Austria–Hungary, the thin majority more than 3.8 million soldiersof the Austro-Hungarian armed forces were conscripted from the Kingdom of Hungary during the First World War. Roughly 600,000 soldiers were killed in action, and 700,000 soldiers were wounded in the war. Austria–Hungary held on for years, as the Hungarian half provided sufficient supplies for the military to continue to wage war. This was shown in a transition of power after which the Hungarian prime minister, Count István Tisza, and foreign minister, Count István Burián, had decisive influence over the internal and external affairs of the monarchy. By late 1916, food supply from Hungary became intermittent and the government sought an armistice with the Entente powers. However, this failed as Britain and France no longer had any regard for the integrity of the monarchy due to Austro-Hungarian support for Germany. Analysis of defeat. The setbacks that the Austrian army suffered in 1914 and 1915 can be attributed to a large extent by the incompetence of the Austrian high command. After attacking Serbia, its forces soon had to be withdrawn to protect its eastern frontier against Russia's invasion, while German units were engaged in fighting on the Western Front. This resulted in a greater than expected loss of men in the invasion of Serbia. Furthermore, it became evident that the Austrian high command had had no plans for possible continental war and that the army and navy were also ill-equipped to handle such a conflict.
In the last two years of the war the Austro-Hungarian armed forces lost all ability to act independently of Germany. As of 7 September 1916, the German emperor was given full control of all the armed forces of the Central Powers and Austria-Hungary effectively became a satellite of Germany. The Austrians viewed the German army favorably; on the other hand, by 1916 the general belief in Germany was that Germany, in its alliance with Austria–Hungary, was "shackled to a corpse". The operational capability of the Austro-Hungarian army was seriously affected by supply shortages, low morale and a high casualty rate, and by the army's composition of multiple ethnicities with different languages and customs. 1918: Demise, disintegration, dissolution. By 1918, the economic situation had deteriorated and governmental failure on the homefront ended popular support for the war. The Austro-Hungarian monarchy collapsed with dramatic speed in the autumn of 1918. Leftist and pacifist political movements organized strikes in factories, and uprisings in the army had become commonplace. As the war went on, the ethnic unity declined; the Allies encouraged breakaway demands from minorities and the Empire faced disintegration. With apparent Allied victory approaching, nationalist movements seized ethnic resentment to erode social unity. The military breakdown of the Italian front marked the start of the rebellion for the numerous ethnicities who made up the multiethnic Empire, as they refused to keep on fighting for a cause that now appeared senseless. The Emperor had lost much of his power to rule, as his realm disintegrated.
On 14 October 1918, Foreign Minister Baron István Burián von Rajecz asked for an armistice based on President Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points and two days later Emperor Karl I issued a proclamation ("Imperial Manifesto of 16 October 1918") altering the empire into a federal union to give ethnic groups decentralization and representation. However, on 18 October, United States Secretary of State Robert Lansing replied that autonomy for the nationalities – the tenth of the Fourteen Points – was no longer enough. In fact, a Czechoslovak provisional government had joined the Allies on 14 October. The South Slavs in both halves of the monarchy had already declared in favor of uniting with Serbia in a large South Slav state in the 1917 Corfu Declaration signed by members of the Yugoslav Committee. The Croatians had begun disregarding orders from Budapest earlier in October. Lansing's response was, in effect, the death certificate of Austria–Hungary. During the Italian battles, the Czechoslovaks and Southern Slavs declared their independence. With defeat in the war imminent after the Italian offensive in the Battle of Vittorio Veneto on 24 October, Czech politicians peacefully took over command in Prague on 28 October (later declared the birth of Czechoslovakia) and followed up in other major cities in the next few days. On 30 October, the Slovaks did the same. On 29 October, the Slavs in both portions of what remained of Austria–Hungary proclaimed the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs and declared that their ultimate intention was to unite with Serbia and Montenegro in a large South Slav state. On the same day, the Czechs and Slovaks formally proclaimed the establishment of Czechoslovakia as an independent state.
On 17 October 1918, the Hungarian Parliament voted in favour of terminating the union with Austria. The most prominent opponent of continued union with Austria, Count Mihály Károlyi, seized power in the Aster Revolution on 31 October. Charles was all but forced to appoint Károlyi as his Hungarian prime minister. One of Károlyi's first acts was to formally repudiate the compromise agreement on 31 October, effectively terminating the personal union with Austria and thus officially dissolving the Austro-Hungarian state. By the end of October, there was nothing left of the Habsburg realm but its majority-German Danubian and Alpine provinces, and Karl's authority was being challenged even there by the German-Austrian state council. Karl's last Austrian prime minister, Heinrich Lammasch, concluded that Karl's position was untenable. Lammasch persuaded Karl that the best course was to relinquish, at least temporarily, his right to exercise sovereign authority. On 11 November, Karl issued a carefully worded proclamation in which he recognized the Austrian people's right to determine the form of the state and "relinquish(ed) every participation" in Austrian state affairs. On the day after he announced his withdrawal from Austrian politics, the German-Austrian National Council proclaimed the Republic of German Austria. Károlyi followed suit on 16 November, proclaiming the Hungarian Democratic Republic.
Successor states. There were two legal successor states of the former Austro–Hungarian monarchy: The 1919 Treaties of Saint-Germain-en-Laye (between the victors of World War I and Austria) and Trianon (between the victors and Hungary) regulated the new borders of Austria and Hungary, reducing them to small-sized and landlocked states. The Entente not only assumed without question that the minority peoples wished to leave Austria and Hungary, but allowed them to claim vast territories containing sizeable German- and Hungarian-speaking populations. With this in mind, in regard to areas without a decisive national majority, the Entente powers ruled in many cases in favour of the newly emancipated independent nation-states. The Republic of Austria lost roughly 60% of the old Austrian Empire's territory. It also had to drop its plans for union with Germany, as it was not allowed to unite with Germany without League approval. Hungary, however, was severely disrupted by the loss of 72% of its territory, 64% of its population and most of its natural resources. The Hungarian Democratic Republic was short-lived and was temporarily replaced by the communist Hungarian Soviet Republic. Romanian troops ousted Béla Kun and his communist government during the Hungarian–Romanian War of 1919.
In the summer of 1919, a Habsburg, Archduke Joseph August, became regent, but was forced to stand down after only two weeks when it became apparent the Allies would not recognise him. Finally, in March 1920, royal powers were entrusted to a regent, Miklós Horthy, who had been the last commanding admiral of the Austro-Hungarian Navy and had helped organize the counter-revolutionary forces. It was this government that signed the Treaty of Trianon under protest on 4 June 1920 at the Grand Trianon Palace in Versailles, France. The restored Kingdom of Hungary lost roughly 72% of the pre-war territory of the Kingdom of Hungary. Habsburg banishment. Austria had passed the "Habsburg Law", which both dethroned the Habsburgs and banished all Habsburgs from Austrian territory. While Karl was banned from ever returning to Austria again, other Habsburgs could return if they gave up all claims to the defunct throne. In March and again in October 1921, ill-prepared attempts by Karl to regain the throne in Budapest collapsed. The initially wavering Horthy, after receiving threats of intervention from the Allied Powers and the Little Entente, refused his cooperation. Soon afterward, the Hungarian government nullified the Pragmatic Sanction, effectively dethroning the Habsburgs. Subsequently, the British took custody of Karl and removed him and his family to the Portuguese island of Madeira, where he died the following year.
Territorial legacy. Immediately after World War I. The following states were formed, re-established or expanded at the dissolution of the former Austro–Hungarian monarchy: The Principality of Liechtenstein, which had formerly looked to Vienna for protection and whose ruling house held sizable real estate in Cisleithania, formed a customs and defense union with Switzerland, and adopted the Swiss currency instead of the Austrian. In April 1919, Vorarlbergthe westernmost province of Austriavoted by a large majority to join Switzerland; however, both the Swiss and the Allies disregarded this result. Present. The following present-day countries and parts of countries were within the boundaries of Austria–Hungary when the empire was dissolved. Some other provinces of Europe had been part of the Habsburg monarchy at one time before 1867. Empire of Austria (Cisleithania): Kingdom of Hungary (Transleithania): Austro-Hungarian Condominium Other possessions of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy
Abracadabra Abracadabra is a magic word, historically used as an apotropaic incantation on amulets and common today in stage magic. The actual origin is unknown, but one of the first appearances of the word was in a second-century work by Roman physician Serenus Sammonicus. Etymology. "Abracadabra" is of unknown origin, and is first attested in a second-century work of Serenus Sammonicus relating to a cure for a fever. Some conjectural etymologies are: from phrases in Hebrew that mean "I will create as I speak", or Aramaic "I create like the word" (), to etymologies that point to similar words in Latin and Greek such as abraxas or to its similarity to the first four letters of the Greek alphabet (alpha-beta-gamma-delta or ΑΒΓΔ). However, "no documentation has been found to support any of the various conjectures". The historian Don Skemer suggests that it might originate from the Hebrew phrase "ha brachah dabarah" (name of the blessed), said to be a magical phrase. The Aramaic linguist Steve Caruso argues that "Abracadabra" can neither be Aramaic nor Hebrew, and suggests that the popularisation of the mistaken etymology is a result of an extended discussion on an early internet message board, which credits rabbi Lawrence Kushner with publishing a modern etymology.
History. The first known mention of the word was in the second century AD in a book called (sometimes known as ) by Serenus Sammonicus, physician to the Roman emperor Caracalla, who in chapter 52 prescribed that malaria sufferers wear an amulet containing "Abracadabra" written in the form of a triangle. The power of the amulet, he claimed, makes lethal diseases go away. Other Roman emperors, including Geta and Severus Alexander, were followers of the medical teachings of Serenus Sammonicus and may have used the incantation as well. It was used as a magical formula by the Gnostics of the sect of Basilides in invoking the aid of beneficent spirits against disease and misfortune. It is found on Abraxas stones, which were worn as amulets. Subsequently, its use spread beyond the Gnostics. To use it, when a person was sick and unhealthy they would wear an amulet around their neck that was made up of a piece of parchment inscribed with a triangular formula derived from this. It was believed that when it was written out this way that it acted like a funnel and drove the sickness out of the body.
A Jewish codex from 16th century Italy titled (The Tree of Knowledge) and described as a collection of magical spells contains the word "Abracadabra", referring to an amulet. It was described as a "cure from heavens" for "all sorts of fever[s]", consumption, and fire. The Puritan minister Increase Mather dismissed the word as bereft of power. Daniel Defoe wrote dismissively about Londoners who posted the word on their doorways to ward off sickness during the Great Plague of London. In the early 1800s, the word was used as an example of what magicians would say. "Abracadabra" is now more commonly used in the performance of stage magic as a magic word at the culmination of a trick. Aleister Crowley adapted the word "Abracadabra" into the word Abrahadabra in "The Book of the Law", the central sacred text of Thelema.
Acts of Union 1707 The Acts of Union refer to two acts of Parliament, one by the Parliament of Scotland in March 1707, followed shortly thereafter by an equivalent act of the Parliament of England. They put into effect the international Treaty of Union agreed on 22 July 1706, which politically joined the Kingdom of England and Kingdom of Scotland into a single "political state", the Kingdom of Great Britain, with Queen Anne as sovereign of both Kingdoms. The English and Scottish acts of ratification took effect on 1 May 1707, creating the new kingdom, with its parliament based in the Palace of Westminster. The two countries had shared a monarch since the "personal" Union of the Crowns in 1603, when James VI of Scotland inherited the English throne from his cousin Elizabeth I to become (in addition) 'James I of England', styled James VI and I. Attempts had been made to try to unite the two separate countries, in 1606, 1667, and in 1689 (following the 1688 Dutch invasion of England, and subsequent deposition of James II of England by his daughter Mary and her husband William of Orange), but it was not until the early 18th century that both nations via separate groups of English and Scots Royal Commissioners and their respective political establishments, "though not the Scots people", came to support the idea of an international "Treaty of political, monetary and trade Union", albeit for different reasons.
Political background. Prior to 1603, England and Scotland had different monarchs, but when Elizabeth I died without children, she was succeeded as King of England by her distant relative, James VI of Scotland. After her death, the two Crowns were held in personal union by James (reigning as James VI and I), who announced his intention to unite the two realms. The 1603 Union of England and Scotland Act established a joint Commission to agree terms, but Parliament of England was concerned this would lead to an absolutist structure similar to that of Scotland. James was forced to withdraw his proposals, but used the royal prerogative to take the title "King of Great Britain". Attempts to revive the project of union in 1610 were met with hostility. English opponents such as Sir Edwin Sandys argued that changing the name of England "were as to make a conquest of our name, which was more than ever the Dane or Norman could do". Instead, James set about creating a unified Church of Scotland and England, as the first step towards a centralised, Unionist state.
However, despite both being nominally Episcopal in structure, the two were very different in doctrine; the Church of Scotland, or kirk, was Calvinist in doctrine, and viewed many Church of England practices as little better than Catholicism. As a result, attempts to impose religious policy by James and his son Charles I ultimately led to the 1639–1651 Wars of the Three Kingdoms. The 1639–1640 Bishops' Wars confirmed the primacy of the Scots kirk, and established a Covenanter government in Scotland. The Scots remained neutral when the First English Civil War began in 1642, before becoming concerned at the impact on Scotland of an English Royalist victory. Presbyterian leaders like Argyll viewed union as a way to ensure free trade between England and Scotland, and preserve a Scots Presbyterian kirk. Under the 1643 Solemn League and Covenant, the Scots Parliament agreed to provide military support to its English counterpart in return for a united Presbyterian church, but did not explicitly commit to political union. As the war progressed, Scots and English Presbyterians increasingly viewed the English Independents, and associated radical groups like the Levellers, as a bigger threat than the Royalists. Both Royalists and Presbyterians agreed monarchy was divinely ordered, but disagreed on the nature and extent of Royal authority over the church. When Charles I surrendered in 1646, an English pro-Royalist faction known as the Engagers allied with their former enemies to restore him to the English throne.
After defeat in the 1647–1648 Second English Civil War, Scotland was occupied by English troops, which were withdrawn once those whom Cromwell held responsible had been replaced by the Kirk Party. In December 1648, Pride's Purge paved the way for the Trial of Charles I in England by excluding MPs who opposed it. Following the execution of Charles I in January 1649, and establishment of the Commonwealth of England, the Scots Kirk Party proclaimed Charles II King of Scots and England and, in the 1650 Treaty of Breda, resolved to restore him to the English throne. Instead, defeat in the Anglo-Scottish War resulted in Scotland's incorporation into the Commonwealth in 1653, largely driven by Cromwell's determination to break the power of the Scots kirk. The 1652 Tender of Union was followed on 12 April 1654 by "An Ordinance by the Protector for the Union of England and Scotland," creating the Commonwealth of England and Scotland. It was ratified by the Second Protectorate Parliament on 26 June 1657, creating a single Parliament in Westminster, with 30 representatives each from Scotland and Ireland added to the existing English members. 1660–1707.
While integration into the Commonwealth established free trade between Scotland and England, the economic benefits were diminished by the costs of military occupation. Both Scotland and England associated union with heavy taxes and military rule; it had little popular support in either Country, and the union was dissolved after the Restoration of Charles II in 1660. The Scottish economy was badly damaged by the (protectionist) English Navigation Acts of 1660 and 1663 and England's wars with the Dutch Republic, Scotland's major export market. An Anglo-Scots Trade Commission was set up in January 1668 but the English had no interest in making concessions, as the Scots had little to offer in return. In 1669, Charles II revived talks on "political union"; his motives may have been to weaken Scotland's commercial and political links with the Dutch, still seen as an enemy and complete the work of his grandfather James I and VI. On the Scottish side, the proposed union received parliamentary support, boosted by the desire to ensure free trade. Continued opposition meant these negotiations were abandoned by the end of 1669.
Following the 1688 invasion of England by a Dutch fleet and army led by Prince William of Orange and his wife Mary (daughter of James II), and their deposition of James II as King of England, a Scottish Convention of the Estates (a sister body to the Parliament of Scotland) met in Edinburgh in April 1689 to agree a new Constitutional settlement for Scotland. The Convention of the Estates issued an address to William and Mary "as both kingdomes are united in one head and soveraigne so they may become one body pollitick, one nation to be represented in one parliament", reserving "our church government, as it shall be established at the tyme of the union". William and Mary were supportive of the idea but it was opposed both by the Presbyterian majority in Scotland and the English Parliament. Episcopacy in Scotland was abolished in 1690, alienating a significant part of the political class; it was this element that later formed the bedrock of opposition to Union. The 1690s were a time of economic hardship in Europe as a whole and Scotland in particular, a period now known as the Seven ill years which led to strained relations with England. In 1698, the Company of Scotland Trading to Africa and the Indies received a charter to raise capital through public subscription. The Company invested in the Darién scheme, an ambitious plan funded almost entirely by Scottish investors to build a colony on the Isthmus of Panama for trade with East Asia. The scheme was a disaster; the losses of over £150,000 severely impacted the Scottish commercial system.
Political motivations. The International Treaty, and English and Scots acts of ratification of Union may be seen within a wider European context of increasing state centralisation during the late 17th and early 18th centuries, including the monarchies of France, Sweden, Denmark-Norway and Spain. While there were exceptions, such as the Dutch Republic or the Republic of Venice, the trend was clear. The dangers of the monarch using one parliament against the other first became apparent in 1647 and 1651. It resurfaced during the 1679 to 1681 Exclusion Crisis, caused by English resistance to the Catholic James II (of England, VII of Scots) succeeding his brother Charles II. James was sent to Edinburgh in 1681 as Lord High Commissioner; in August, the Parliament of Scotland passed the Succession Act, confirming the divine right of kings, the rights of the natural heir "regardless of religion", the duty of all to swear allegiance to that king, and the Independence of the Scots Crown. It then went beyond ensuring James's succession to the Scots throne by explicitly stating the aim was to make his exclusion from the English throne impossible without "the fatall and dreadfull consequences of a civil war".
The issue reappeared during the 1688 Dutch invasion and (subsequently entitled as "the Glorious Revolution"). The English Convention Parliament generally supported replacing King James II with his Protestant daughter Mary, holding to their "legal fiction" that James, by fleeing to France, had abandoned his English subjects and "abdicated". They resisted, however, making her Dutch husband William of Orange joint ruler. They gave way "fearing the return of James" only when William threatened to take his troops and fleet and return to the Netherlands, and Mary refused to rule without him. In Scotland, it became a Constitutional issue. The fact that James VII of Scots had not been present in the Scotland meant that the question of abdication need not arise. On 4 April 1689 a Convention of the Three Estates of Scotland (sister body to the Parliament of Scotland) declared that James VII "had acted irregularly" by assuming regal power (government) "without ever taking the Coronation Oath required by Scots Law". Thus, he had "FOREFALTED [forfeited] the Right to the Scots Crown, and the Scots Throne is become vacant". This was a fundamental difference; if the Parliament of Scotland could decide James VII had "Forfaulted" his Scots throne by actions having, in the words of the "Claim of Right" act 1689 "Invaded the fundamentall Constitution of the Kingdome and altered it from a legall limited monarchy To ane arbitrary despotick power". "Scots monarchs derived legitimacy from the Convention of the Estates", later declared a Parliament of Scotland, not God, thus ending the principle of divine right of kings.
Enshrined in the Union with England Act 1707: Conflict over control of the kirk between Presbyterians and Episcopalians and William's position as a fellow Calvinist put him in a much stronger position. He originally insisted on retaining Episcopacy, and the Committee of the Articles, an unelected body that controlled what legislation Parliament could debate. Both would have given the Crown far greater control than in England but he withdrew his demands due to the 1689–1692 Jacobite Rising. William's attempts to have the Claim of Right amended were directed through the "Court faction" which began arguing from 1699 onwards that: A year and a half after William's death, the Parliament of Scotland "put a period on the end of that sentence" by passing an act which recognised the standing of the Convention of the Estates as a parliament in its own right and made it "high treason" to impugn its authority or to so much as suggest attempting to alter the Claim of Right. Here is the Claim of Right understood and upheld for its secular constitutional provisions quite as much as for its religious provisions.
English perspective. The English succession was provided for by the English Act of Settlement 1701, which ensured that the monarch of England would be a Protestant member of the House of Hanover. Until the union of parliaments, the Scottish throne might be inherited by a different successor after Queen Anne, who had said in her first speech to the English parliament that a union was "very necessary". The Scottish Act of Security 1704, however, was passed after the English parliament, without consultation with Scotland, had designated Electoress Sophia of Hanover (granddaughter of James I and VI) as Anne's successor, if Anne died childless. The Act of Security granted the Parliament of Scotland, the three Estates, the right to choose a successor and explicitly required a choice different from the English monarch unless the English were to grant free trade and navigation. Then the Alien Act 1705 was passed in the English parliament, designating Scots in England as "foreign nationals" and blocking about half of all Scottish trade by boycotting exports to England or its colonies, unless Scotland came back to negotiate a Union. To encourage a union, "honours, appointments, pensions and even arrears of pay and other expenses were distributed to clinch support from Scottish peers and MPs".
Scottish perspective. The Scottish economy was severely impacted by privateers during the 1688–1697 Nine Years' War and the 1701 War of the Spanish Succession, with the Royal Navy focusing on protecting English ships. This compounded the economic pressure caused by the Darien scheme, and the seven ill years of the 1690s, when 5–15% of the population died of starvation. The Scottish Parliament was promised financial assistance, protection for its maritime trade, and an end to economic restrictions on trade with England. The votes of the Court party, influenced by Queen Anne's favourite, James Douglas, 2nd Duke of Queensberry, combined with the majority of the Squadrone Volante, were sufficient to ensure passage of the treaty. Article 15 granted £398,085 and ten shillings sterling to Scotland, a sum known as The Equivalent, to offset future liability towards the English national debt, which at the time was £18 million, but as Scotland had no national debt, most of the sum was used to compensate the investors in the Darien scheme, with 58.6% of the fund allocated to its shareholders and creditors.
The role played by bribery has long been debated. £20,000 was distributed by David Boyle, 1st Earl of Glasgow, of which 60% went to the Duke of Queensberry, the Queen's Commissioner in Parliament. Another negotiator, John Campbell, 2nd Duke of Argyll was given an English dukedom. Robert Burns is commonly quoted in support of the argument of corruption: "We're bought and sold for English Gold, Such a Parcel of Rogues in a Nation." As historian Christopher Whatley points out, this was actually a 17th-century Scots folk song; but he agrees money was paid, though suggests the economic benefits were supported by most Scots MPs, with the promises made for benefits to peers and MPs, even if it was reluctantly. Professor Sir Tom Devine agreed that promises of "favours, sinecures, pensions, offices and straightforward cash bribes became indispensable to secure government majorities". As for representation going forwards, Scotland was, in the new united parliament, only to get 45 MPs, one more than Cornwall, and only 16 (unelected) peers in the House of Lords.
The Union was carried by members of the Scottish elite against the wishes of the great majority. Sir George Lockhart of Carnwath, the only Scottish negotiator to oppose Union, noted "the whole nation appears against (it)". Another negotiator, Sir John Clerk of Penicuik, who was an ardent Unionist, observed it was "contrary to the inclinations of at least three-fourths of the Kingdom". As the seat of the Scottish Parliament, demonstrators in Edinburgh feared the impact of its loss on the local economy. Elsewhere, there was widespread concern about the independence of the kirk, and possible tax rises. As the treaty passed through the Parliament of Scotland, opposition was voiced by petitions from shires, burghs, presbyteries and parishes. The Convention of Royal Burghs claimed: Not one petition in favour of Union was received by Parliament. On the day the treaty was signed, the carillonneur in St Giles Cathedral, Edinburgh, rang the bells to the tune of "Why should I be so sad on my wedding day?" Threats of widespread civil unrest resulted in Parliament imposing martial law.
Virtually all of the print discourses of 1699–1706 spoke against incorporating union, creating the conditions for wide spread rejection of the treaty in 1706 and 1707. Country party tracts condemned English influence within the existing framework of the Union of the Crowns and asserted the need to renegotiate this union. During this period, the Darien failure, the succession issue and the Worcester seizure all provided opportunities for Scottish writers to attack the Court Party as unpatriotic and reaffirm the need to fight for true interests of Scotland. According to Scottish historian William Ferguson, the Acts of Union were a "political job" by England that was achieved by economic incentives, patronage and bribery to secure the passage of the Union treaty in the Scottish Parliament in order satisfy English political imperatives, with the union being unacceptable to the Scottish people, including both the Jacobites and Covenanters. The differences between Scottish were "subsumed by the same sort of patriotism or nationalism that first appeared in the Declaration of Arbroath of 1320." Ferguson highlights the well-timed payments of salary arrears to members of Parliament as proof of bribery and argues that the Scottish people had been betrayed by their Parliament.
Ireland. Ireland, though a kingdom under the same crown, was not included in the union. It remained a separate kingdom, unrepresented in Parliament, and was legally subordinate to Great Britain until the Renunciation Act 1783. In July 1707 each House of the Parliament of Ireland passed a congratulatory address to Queen Anne, praying that "May God put it in your royal heart to add greater strength and lustre to your crown, by a still more comprehensive Union". The British government did not respond to the invitation and an equal union between Great Britain and Ireland was out of consideration until the 1790s. The union with Ireland finally came about on 1 January 1801. Treaty and passage of the 1707 acts. Deeper political integration had been a key policy of Queen Anne from the time she acceded to the throne in 1702. Under the aegis of the Queen and her ministers in both kingdoms, the parliaments of England and Scotland (the ) agreed to participate in fresh negotiations for a union treaty in 1705. Both countries appointed 31 commissioners to conduct the negotiations. Most of the Scottish commissioners favoured union, and about half were government ministers and other officials. At the head of the list was the Duke of Queensberry, and the Lord Chancellor of Scotland, the Earl of Seafield. The English commissioners included the Lord High Treasurer, Sidney Godolphin, 1st Earl of Godolphin, the Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, William Cowper, Baron Cowper, and a large number of Whigs who supported union. Tories were not in favour of union and only one was represented among the commissioners.
Negotiations between the English and Scottish commissioners took place between 16 April and 22 July 1706 at the Cockpit in London. Each side had its own particular concerns. Within a few days, and with only one face to face meeting of all 62 commissioners, England had gained a guarantee that the Hanoverian dynasty would succeed Queen Anne to the Scottish crown, and Scotland received a guarantee of access to colonial markets, in the hope that they would be placed on an equal footing in terms of trade. After negotiations ended in July 1706, the acts had to be ratified by both Parliaments. In Scotland, about 100 of the 227 members of the Parliament of Scotland were supportive of the Court Party. For extra votes the pro-court side could rely on about 25 members of the Squadrone Volante, led by the James Graham, 4th Marquess of Montrose and John Ker, 1st Duke of Roxburghe. Opponents of the court were generally known as the Country party, and included various factions and individuals such as the James Hamilton, 4th Duke of Hamilton, John Hamilton, Lord Belhaven and Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun, who spoke forcefully and passionately against the union, when the Scottish Parliament began its debate on the act on 3 October 1706, but the deal had already been done. The Court party enjoyed significant funding from England and the Treasury and included many who had accumulated debts following the Darien Disaster.
The act ratifying the Treaty of Union was finally carried in the Parliament of Scotland by 110 votes to 69 on 16 January 1707, with a number of key amendments. News of the ratification and of the amendments was received in Westminster, where the Act was passed quickly through both Houses and received the royal assent on 6 March. Though the English Act was later in date, it bore the year '1706' while Scotland's was '1707', as the legal year in England began only on 25 March. In Scotland, the Duke of Queensberry was largely responsible for the successful passage of the Union act by the Parliament of Scotland. In Scotland, he was greeted by stones and eggs but in England he was cheered for his action. He had personally received around half of the funding awarded by the Westminster Treasury. In April 1707, he travelled to London to attend celebrations at the royal court, and was greeted by groups of noblemen and gentry lined along the road. From Barnet, the route was lined with crowds of cheering people, and once he reached London a huge crowd had formed. On 17 April, the Duke was gratefully received by the Queen at Kensington Palace and the Acts came into effect on 1 May 1707. A day of thanksgiving was declared in England and Ireland but not in Scotland, where the bells of St Giles rang out the tune of "why should I be so sad on my wedding day".
Provisions. The Treaty of Union, agreed between representatives of the Parliament of England and the Parliament of Scotland in 1706, consisted of 25 articles, 15 of which were economic in nature. In Scotland, each article was voted on separately and several clauses in articles were delegated to specialised subcommittees. Article 1 of the treaty was based on the political principle of an incorporating union and this was secured by a majority of 116 votes to 83 on 4 November 1706. To minimise the opposition of the Church of Scotland, an Act was also passed to secure the Presbyterian establishment of the Church, after which the Church stopped its open opposition, although hostility remained at lower levels of the clergy. The treaty as a whole was finally ratified on 16 January 1707 by a majority of 110 votes to 69. The two Acts incorporated provisions for Scotland to send representative peers from the Peerage of Scotland to sit in the House of Lords. It guaranteed that the Church of Scotland would remain the established church in Scotland, that the Court of Session would "remain in all time coming within Scotland", and that Scots law would "remain in the same force as before". Other provisions included the restatement of the Act of Settlement 1701 and the ban on Roman Catholics from taking the throne. It also created a customs union and monetary union.
The Act provided that any "laws and statutes" that were "contrary to or inconsistent with the terms" of the Act would "cease and become void". Related acts. The Scottish Parliament also passed the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Act 1707 guaranteeing the status of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. The English Parliament passed a similar Act, 6 Ann. c. 8. Soon after the Union, the Act 6 Ann. c. 40later named the Union with Scotland (Amendment) Act 1707united the Privy Council of England and Privy Council of Scotland and decentralised Scottish administration by appointing justices of the peace in each shire to carry out administration. In effect it took the day-to-day government of Scotland out of the hands of politicians and into those of the College of Justice. On 18 December 1707 the Act for better Securing the Duties of East India Goods was passed which extended the monopoly of the East India Company to Scotland. In the year following the Union, the Treason Act 1708 abolished the Scottish law of and extended the corresponding English law across Great Britain.
Evaluations. Scotland benefited, says historian G.N. Clark, gaining "freedom of trade with England and the colonies" as well as "a great expansion of markets". The agreement guaranteed the permanent status of the Presbyterian church in Scotland, and the separate system of laws and courts in Scotland. Clark argued that in exchange for the financial benefits and bribes that England bestowed, what it gained was of inestimable value. Scotland accepted the Hanoverian succession and gave up her power of threatening England's military security and complicating her commercial relations ... The sweeping successes of the eighteenth-century wars owed much to the new unity of the two nations. By the time Samuel Johnson and James Boswell made their tour in 1773, recorded in "A Journey to the Western Islands of Scotland", Johnson noted that Scotland was "a nation of which the commerce is hourly extending, and the wealth increasing" and in particular that Glasgow had become one of the greatest cities of Britain. Economic perspective.
According to the Scottish historian Christopher Smout, prior to the Union of the Crowns the Scottish economy had been flourishing completely independently of the English one, with little to no interaction between each other. Developing a closer economic partnership with England was unsustainable, and Scotland's main trade partner was continental Europe, especially the Netherlands, where Scotland could trade its wool and fish for luxurious imports such as iron, spices or wine. Scotland and England were generally hostile to each other and were often at war, and the alliance with France gave Scotland privileges that further encouraged developing cultural and economic ties with the continent rather than England. The union of 1603 only served the political and dynastic ambitions of King James and was detrimental to Scotland economically – exports that Scotland offered were largely irrelevant to English economy, and while the Privy Council of Scotland did keep its ability to manage internal economic policy, the foreign policy of Scotland was now in English hands. This limited Scotland's hitherto expansive trade with continental Europe, and forced it into English wars.
While the Scottish economy already suffered because of English wars with France and Spain in the 1620s, the civil wars in England had a particularly disastrous effect on Scotland and left it relatively impoverished as a result. The economy would slowly recover afterwards, but at the cost of being increasingly dependent on trade with England. A power struggle developed between Scotland and England in the 1680s, as Scotland recovered from the political turmoil and set on its own economic ambitions, which London considered a threat to its dominant and well-established position. English wars with continental powers undermined Scottish trade with France and the Netherlands, countries that used to be the Scotland's main trade partners before the union, and the English Navigation Acts severely limited Scottish ability to trade by sea, and made the Scottish ambitions to expand the trade beyond Europe unachievable. Opinion in Scotland at the time was that England was sabotaging Scottish economic expansion. In the years leading to 1707, Scottish economy was lagging behind not only from the impact of wars, but also because of chronic deflation and industrial underdevelopment. Scotland remained a predominantly agrarian society, and the lack of manpower caused by previous conflicts contributed to an underwhelming agricultural output, which intermittently escalated into local food shortages or famines. In turn, the overreliance of Scottish landowners on foreign goods led to a deficit of financial capital, as gold and silver were exported overseas and deflation occurred. The Scottish Parliament attempted to combat the issue by attracting foreign investment - duty on ship building materials was lifted, taxes on new manufacturing stocks were cut, and customs on textile and linen goods were removed.
Scotland grew increasingly dependent on its linen industry, which became the biggest source of employment after agriculture and constituted one-third of Scottish industry. Continental linen industries could outcompete Scotland, and protectionist tariffs implemented by Scotland led to tariff wars as European countries closed their markets to Scotland. In this situation, England became the largest foreign market for Scottish linen; however, while the tariffs in place shielded Scotland from the much larger English industry, England also retaliated against them. This forced Scotland to seek economic alternatives. At the time, trade with colonies was rapidly growing in importance in Europe, and trade with colonies was very attractive to Scotland, given its pastoral economy. American colonies had a high demand of agricultural goods such as leather skins of goats and sheep, which would have provided Scotland a valuable source of income. Search for colonial trade, along with the frustration caused by economic and political rivalry with England, led to the Darien scheme - an unsuccessful attempt to establish a Scottish colony in the Gulf of Darién.
The scheme was sabotaged by England in various ways - it was seen as a threat to the privileged position of the East India Company, prompting England to ensure the plan's failure via political and diplomatic overtures to prevent the Netherlands and Hamburg from investing into the scheme and denying assistance. In what was dubbed the "affair of Hamburgh" in Scotland, William III of England persuaded European powers against buying stocks in the scheme; William commented on Darien: English actions against the Darien scheme were also motivated by other factors – the decline in the East India Company's stock values, concerns of Darien causing a labour shortage in the Colony of Jamaica, and the scheme being seen as a threat to "the general peace of Christendom", as Catholic Spain laid a territorial claim to the area. The failure of the Darien scheme led to a financial crisis in Scotland. The high cost of its project exacerbated the deflation in Scotland. The Bank of Scotland had dangerously low reserves, and in early 1700s a run on the bank occurred, along with temporary suspension of business. Ultimately, the Scottish bank managed to stay solvent, although the persisting deflation and low reserves largely contributed to the feeling of Scottish economy being in a precarious position. Economist Aida Ramos argues that the Darien scheme could have succeeded if it was to receive support from either England or Spain, and that it lacked the capability to create a threat to England or its interests. According to Ramos, the English intervention against the scheme was to meet the expansionary aims of England, as to ensure both its colonial dominance as well as the annexation of Scotland.
By 1703, the Scottish government was highly disillusioned with the union, and many believed that the only way to let the Scottish economy flourish was to separate from England. John Clerk of Eldin declared that "the Scots had become England's slaves, since they were denied not only their rights as fellow-Britons but their rights under the Law of Nations", and writer David Black wrote: "England affords us but little of what is necessary, yet they drain us more than any nation". The anti-English sentiment led to accusation of King William orchestrating the 1699 Glencoe Massacre, and in 1703 the Scottish Parliament started adopting legislation to counter the English aggression - the first was the Act Anent Peace and War, which was to guarantee that the Scottish foreign policy would be independent of England. Scotland would try to establish further autonomy from England with the Act of Security 1704, which provoked a retaliation from England - Scottish ministers were bribed, and Alien Act 1705 was passed. According to the Alien Act, unless Scotland appointed commissioners to negotiate for union by Christmas, every Scot in England would be treated as an alien, leading to the confiscation of their English estates. Additionally, Scottish wares were to be banned from England. Christopher Smout notes that England desired to expand its influence by annexing Scotland:
The act sparked vehement anti-English sentiment in Scotland, and made the already hostile Scottish public more opposed to England: The Scottish economy was now facing a crisis, and the parliament was polarised into pro-union and anti-union factions, with the former led by Daniel Defoe. The unionists stressed how important trade with England is to the Scottish economy, and seen trade with continental Europe as not beneficial. They argued that the Scottish economy could survive by trading with England, and sanctions that would result from the Alien Act would collapse the economy. For Defoe, joining the union would not only prevent the Alien Act, but also remove additional limitations and regulations and lead Scotland to prosperity. Anti-unionists questioned the English goodwill and criticised the unionist faction for submitting to the English blackmail. They argued that Scotland could make a recovery by trading with the Netherlands, Spain and Norway, allowing Scotland to diversify its own industries as well. They argued that the union would make Scotland unable to conduct independent trade policy, meaning that any possibility to remove the flaws in Scottish economy would be gone forever, which would turn Scotland into a "mere satellite of the richer kingdom".
Ultimately, Scottish ministers voted in favour of the union, despite the lack of public support, with the overwhelming majority of the Scottish population at the time protesting vociferously against any union with England. Many Scots considered themselves to have been betrayed by their own elites, and that the union bill was able to pass only thanks to English bribery. In the first few decades after the union, England did not end up becoming the main trading partner of Scotland, as other European powers became the primary source of imported goods for Scotland. For at least the first 40 years after the union, Scotland persisted in its traditional trade patterns, and the economic situation of Scotland was not as dire as that described in the months leading up to the Acts of Union. 300th anniversary. A commemorative two-pound coin was issued to mark the tercentennial—300th anniversary—of the Union, which occurred two days before the Scottish Parliament general election on 3 May 2007. The Scottish Government held a number of commemorative events through the year including an education project led by the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland, an exhibition of Union-related objects and documents at the National Museums of Scotland and an exhibition of portraits of people associated with the Union at the National Galleries of Scotland.
Admiralty (United Kingdom) The Admiralty was a department of the Government of the United Kingdom responsible for the command of the Royal Navy until 1964, historically under its titular head, the Lord High Admiral – one of the Great Officers of State. For much of its history, from the early 18th century until its abolition, the role of the Lord High Admiral was almost invariably put "in commission" and exercised by the Lords Commissioner of the Admiralty, who sat on the governing Board of Admiralty, rather than by a single person. The Admiralty was replaced by the Admiralty Board in 1964, as part of the reforms that created the Ministry of Defence and its Navy Department (later Navy Command). Before the Acts of Union 1707, the Office of the Admiralty and Marine Affairs administered the Royal Navy of the Kingdom of England, which merged with the Royal Scots Navy and then absorbed the responsibilities of the Lord High Admiral of the Kingdom of Scotland with the unification of the Kingdom of Great Britain. The Admiralty was among the most important departments of the British Government, because of the Royal Navy's role in the expansion and maintenance of the English overseas possessions in the 17th century, the British Empire in the 18th century, and subsequently.
The modern Admiralty Board, to which the functions of the Admiralty were transferred in 1964, is a committee of the tri-service Defence Council of the United Kingdom. This Admiralty Board meets only twice a year, and the day-to-day running of the Royal Navy is controlled by a Navy Board (not to be confused with the historic Navy Board). It is common for the various authorities now in charge of the Royal Navy to be referred to as simply 'The Admiralty'. The title of Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom was vested in the monarch from 1964 to 2011. The title was awarded to Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh by Queen Elizabeth II on his 90th birthday and since his death in 2021 has reverted to the monarch. There also continues to be a Vice-Admiral of the United Kingdom and a Rear-Admiral of the United Kingdom, both of which are honorary offices. History. The office of Admiral of England (later Lord Admiral, and later Lord High Admiral) was created around 1400; there had previously been Admirals of the northern and western seas. King Henry VIII established the Council of the Marine—later to become the Navy Board—in 1546, to oversee administrative affairs of the naval service. Operational control of the Royal Navy remained the responsibility of the Lord High Admiral, who was one of the nine Great Officers of State. This management approach would continue in force in the Royal Navy until 1832.
King Charles I put the office of Lord High Admiral into commission in 1628, and control of the Royal Navy passed to a committee in the form of the Board of Admiralty. The office of Lord High Admiral passed a number of times in and out of commission until 1709, after which the office was almost permanently in commission (the last Lord High Admiral being the future King William IV in the early 19th century). In this organization a dual system operated the Lord High Admiral (from 1546) then Commissioners of the Admiralty (from 1628) exercised the function of general control (military administration) of the Navy and they were usually responsible for the conduct of any war, while the actual supply lines, support and services were managed by four principal officers, namely, the Treasurer, Comptroller, Surveyor and Clerk of the Acts, responsible individually for finance, supervision of accounts, Shipbuilding and maintenance of ships, and record of business. These principal officers came to be known as the Navy Board responsible for 'civil administration' of the navy, from 1546 to 1832.
This structure of administering the navy lasted for 285 years, however, the supply system was often inefficient and corrupt its deficiencies were due as much to its limitations of the times they operated in. The various functions within the Admiralty were not coordinated effectively and lacked inter-dependency with each other, with the result that in 1832, Sir James Graham abolished the Navy Board and merged its functions within those of the Board of Admiralty. At the time this had distinct advantages; however, it failed to retain the principle of distinctions between the Admiralty and supply, and a lot of bureaucracy followed with the merger. In 1860 saw big growth in the development of technical crafts, the expansion of more admiralty branches that really began with age of steam that would have an enormous influence on the navy and naval thought. Between 1860 and 1908, there was no real study of strategy and of staff work conducted within the naval service; it was practically ignored. All the Navy's talent flowed to the great technical universities. This school of thought for the next 50 years was exclusively technically based. The first serious attempt to introduce a sole management body to administer the naval service manifested itself in the creation of the Admiralty Navy War Council in 1909.
Following this, a new advisory body called the Admiralty War Staff was then instituted in 1912, headed by the Chief of the War Staff who was responsible for administering three new sub-divisions responsible for operations, intelligence and mobilisation. The new War Staff had hardly found its feet and it continually struggled with the opposition to its existence by senior officers they were categorically opposed to a staff. The deficiencies of the system within this department of state could be seen in the conduct of the Dardanelles campaign. There were no mechanisms in place to answer the big strategic questions. A Trade Division was created in 1914. Sir John Jellicoe came to the Admiralty in 1916. He re-organized the war staff as following: Chief of War Staff, Operations, Intelligence, Signal Section, Mobilisation, Trade. It was not until 1917 that the admiralty department was again properly reorganized and began to function as a professional military staff. In May 1917, the term "Admiralty War Staff" was renamed and that department and its functional role were superseded by a new "Admiralty Naval Staff"; in addition, the newly created office of Chief of the Naval Staff was merged in the office of the First Sea Lord. Also appointed was a new post, that of Deputy Chief of the Naval Staff, and an Assistant Chief of the Naval Staff; all were given seats on the Board of Admiralty. This for the first time gave the naval staff direct representation on the board; the presence of three senior naval senior members on the board ensured the necessary authority to carry through any operation of war. The Deputy Chief of Naval Staff would direct all operations and movements of the fleet, while the Assistant Chief of Naval Staff would be responsible for mercantile movements and anti-submarine operations.
The office of Controller would be re-established to deal with all questions relating to supply; on 6 September 1917, a Deputy First Sea Lord, was added to the Board who would administer operations abroad and deal with questions of foreign policy. In October 1917, the development of the staff was carried one step further by the creation of two sub-committees of the Board—the Operations Committee and the Maintenance Committee. The First Lord of the Admiralty was chairman of both committees, and the Operations Committee consisted of the First Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Staff, the Deputy First Sea Lord, Assistant Chief of Naval Staff, and Fifth Sea Lord. Full operational control of the Royal Navy was finally handed over to the Chief of Naval Staff (CNS) by an order in Council, effective October 1917, under which he became responsible for the issuing of orders affecting all war operations directly to the fleet. It also empowered the CNS to issue orders in their own name, as opposed to them previously being issued by the Permanent Secretary of the Admiralty in the name of the Board. In 1964, the Admiralty—along with the War Office and the Air Ministry—were abolished as separate departments of state, and placed under one single new Ministry of Defence. Within the expanded Ministry of Defence are the new Admiralty Board which has a separate Navy Board responsible for the day-to-day running of the Royal Navy, the Army Board and the Air Force Board, each headed by the Secretary of State for Defence.
Organizational structure. In the 20th century the structure of the Admiralty Headquarters was predominantly organized into four parts: Board of Admiralty When the office of Lord High Admiral was in commission, as it was for most of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries, until it reverted to the Crown, it was exercised by a Board of Admiralty, officially known as the "Commissioners for Exercising the Office of Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, &c." (alternatively of England, Great Britain or the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland depending on the period). The Board of Admiralty consisted of a number of Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty. The Lords Commissioners were always a mixture of admirals, known as Naval Lords or Sea Lords and Civil Lords, normally politicians. The quorum of the Board was two commissioners and a secretary. The president of the Board was known as the First Lord of the Admiralty, who was a member of the Cabinet. After 1806, the First Lord of the Admiralty was always a civilian, while the professional head of the navy came to be (and is still today) known as the First Sea Lord.
Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty (1628–1964) The Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty were the members of The Board of Admiralty, which exercised the office of Lord High Admiral when it was not vested in a single person. The commissioners were a mixture of politicians without naval experience and professional naval officers, the proportion of naval officers generally increasing over time. Key Officials First Lord of the Admiralty The First Lord of the Admiralty or formally the Office of the First Lord of the Admiralty was the British government's senior civilian adviser on all naval affairs and the minister responsible for the direction and control of the Admiralty and Marine Affairs Office later the Department of Admiralty.(+) His office was supported by the Naval Secretariat. First Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Staff The First Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Staff was the Chief Naval Adviser on the Board of Admiralty to the First Lord and superintended the offices of the sea lords and the admiralty naval staff.
Navy Board The Navy Board was an independent board from 1546 until 1628 when it became subordinate to, yet autonomous of the Board of Admiralty until 1832. Its principal commissioners of the Navy advised the board in relation to civil administration of the naval affairs. The Navy Board was based at the Navy Office. Board of Admiralty civilian members responsible other important civil functions Admiralty Naval Staff It evolved from *Admiralty Navy War Council, (1909–1912) which in turn became the Admiralty War Staff, (1912–1917) before finally becoming the Admiralty Naval Staff in 1917. It was the former senior command, operational planning, policy and strategy department within the British Admiralty. It was established in 1917 and existed until 1964 when the department of the Admiralty was abolished, and the staff departments function continued within the Navy Department of the Ministry of Defence until 1971 when its functions became part of the new Naval Staff, Navy Department of the Ministry of Defence. Offices of the Naval Staff
Admiralty Departments The Admiralty Departments were distinct and component parts of the Department of Admiralty that were superintended by the various offices of the Sea Lords responsible for them; they were primarily administrative, research, scientific and logistical support organisations. The departments role was to provide the men, ships, aircraft and supplies to carry out the approved policy of the Board of Admiralty and conveyed to them during 20th century by the Admiralty Naval Staff. Offices of the Sea Lords Department of the Permanent Secretary The Secretary's Department consisted of members of the civil service it was directed and controlled by a senior civil servant Permanent Secretary to the Board of Admiralty he was not a Lord Commissioner of the Admiralty, he functioned as a member of the board, and attended all of its meetings. "Admiralty" as a metonym for "sea power". In some cases, the term "admiralty" is used in a wider sense, as meaning "sea power" or "rule over the seas", rather than in strict reference to the institution exercising such power. For example, the well-known lines from Kipling's "Song of the Dead":
Amphibian (disambiguation) An amphibian is a member of the class Amphibia of ectothermic, tetrapod vertebrates Amphibian may also refer to:
Amputation Amputation is the removal of a limb or other body part by trauma, medical illness, or surgery. As a surgical measure, it is used to control pain or a disease process in the affected limb, such as malignancy or gangrene. In some cases, it is carried out on individuals as a preventive surgery for such problems. A special case is that of congenital amputation, a congenital disorder, where fetal limbs have been cut off by constrictive bands. In some countries, judicial amputation is currently used to punish people who commit crimes. Amputation has also been used as a tactic in war and acts of terrorism; it may also occur as a war injury. In some cultures and religions, minor amputations or mutilations are considered a ritual accomplishment. When done by a person, the person executing the amputation is an amputator. The oldest evidence of this practice comes from a skeleton found buried in Liang Tebo cave, East Kalimantan, Indonesian Borneo dating back to at least 31,000 years ago, where it was done when the amputee was a young child. A prosthesis or a bioelectric replantation restores sensation of the amputated limb.
Types. Leg. Lower limb amputations can be divided into two broad categories: minor and major amputations. Minor amputations generally refer to the amputation of digits. Major amputations are commonly below-knee- or above-knee amputations. Common partial foot amputations include the Chopart, Lisfranc, and ray amputations. Common forms of ankle disarticulations include Pyrogoff, Boyd, and Syme amputations. A less common major amputation is the Van Nes rotation, or rotationplasty, i.e. the turning around and reattachment of the foot to allow the ankle joint to take over the function of the knee. Types of amputations include: Arm. Types of upper extremity amputations include: A variant of the trans-radial amputation is the Krukenberg procedure in which the radius and ulna are used to create a stump capable of a pincer action. Other. Genital modification and mutilation may involve amputating tissue, although not necessarily as a result of injury or disease. Laryngectomy is the amputation of the larynx. Self-amputation.
In some rare cases when a person has become trapped in a deserted place, with no means of communication or hope of rescue, the victim has amputated their own limb. The most notable case of this is Aron Ralston, a hiker who amputated his own right forearm after it was pinned by a boulder in a hiking accident and he was unable to free himself for over five days. Body integrity identity disorder is a psychological condition in which an individual feels compelled to remove one or more of their body parts, usually a limb. In some cases, that individual may take drastic measures to remove the offending appendages, either by causing irreparable damage to the limb so that medical intervention cannot save the limb, or by causing the limb to be severed. Urgent. In surgery, a guillotine amputation is an amputation performed without closure of the skin in an urgent setting. Typical indications include catastrophic trauma or infection control in the setting of infected gangrene. A guillotine amputation is typically followed with a more time-consuming, definitive amputation such as an above or below knee amputation.
Causes. Frostbite. Frostbite is a cold-related injury occurring when an area (typically a limb or other extremity) is exposed to extreme low temperatures, causing the freezing of the skin or other tissues. Its pathophysiology involves the formation of ice crystals upon freezing and blood clots upon thawing, leading to cell damage and cell death. Treatment of severe frostbite may require surgical amputation of the affected tissue or limb; if there is deep injury autoamputation may occur. Athletic performance. Sometimes professional athletes may choose to have a non-essential digit amputated to relieve chronic pain and impaired performance. Surgery. Method. Surgeons performing an amputation have to first ligate the supplying artery and vein, so as to prevent hemorrhage (bleeding). The muscles are transected, and finally, the bone is sawed through with an oscillating saw. Sharp and rough edges of bones are filed, skin and muscle flaps are then transposed over the stump, occasionally with the insertion of elements to attach a prosthesis.
Distal stabilisation of muscles is often performed. This allows effective muscle contraction which reduces atrophy, allows functional use of the stump and maintains soft tissue coverage of the remnant bone. The preferred stabilisation technique is myodesis where the muscle is attached to the bone or its periosteum. In joint disarticulation amputations tenodesis may be used where the muscle tendon is attached to the bone. Muscles are attached under similar tension to normal physiological conditions. An experimental technique known as the "Ewing amputation" aims to improve post-amputation proprioception. Another technique with similar goals, which has been tested in a clinical trial, is Agonist-antagonist Myoneural Interface (AMI). In 1920, Dr. Janos Ertl Sr. of Hungary, developed the Ertl procedure in order to return a high number of amputees to the work force. The Ertl technique, an osteomyoplastic procedure for transtibial amputation, can be used to create a highly functional residual limb. Creation of a tibiofibular bone bridge provides a stable, broad tibiofibular articulation that may be capable of some distal weight bearing. Several different modified techniques and fibular bridge fixation methods have been used; however, no current evidence exists regarding comparison of the different techniques.
Post-operative management. A 2019 Cochrane systematic review aimed to determine whether rigid dressings were more effective than soft dressings in helping wounds heal following transtibial (below the knee) amputations. Due to the limited and very low certainty evidence available, the authors concluded that it was uncertain what the benefits and harms were for each dressing type. They recommended that clinicians consider the pros and cons of each dressing type on a case-by-case basis: rigid dressings may potentially benefit patients who have a high risk of falls; soft dressings may potentially benefit patients who have poor skin integrity. A 2017 review found that the use of rigid removable dressings (RRD's) in trans-tibial amputations, rather than soft bandaging, improved healing time, reduced edema, prevented knee flexion contractures and reduced complications, including further amputation, from external trauma such as falls onto the stump. Post-operative management, in addition to wound healing, considers maintenance of limb strength, joint range, edema management, preservation of the intact limb (if applicable) and stump desensitization.
Trauma. Traumatic amputation is the partial or total avulsion of a part of a body during a serious accident, like traffic, labor, or combat. Traumatic amputation of a human limb, either partial or total, creates the immediate danger of death from blood loss. Orthopedic surgeons often assess the severity of different injuries using the Mangled Extremity Severity Score. Given different clinical and situational factors, they can predict the likelihood of amputation. This is especially useful for emergency physicians to quickly evaluate patients and decide on consultations. Causes. Traumatic amputation is uncommon in humans (1 per 20,804 population per year). Loss of limb usually happens immediately during the accident, but sometimes a few days later after medical complications. Statistically, the most common causes of traumatic amputations are: Treatment. The development of the science of microsurgery over the last 40 years has provided several treatment options for a traumatic amputation, depending on the patient's specific trauma and clinical situation:
Prevention. Methods in preventing amputation, limb-sparing techniques, depend on the problems that might cause amputations to be necessary. Chronic infections, often caused by diabetes or decubitus ulcers in bedridden patients, are common causes of infections that lead to gangrene, which, when widespread, necessitates amputation. There are two key challenges: first, many patients have impaired circulation in their extremities, and second, they have difficulty curing infections in limbs with poor blood circulation. Crush injuries where there is extensive tissue damage and poor circulation also benefit from hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT). The high level of oxygenation and revascularization speed up recovery times and prevent infections. A study found that the patented method called Circulator Boot achieved significant results in prevention of amputation in patients with diabetes and arteriosclerosis. Another study found it also effective for healing limb ulcers caused by peripheral vascular disease. The boot checks the heart rhythm and compresses the limb between heartbeats; the compression helps cure the wounds in the walls of veins and arteries, and helps to push the blood back to the heart.
For victims of trauma, advances in microsurgery in the 1970s have made replantations of severed body parts possible. The establishment of laws, rules, and guidelines, and employment of modern equipment help protect people from traumatic amputations. Prognosis. The individual may experience psychological trauma and emotional discomfort. The stump will remain an area of reduced mechanical stability. Limb loss can present significant or even drastic practical limitations. A large proportion of amputees (from 50-80% to 80-100%, according to different studies) experience the phenomenon of phantom limbs; they feel body parts that are no longer there. These limbs can itch, ache, burn, feel tense, dry or wet, locked in or trapped or they can feel as if they are moving. Some scientists believe it has to do with a kind of neural map that the brain has of the body, which sends information to the rest of the brain about limbs regardless of their existence. Phantom sensations and phantom pain may also occur after the removal of body parts other than the limbs, e.g. after amputation of the breast, extraction of a tooth (phantom tooth pain) or removal of an eye (phantom eye syndrome).
A similar phenomenon is unexplained sensation in a body part unrelated to the amputated limb. It has been hypothesized that the portion of the brain responsible for processing stimulation from amputated limbs, being deprived of input, expands into the surrounding brain, ("Phantoms in the Brain": V.S. Ramachandran and Sandra Blakeslee) such that an individual who has had an arm amputated will experience unexplained pressure or movement on his face or head. In many cases, the phantom limb aids in adaptation to a prosthesis, as it permits the person to experience proprioception of the prosthetic limb. To support improved resistance or usability, comfort or healing, some type of stump socks may be worn instead of or as part of wearing a prosthesis. Another side effect can be heterotopic ossification, especially when a bone injury is combined with a head injury. The brain signals the bone to grow instead of scar tissue to form, and nodules and other growth can interfere with prosthetics and sometimes require further operations. This type of injury has been especially common among soldiers wounded by improvised explosive devices in the Iraq War.
Due to technological advances in prosthetics, many amputees live active lives with little restriction. Organizations such as the Challenged Athletes Foundation have been developed to give amputees the opportunity to be involved in athletics and adaptive sports such as amputee soccer. Nearly half of the individuals who have an amputation due to vascular disease will die within 5 years, usually secondary to the extensive co-morbidities rather than due to direct consequences of amputation. This is higher than the five year mortality rates for breast cancer, colon cancer, and prostate cancer. Of persons with diabetes who have a lower extremity amputation, up to 55% will require amputation of the second leg within two to three years. Etymology. The word amputation is borrowed from Latin "amputātus," past participle of "amputāre" "to prune back (a plant), prune away, remove by cutting (unwanted parts or features), cut off (a branch, limb, body part)," from "am-," assimilated variant of "amb-" "about, around" + "putāre" "to prune, make clean or tidy, scour (wool)". The English word "Poes" was first applied to surgery in the 17th century, possibly first in Peter Lowe's "A discourse of the Whole Art of Chirurgerie" (published in either 1597 or 1612); his work was derived from 16th-century French texts and early English writers also used the words "extirpation" (16th-century French texts tended to use "extirper"), "disarticulation", and "dismemberment" (from the Old French "desmembrer" and a more common term before the 17th century for limb loss or removal), or simply "cutting", but by the end of the 17th century "amputation" had come to dominate as the accepted medical term.
Anemometer In meteorology, an anemometer () is a device that measures wind speed and direction. It is a common instrument used in weather stations. The earliest known description of an anemometer was by Italian architect and author Leon Battista Alberti (1404–1472) in 1450. History. The anemometer has changed little since its development in the 15th century. Alberti is said to have invented it around 1450. In the ensuing centuries numerous others, including Robert Hooke (1635–1703), developed their own versions, with some mistakenly credited as its inventor. In 1846, Thomas Romney Robinson (1792–1882) improved the design by using four hemispherical cups and mechanical wheels. In 1926, Canadian meteorologist John Patterson (1872–1956) developed a three-cup anemometer, which was improved by Brevoort and Joiner in 1935. In 1991, Derek Weston added the ability to measure wind direction. In 1994, Andreas Pflitsch developed the sonic anemometer. Velocity anemometers. Cup anemometers. A simple type of anemometer was invented in 1845 by Rev. Dr. John Thomas Romney Robinson of Armagh Observatory. It consisted of four hemispherical cups on horizontal arms mounted on a vertical shaft. The air flow past the cups in any horizontal direction turned the shaft at a rate roughly proportional to the wind's speed. Therefore, counting the shaft's revolutions over a set time interval produced a value proportional to the average wind speed for a wide range of speeds. This type of instrument is also called a "rotational" anemometer.
Four cup. With a four-cup anemometer, the wind always has the hollow of one cup presented to it, and is blowing on the back of the opposing cup. Since a hollow hemisphere has a drag coefficient of .38 on the spherical side and 1.42 on the hollow side, more force is generated on the cup that presenting its hollow side to the wind. Because of this asymmetrical force, torque is generated on the anemometer's axis, causing it to spin. Theoretically, the anemometer's speed of rotation should be proportional to the wind speed because the force produced on an object is proportional to the speed of the gas or fluid flowing past it. However, in practice, other factors influence the rotational speed, including turbulence produced by the apparatus, increasing drag in opposition to the torque produced by the cups and support arms, and friction on the mount point. When Robinson first designed his anemometer, he asserted that the cups moved one-third of the speed of the wind, unaffected by cup size or arm length. This was apparently confirmed by some early independent experiments, but it was incorrect. Instead, the ratio of the speed of the wind and that of the cups, the "anemometer factor", depends on the dimensions of the cups and arms, and can have a value between two and a little over three. Once the error was discovered, all previous experiments involving anemometers had to be repeated.
Three cup. The three-cup anemometer developed by Canadian John Patterson in 1926, and subsequent cup improvements by Brevoort & Joiner of the United States in 1935, led to a cupwheel design with a nearly linear response and an error of less than 3% up to . Patterson found that each cup produced maximum torque when it was at 45° to the wind flow. The three-cup anemometer also had a more constant torque and responded more quickly to gusts than the four-cup anemometer. Three cup wind direction. The three-cup anemometer was further modified by Australian Dr. Derek Weston in 1991 to also measure wind direction. He added a tag to one cup, causing the cupwheel speed to increase and decrease as the tag moved alternately with and against the wind. Wind direction is calculated from these cyclical changes in speed, while wind speed is determined from the average cupwheel speed. Three-cup anemometers are currently the industry standard for wind resource assessment studies and practice. Vane anemometers. One of the other forms of mechanical velocity anemometer is the "vane anemometer". It may be described as a windmill or a propeller anemometer. Unlike the Robinson anemometer, whose axis of rotation is vertical, the vane anemometer must have its axis parallel to the direction of the wind and is therefore horizontal. Furthermore, since the wind varies in direction and the axis has to follow its changes, a wind vane or some other contrivance to fulfill the same purpose must be employed.
A "vane anemometer" thus combines a propeller and a tail on the same axis to obtain accurate and precise wind speed and direction measurements from the same instrument. The speed of the fan is measured by a revolution counter and converted to a windspeed by an electronic chip. Hence, volumetric flow rate may be calculated if the cross-sectional area is known. In cases where the direction of the air motion is always the same, as in ventilating shafts of mines and buildings, wind vanes known as air meters are employed, and give satisfactory results. Hot-wire anemometers. Hot wire anemometers use a fine wire (on the order of several micrometres) electrically heated to some temperature above the ambient. Air flowing past the wire cools the wire. As the electrical resistance of most metals is dependent upon the temperature of the metal (tungsten is a popular choice for hot-wires), a relationship can be obtained between the resistance of the wire and the speed of the air. In most cases, they cannot be used to measure the direction of the airflow, unless coupled with a wind vane.
Several ways of implementing this exist, and hot-wire devices can be further classified as CCA (constant current anemometer), CVA (constant voltage anemometer) and CTA (constant-temperature anemometer). The voltage output from these anemometers is thus the result of some sort of circuit within the device trying to maintain the specific variable (current, voltage or temperature) constant, following Ohm's law. Additionally, PWM (pulse-width modulation) anemometers are also used, wherein the velocity is inferred by the time length of a repeating pulse of current that brings the wire up to a specified resistance and then stops until a threshold "floor" is reached, at which time the pulse is sent again. Hot-wire anemometers, while extremely delicate, have extremely high frequency-response and fine spatial resolution compared to other measurement methods, and as such are almost universally employed for the detailed study of turbulent flows, or any flow in which rapid velocity fluctuations are of interest. An industrial version of the fine-wire anemometer is the thermal flow meter, which follows the same concept, but uses two pins or strings to monitor the variation in temperature. The strings contain fine wires, but encasing the wires makes them much more durable and capable of accurately measuring air, gas, and emissions flow in pipes, ducts, and stacks. Industrial applications often contain dirt that will damage the classic hot-wire anemometer.
Laser Doppler anemometers. In laser Doppler velocimetry, laser Doppler anemometers use a beam of light from a laser that is divided into two beams, with one propagated out of the anemometer. Particulates (or deliberately introduced seed material) flowing along with air molecules near where the beam exits reflect, or backscatter, the light back into a detector, where it is measured relative to the original laser beam. When the particles are in great motion, they produce a Doppler shift for measuring wind speed in the laser light, which is used to calculate the speed of the particles, and therefore the air around the anemometer. Ultrasonic anemometers. Ultrasonic anemometers, first developed in the 1950s, use ultrasonic sound waves to measure wind velocity. They measure wind speed based on the time of flight of sonic pulses between pairs of transducers. The time that a sonic pulse takes to travel from one transducer to its pair is inversely proportionate to the speed of sound in air plus the wind velocity in the same direction: formula_1 where formula_2 is the time of flight, formula_3 is the distance between transducers, formula_4 is the speed of sound in air and formula_5 is the wind velocity. In other words, the faster the wind is blowing, the faster the sound pulse travels. To correct for the speed of sound in air (which varies according to temperature, pressure and humidity) sound pulses are sent in both directions and the wind velocity is calculated using the forward and reverse times of flight: formula_6 where formula_7 is the forward time of flight and formula_8 the reverse.
Because ultrasonic anenometers have no moving parts, they need little maintenance and can be used in harsh environments. They operate over a wide range of wind speeds. They can measure rapid changes in wind speed and direction, taking many measurements each second, and so are useful in measuring turbulent air flow patterns. Their main disadvantage is the distortion of the air flow by the structure supporting the transducers, which requires a correction based upon wind tunnel measurements to minimize the effect. Rain drops or ice on the transducers can also cause inaccuracies. Since the speed of sound varies with temperature, and is virtually stable with pressure change, ultrasonic anemometers are also used as thermometers. Measurements from pairs of transducers can be combined to yield a measurement of velocity in 1-, 2-, or 3-dimensional flow. Two-dimensional (wind speed and wind direction) sonic anemometers are used in applications such as weather stations, ship navigation, aviation, weather buoys and wind turbines. Monitoring wind turbines usually requires a refresh rate of wind speed measurements of 3 Hz, easily achieved by sonic anemometers. Three-dimensional sonic anemometers are widely used to measure gas emissions and ecosystem fluxes using the eddy covariance method when used with fast-response infrared gas analyzers or laser-based analyzers.
Acoustic resonance anemometers. Acoustic resonance anemometers are a more recent variant of sonic anemometer. The technology was invented by Savvas Kapartis and patented in 1999. Whereas conventional sonic anemometers rely on time of flight measurement, acoustic resonance sensors use resonating acoustic (ultrasonic) waves within a small purpose-built cavity in order to perform their measurement. Built into the cavity is an array of ultrasonic transducers, which are used to create the separate standing-wave patterns at ultrasonic frequencies. As wind passes through the cavity, a change in the wave's property occurs (phase shift). By measuring the amount of phase shift in the received signals by each transducer, and then by mathematically processing the data, the sensor is able to provide an accurate horizontal measurement of wind speed and direction. Because acoustic resonance technology enables measurement within a small cavity, the sensors tend to be typically smaller in size than other ultrasonic sensors. The small size of acoustic resonance anemometers makes them physically strong and easy to heat, and therefore resistant to icing. This combination of features means that they achieve high levels of data availability and are well suited to wind turbine control and to other uses that require small robust sensors such as battlefield meteorology. One issue with this sensor type is measurement accuracy when compared to a calibrated mechanical sensor. For many end uses, this weakness is compensated for by the sensor's longevity and the fact that it does not require recalibration once installed.
Pressure anemometers. The first designs of anemometers that measure the pressure were divided into plate and tube classes. Plate anemometers. These are the first modern anemometers. They consist of a flat plate suspended from the top so that the wind deflects the plate. In 1450, the Italian art architect Leon Battista Alberti invented the first such mechanical anemometer; in 1663 it was re-invented by Robert Hooke. Later versions of this form consisted of a flat plate, either square or circular, which is kept normal to the wind by a wind vane. The pressure of the wind on its face is balanced by a spring. The compression of the spring determines the actual force which the wind is exerting on the plate, and this is either read off on a suitable gauge, or on a recorder. Instruments of this kind do not respond to light winds, are inaccurate for high wind readings, and are slow at responding to variable winds. Plate anemometers have been used to trigger high wind alarms on bridges. Tube anemometers. James Lind's anemometer of 1775 consisted of a vertically mounted glass U tube containing a liquid manometer (pressure gauge), with one end bent out in a horizontal direction to face the wind flow and the other vertical end capped. Though the Lind was not the first, it was the most practical and best known anemometer of this type. If the wind blows into the mouth of a tube, it causes an increase of pressure on one side of the manometer. The wind over the open end of a vertical tube causes little change in pressure on the other side of the manometer. The resulting elevation difference in the two legs of the U tube is an indication of the wind speed. However, an accurate measurement requires that the wind speed be directly into the open end of the tube; small departures from the true direction of the wind causes large variations in the reading.
The successful metal pressure tube anemometer of William Henry Dines in 1892 utilized the same pressure difference between the open mouth of a straight tube facing the wind and a ring of small holes in a vertical tube which is closed at the upper end. Both are mounted at the same height. The pressure differences on which the action depends are very small, and special means are required to register them. The recorder consists of a float in a sealed chamber partially filled with water. The pipe from the straight tube is connected to the top of the sealed chamber and the pipe from the small tubes is directed into the bottom inside the float. Since the pressure difference determines the vertical position of the float this is a measure of the wind speed. The great advantage of the tube anemometer lies in the fact that the exposed part can be mounted on a high pole, and requires no oiling or attention for years; and the registering part can be placed in any convenient position. Two connecting tubes are required. It might appear at first sight as though one connection would serve, but the differences in pressure on which these instruments depend are so minute, that the pressure of the air in the room where the recording part is placed has to be considered. Thus, if the instrument depends on the pressure or suction effect alone, and this pressure or suction is measured against the air pressure in an ordinary room in which the doors and windows are carefully closed and a newspaper is then burnt up the chimney, an effect may be produced equal to a wind of 10 mi/h (16 km/h); and the opening of a window in rough weather, or the opening of a door, may entirely alter the registration.
While the Dines anemometer had an error of only 1% at , it did not respond very well to low winds due to the poor response of the flat plate vane required to turn the head into the wind. In 1918 an aerodynamic vane with eight times the torque of the flat plate overcame this problem. Pitot tube static anemometers. Modern tube anemometers use the same principle as in the Dines anemometer, but using a different design. The implementation uses a pitot-static tube, which is a pitot tube with two ports, pitot and static, that is normally used in measuring the airspeed of aircraft. The pitot port measures the dynamic pressure of the open mouth of a tube with pointed head facing the wind, and the static port measures the static pressure from small holes along the side on that tube. The pitot tube is connected to a tail so that it always makes the tube's head face the wind. Additionally, the tube is heated to prevent rime ice formation on the tube. There are two lines from the tube down to the devices to measure the difference in pressure of the two lines. The measurement devices can be manometers, pressure transducers, or analog chart recorders.
Ping-pong ball anemometers. A common anemometer for basic use is constructed from a ping-pong ball attached to a string. When the wind blows horizontally, it presses on and moves the ball; because ping-pong balls are very lightweight, they move easily in light winds. Measuring the angle between the string-ball apparatus and the vertical gives an estimate of the wind speed. This type of anemometer is mostly used for middle-school level instruction, which most students make on their own, but a similar device was also flown on the Phoenix Mars Lander. Effect of density on measurements. In the tube anemometer the dynamic pressure is actually being measured, although the scale is usually graduated as a velocity scale. If the actual air density differs from the calibration value, due to differing temperature, elevation or barometric pressure, a correction is required to obtain the actual wind speed. Approximately 1.5% (1.6% above 6,000 feet) should be added to the velocity recorded by a tube anemometer for each 1000 ft (5% for each kilometer) above sea-level.
Effect of icing. At airports, it is essential to have accurate wind data under all conditions, including freezing precipitation. Anemometry is also required in monitoring and controlling the operation of wind turbines, which in cold environments are prone to in-cloud icing. Icing alters the aerodynamics of an anemometer and may entirely block it from operating. Therefore, anemometers used in these applications must be internally heated. Both cup anemometers and sonic anemometers are presently available with heated versions. Instrument location. In order for wind speeds to be comparable from location to location, the effect of the terrain needs to be considered, especially in regard to height. Other considerations are the presence of trees, and both natural canyons and artificial canyons (urban buildings). The standard anemometer height in open rural terrain is 10 meters.
Archaeopteryx Archaeopteryx (; ), sometimes referred to by its German name, "" ( "Primeval Bird") is a genus of bird-like dinosaurs. The name derives from the ancient Greek ("archaîos"), meaning "ancient", and ("ptéryx"), meaning "feather" or "wing". Between the late 19th century and the early 21st century, "Archaeopteryx" was generally accepted by palaeontologists and popular reference books as the oldest known bird (member of the group Avialae). Older potential avialans have since been identified, including "Anchiornis", "Xiaotingia", "Aurornis", and "Baminornis". "Archaeopteryx" lived in the Late Jurassic around 150 million years ago, in what is now southern Germany, during a time when Europe was an archipelago of islands in a shallow warm tropical sea, much closer to the equator than it is now. Similar in size to a Eurasian magpie, with the largest individuals possibly attaining the size of a raven, the largest species of "Archaeopteryx" could grow to about in length. Despite their small size, broad wings, and inferred ability to fly or glide, "Archaeopteryx" had more in common with other small Mesozoic dinosaurs than with modern birds. In particular, they shared the following features with the dromaeosaurids and troodontids: jaws with sharp teeth, three fingers with claws, a long bony tail, hyperextensible second toes ("killing claw"), feathers (which also suggest warm-bloodedness), and various features of the skeleton.
These features make "Archaeopteryx" a clear candidate for a transitional fossil between non-avian dinosaurs and avian dinosaurs (birds). Thus, "Archaeopteryx" plays an important role, not only in the study of the origin of birds, but in the study of dinosaurs. It was named from a single feather in 1861, the identity of which has been controversial. That same year, the first complete specimen of "Archaeopteryx" was announced. Over the years, eleven more fossils of "Archaeopteryx" have surfaced. Despite variation among these fossils, most experts regard all the remains that have been discovered as belonging to a single species, although this is still debated. Most of these twelve fossils include impressions of feathers. Because these feathers are of an advanced form (flight feathers), these fossils are evidence that the evolution of feathers began before the Late Jurassic. The type specimen of "Archaeopteryx" was discovered just two years after Charles Darwin published "On the Origin of Species". "Archaeopteryx" seemed to confirm Darwin's theories and has since become a key piece of evidence for the origin of birds, the transitional fossils debate, and confirmation of evolution. "Archaeopteryx" was long considered to be the beginning of the evolutionary tree of birds. However, in recent years, the discovery of several small, feathered dinosaurs has created a mystery for palaeontologists, raising questions about which animals are the ancestors of modern birds and which are their relatives.
History of discovery. Over the years, fourteen body fossil specimens of "Archaeopteryx" have been found. All of the fossils come from the limestone deposits, quarried for centuries, near , Germany. These quarries excavate sediments from the Solnhofen Limestone formation and related units. The initial specimen was the first dinosaur to be discovered with feathers. The initial discovery, a single feather, was unearthed in 1860 or 1861 and described in 1861 by . It is now in the Natural History Museum of Berlin. Though it was the initial holotype, there were indications that it might not have been from the same animal as the body fossils. In 2019 it was reported that laser imaging had revealed the structure of the quill (which had not been visible since some time after the feather was described), and that the feather was inconsistent with the morphology of all other "Archaeopteryx" feathers known, leading to the conclusion that it originated from another dinosaur. This conclusion was challenged in 2020 as being unlikely; the feather was identified on the basis of morphology as most likely having been an upper major primary covert feather.
The first skeleton, known as the London Specimen (BMNH 37001), was unearthed in 1861 near , Germany, and perhaps given to local physician in return for medical services. He then sold it for £700 (roughly £83,000 in 2020) to the Natural History Museum in London, where it remains. Missing most of its head and neck, it was described in 1863 by Richard Owen as "Archaeopteryx macrura", allowing for the possibility it did not belong to the same species as the feather. In the subsequent fourth edition of his "On the Origin of Species", Charles Darwin described how some authors had maintained "that the whole class of birds came suddenly into existence during the eocene period; but now we know, on the authority of Professor Owen, that a bird certainly lived during the deposition of the upper greensand; and still more recently, that strange bird, the "Archaeopteryx", with a long lizard-like tail, bearing a pair of feathers on each joint, and with its wings furnished with two free claws, has been discovered in the oolitic slates of Solnhofen. Hardly any recent discovery shows more forcibly than this how little we as yet know of the former inhabitants of the world."
The Greek word () means 'ancient, primeval'. primarily means 'wing', but it can also be just 'feather'. Meyer suggested this in his description. At first he referred to a single feather which appeared to resemble a modern bird's remex (wing feather), but he had heard of and been shown a rough sketch of the London specimen, to which he referred as a "" ("skeleton of an animal covered in similar feathers"). In German, this ambiguity is resolved by the term which does not necessarily mean a wing used for flying. was the favoured translation of "Archaeopteryx" among German scholars in the late nineteenth century. In English, 'ancient pinion' offers a rough approximation to this. Since then, twelve specimens have been recovered: The Berlin Specimen (HMN 1880/81) was discovered in 1874 or 1875 on the Blumenberg near , Germany, by farmer Jakob Niemeyer. He sold this precious fossil for the money to buy a cow in 1876, to innkeeper Johann Dörr, who again sold it to Ernst Otto Häberlein, the son of K. Häberlein. Placed on sale between 1877 and 1881, with potential buyers including O. C. Marsh of Yale University's Peabody Museum, it eventually was bought for 20,000 Goldmark by the Berlin's Natural History Museum, where it now is displayed. The transaction was financed by Ernst Werner von Siemens, founder of the company that bears his name. Described in 1884 by Wilhelm Dames, it is the most complete specimen, and the first with a complete head. In 1897 it was named by Dames as a new species, "A. siemensii"; though often considered a synonym of "A. lithographica", several 21st century studies have concluded that it is a distinct species which includes the Berlin, Munich, and Thermopolis specimens.
Composed of a torso, the Maxberg Specimen (S5) was discovered in 1956 near Langenaltheim; it was brought to the attention of professor Florian Heller in 1958 and described by him in 1959. The specimen is missing its head and tail, although the rest of the skeleton is mostly intact. Although it was once exhibited at the Maxberg Museum in Solnhofen, it is currently missing. It belonged to Eduard Opitsch, who loaned it to the museum until 1974. After his death in 1991, it was discovered that the specimen was missing and may have been stolen or sold. The Haarlem Specimen (TM 6428/29, also known as the "Teylers Specimen") was discovered in 1855 near , Germany, and described as a "Pterodactylus crassipes" in 1857 by Meyer. It was reclassified in 1970 by John Ostrom and is currently located at the Teylers Museum in Haarlem, the Netherlands. It was the very first specimen found, but was incorrectly classified at the time. It is also one of the least complete specimens, consisting mostly of limb bones, isolated cervical vertebrae, and ribs. In 2017 it was named as a separate genus "Ostromia", considered more closely related to "Anchiornis" from China.
The Eichstätt Specimen (JM 2257) was discovered in 1951 near Workerszell, Germany, and described by Peter Wellnhofer in 1974. Currently located at the Jura Museum in Eichstätt, Germany, it is the smallest known specimen and has the second-best head. It is possibly a separate genus ("Jurapteryx recurva") or species ("A. recurva"). The Solnhofen Specimen (unnumbered specimen) was discovered in the 1970s near Eichstätt, Germany, and described in 1988 by Wellnhofer. Currently located at the Bürgermeister-Müller-Museum in Solnhofen, it originally was classified as "Compsognathus" by an amateur collector, the same mayor Friedrich Müller after which the museum is named. It is the largest specimen known and may belong to a separate genus and species, "Wellnhoferia grandis". It is missing only portions of the neck, tail, backbone, and head. The Munich Specimen (BSP 1999 I 50, formerly known as the "Solenhofer-Aktien-Verein Specimen") was discovered on 3 August 1992 near Langenaltheim and described in 1993 by Wellnhofer. It is currently located at the Paläontologisches Museum München in Munich, to which it was sold in 1999 for 1.9 million Deutschmark. What was initially believed to be a bony sternum turned out to be part of the coracoid, but a cartilaginous sternum may have been present. Only the front of its face is missing. It has been used as the basis for a distinct species, "A. bavarica", but more recent studies suggest it belongs to "A. siemensii".
An eighth, fragmentary specimen was discovered in 1990 in the younger Mörnsheim Formation at Daiting, Suevia. Therefore, it is known as the Daiting Specimen, and had been known since 1996 only from a cast, briefly shown at the Naturkundemuseum in Bamberg. The original was purchased by palaeontologist Raimund Albertsdörfer in 2009. It was on display for the first time with six other original fossils of "Archaeopteryx" at the Munich Mineral Show in October 2009. The Daiting Specimen was subsequently named "Archaeopteryx albersdoerferi" by Kundrat et al. (2018). After a lengthy period in a closed private collection, it was moved to the Museum of Evolution at Knuthenborg Safaripark (Denmark) in 2022, where it has since been on display and also been made available for researchers. Another fragmentary fossil was found in 2000. It is in private possession and, since 2004, on loan to the Bürgermeister-Müller Museum in Solnhofen, so it is called the Bürgermeister-Müller Specimen; the institute itself officially refers to it as the "Exemplar of the families Ottman & Steil, Solnhofen". As the fragment represents the remains of a single wing of "Archaeopteryx", it is colloquially known as "chicken wing".
Long in a private collection in Switzerland, the Thermopolis Specimen (WDC CSG 100) was discovered in Bavaria and described in 2005 by Mayr, Pohl, and Peters. Donated to the Wyoming Dinosaur Center in Thermopolis, Wyoming, it has the best-preserved head and feet; most of the neck and the lower jaw have not been preserved. The "Thermopolis" specimen was described on 2 December 2005 "Science" journal article as "A well-preserved "Archaeopteryx" specimen with theropod features"; it shows that "Archaeopteryx" lacked a reversed toe—a universal feature of birds—limiting its ability to perch on branches and implying a terrestrial or trunk-climbing lifestyle. This has been interpreted as evidence of theropod ancestry. In 1988, Gregory S. Paul claimed to have found evidence of a hyperextensible second toe, but this was not verified and accepted by other scientists until the Thermopolis specimen was described. "Until now, the feature was thought to belong only to the species' close relatives, the deinonychosaurs." The Thermopolis Specimen was assigned to "Archaeopteryx siemensii" in 2007. The specimen is considered to represent the most complete and best-preserved "Archaeopteryx" remains yet.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.