Guinea (region)

Guinea is a traditional name for the region of the African coast of West Africa which lies along the Gulf of Guinea. It is a naturally moist tropical forest or savanna that stretches along the coast and borders the Sahel belt in the north.
Etymology.
The etymology of "Guinea" is uncertain. The English term "Guinea" comes directly from the Spanish word "Guinea", which in turn derives from the Portuguese word "Guiné". The Portuguese term emerged in the mid-15th century to refer to the lands inhabited by the "Guineus", a generic term used by the Portuguese to refer to the 'black' African peoples living south of the Senegal River (in contrast to the 'tawny' Sanhaja Berbers, north of it, whom they called "Azenegues"). The term "Guinea" is extensively used in the 1453 chronicle of Gomes Eanes de Zurara. King John II of Portugal took up the title of "Senhor da Guiné" (Lord of Guinea) from 1481.
It is believed the Portuguese borrowed "Guineus" from the Berber term "Ghinawen" (sometimes Arabized as "Guinauha" or "Genewah") meaning "the burnt people" (analogous to the Classical Greek "Aithiops", "of the burned face"). The Berber terms "aginaw" and "Akal n-Iguinawen" mean "black" and "land of the blacks", respectively.
A competing theory, first forwarded by Leo Africanus in 1526, claims that 'Guinea' is derived from Djenné (which he refers to as "Gheneo, Genni" and "Ghinea"), the great interior commercial city on the Upper Niger River. Djenné dominated the gold and salt trade across West Africa, from the 11th century (fall of Ghana) until the 13th century (when the Mali invasion disrupted its routes and redirected trade to Timbuktu, hitherto just a small Djenné outpost). It is during the period of Djenné dominance that the term "Genewah" really comes forward into usage in Arab sources ("al-Sudan" – Arabic for "blacks" – is used more commonly before).
Other theories try to connect "Guinea" to "Ghana", but this is less certain. The Ghana Empire is named after the Medieval trading city of "Ghanah" mentioned already by 11th-century Arab geographers (e.g. al-Bakri), but it is used distinctly from "Genewah" by Arab sources (e.g. they would say "Ghanah in the country of Genewah"). Conversely, it remains possible that both Ghana and Djenné themselves owe their original city names to the Berber appellation for the blacks that lived there. A possible reconciliation of the theories is that the Berber "Ghinawen" (blacks) was the source of the "Djenné" (city), which in turn gave rise to the Arabic "Genewah" (land dominated by that city), which finally made it into the Portuguese "Guiné".
History.
In 1478 (during the War of the Castilian Succession), a Castilian armada of thirty-five caravels and a Portuguese fleet fought the battle of Guinea in the waters off Elmina, for the hegemony of the Guinea trade (gold, ivory and black pepper). The war ended both with a Portuguese naval victory and the official recognition by the Catholic Monarchs of the Portuguese sovereignty over most of the African territories in dispute (Treaty of Alcáçovas, 1479). This was the first colonial war among European powers. Many more would come. After the Portuguese and Castilians came the Dutch, French and British.
The extensive trade in ivory, gold, and slaves made the region wealthy, with a number of centralized kingdoms developing in the 18th and 19th centuries. These were much smaller than the large states of the wide-open Sahel, but they had far higher population densities and were more centralized politically. The cohesion of these kingdoms caused the region to show more resistance to European incursions than other areas of Africa. Such resistance, combined with a disease environment hostile to Europeans, meant that much of Guinea was not colonised by Europeans until the very end of the 19th century.
Subdivisions.
Guinea is often subdivided into "Lower Guinea" and "Upper Guinea". Lower Guinea is one of the most densely populated regions of Africa, covering southern Nigeria, Benin, Togo and stretching into Ghana. It includes the coastal regions as well as the interior. Upper Guinea is far less densely populated and stretches from Côte d'Ivoire to Senegal.
Within the Republic of Guinea, Lower Guinea refers to the country's coastal plain, while Upper Guinea refers to the country's interior.
European traders in the region subdivided the region based on its main exports. The eastern portion around Benin and Nigeria was named the Slave Coast. What is now Ghana was called the (British) Gold Coast, a name later given to a British colony in the area which ultimately absorbed earlier European colonies. West of this was the Ivory Coast, still the name of the nation in that region. Farthest west, the area around modern Liberia and Sierra Leone was referred to as either the Pepper Coast or the Grain Coast.
References.
Books


List of countries and territories by land borders

This is a list of countries and territories by land borders. The number of distinct land borders of each country or territory is indicated as well the names of its neighbouring countries and territories. The length of each land border is included, as is the total length of each country's and territory's land borders.
Countries or territories that are connected only by bridges or other man-made causeways are not considered to have land borders. However, borders along lakes, rivers, and other internal waters are considered land borders for the purposes of this article. Footnotes are included to provide clarity regarding the status of certain countries and territories.


Argayash Canton


Kenneth C. Martis

Kenneth C. Martis is an American political geographer notable for his mapping and documentation of the electoral history of the United States. He is a Professor Emeritus in the Department of Geology and Geography at West Virginia University.
Early life and education.
Martis was born in Toledo, Ohio in December 1945. His four grandparents and father were immigrants from the Slovakia region of Austria-Hungary. Martis obtained a B.Ed. degree from The University of Toledo in 1968 and a M.A. in geography from San Diego State College (later San Diego State University) in 1970. He then served two years as a United States Army Military Police Officer assigned to the 5th Special Forces Group, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, serving as Assistant Provost Marshal, John F. Kennedy Center for Military Assistance. After military service he entered the doctoral program in the Department of Geography at The University of Michigan. In 1975 he joined the faculty of West Virginia University and the next year received his Ph.D. in geography from the University of Michigan, studying under political geographer George Kish.
Contributions to Political Geography.
Martis is the author or co-author of eight award-winning books on the United States Congress and American politics. The first book in his series of historical political atlases, "", was designated a Selected Reference Book by the journal "College and Research Libraries" and won the American Historical Association's Waldo G. Leland Prize for the best reference book in all fields of history for the period 1981-1986. The Atlas was the first book in American history to map every congressional district for every election and catalog all state redistricting laws. Based on the archival work for this book, Martis and Ruth A. Rowles were awarded the 1984 Organization of American Historian's Charles Thomson Prize for their article "Mapping Congress: Developing a Geographic Understanding of American Political History."
The Thirty-seventh Congress illustration is an example of the congressional district boundary maps found in ". In the atlas there are ninety-seven national scale district maps, one for each of the first ninety-seven House of Representatives. The Thirty-seventh House (1861-1863) was primarily elected in 1860 and is the first House to convene during the Civil War. The striped areas designate districts in the eleven seceded states which did not send representatives to the United States Congress. However, the House did certify and seat ten “Unionist” members from three seceded states, five from Virginia, three from western Tennessee and two from southern Louisiana (elected after the New Orleans area was occupied). On the page opposite of each map is an alphabetical list of all who served in the House with their state and congressional district number or designation (note in the Thirty-seventh House illustration two members from Minnesota and three from California were not elected from districts but on a General Ticket, that is, statewide). Insert maps are used to illustrate very small districts in densely populated urban areas. Information is found at the bottom of each map giving the session dates, total number of representatives, Speaker, newly admitted states, and map notes indicating vacancies throughout the Congress and any significant state or national boundary changes.
In 1989 the second book in his series of political atlases was published, ". The atlas was the first in American history to map all congressional elections for every state and district and identify the political party affiliation of every person elected to Congress from 1788. The Library Journal designated the political party atlas as one of the Best Reference Books of 1989 and College and Research Libraries named it a Selected Reference Book of 1989-90. The Library of Congress selected the political cartography from this work as the centerpiece of its main exhibition "Tides of Party Politics: Two Centuries of Congressional Elections" celebrating of the 1989 bicentennial of the United States Congress. The data developed for this work is now considered the standard source of political party affiliation of members of Congress by the official "Biographical Directory of the United States Congress". In 2013 an article in Real Clear Politics selected the political party atlas as one of the 15 most influential/indispensable books on the subject of American election analysis (ranked #10).The Eightieth Congress illustration is an example of the election maps found in . In the atlas there are one hundred large national four-color district election maps for the House of Representatives, and one hundred smaller state election maps for the Senate, for each of the first one hundred congresses. The maps are based upon the results tabulated on the regular Election Day. The Eightieth Congress (1947-1949) was a midterm election, with voting taking place on November 5, 1946 (Maine September 9, 1946). On the large House map blue indicates districts electing a Republican and red designates districts electing a Democrat. Insert maps are used to illustrate the results in very small districts in densely populated urban areas. The atlas identifies and maps all third party members elected to Congress in American history. In the Eightieth House one third party representative was elected, an American-Labor Party candidate from the 18th District of New York. The percentage pie chart on the lower right gives a visual view and specific numbers for the partisan divide in each House. The map and pie chart on the lower left show the geographical pattern and partisan make-up of the Senate. The blue states have two Republican senators, red states two Democrats, and striped states one each. On the page opposite of the map page is a state by state list of all who served in the House and Senate, including replacements by special election or appointment, with their proper state and congressional district number and party affiliation (note in the Eightieth House illustration two representatives from both Arizona and New Mexico were not elected from districts but on a General Ticket, that is, statewide). The atlas facilitates comparisons with the previous Seventy-ninth Congress, and subsequent Eighty-first Congress, and all other congresses, in both geographic pattern and partisan divide. The geographical pattern shown for the Eightieth Congress is a classic post-Civil War regional division of the solid Democratic South and solid Republican North, with some Democrats elected from large urban areas.
In 1993 his third book on Congress, co-authored with Gregory A. Elmes, "The Historical Atlas of State Power in Congress: 1790-1990" was published. This work maps and analyzes every apportionment change for every state for all of United States history. This work won the 1993 Washington Book Publishers award for best book design.
In 1994 "The Historical Atlas of the Congresses of the Confederate States of America: 1861-1865" was published. This book is the first nonmilitary nonbattlefield atlas of the American Civil War. The American Library Association, Choice Magazine, designated this work an Outstanding Academic Book of 1994.
During the Civil War the Confederate Constitution set up a government with a president and a legislature, which was composed of a Senate and House of Representatives. The Confederate congressional atlas maps the districts, characteristics, elections and roll call voting behavior of this institution. The illustration shows the Union occupation status of the 106 districts of the Confederate House of Representatives in late 1863 and early 1864. Note the Confederacy admitted the slave states of Missouri and Kentucky, and they had full voting rights in the Confederate Congress, in spite of being Union controlled virtually from the beginning of the war, and in spite of their continued representation in the United States Congress. At the end of the First Confederate Congress only a little over a half of the House districts (52.8%) were unoccupied. The Union occupied areas mostly supported the increasingly stringent legislative proposals of Confederate President Jefferson Davis with respect to measures like conscription, impressment and habeas corpus. In other words, Confederate congressmen from occupied districts tended to support increasing conscription knowing men from their areas would not be subject, but many representatives from unoccupied districts tended to vote no, knowing men from their areas would bear the brunt of being drafted.
In 2002 the "Atlas of American Politics: 1960-2000", was published, which Martis co-authored with J. Clark Archer, Stephen J. Lavin, and Fred M. Shelley. This atlas won the American Library Association Outstanding Academic Book Award of 2003. In 2006 he co-authored the "Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections: 1788-2004" with the same collaborators; it was the first county four-color atlas of all American presidential elections. In 2006 the Atlas was awarded the Library Journal Best Reference Book prize and the Association of American Publishers Outstanding Single Volume Reference Book in the Humanities & Social Sciences recognition. His most recent two books are co-edited works, "Atlas of the 2012 Elections" and "Atlas of the 2016 Elections". These atlases cover a myriad geographical aspects of the fall 2012 and 2016 elections on the national, regional, state and county level, and each contain nearly 200 maps, graphs and illustrations. The later book was selected as one of the Best Reference Books of 2018 by the Library Journal.
In 1987 he was a Fulbright Scholar in Perugia, Italy studying the Italian electoral system at the "Universitá per Stranieri". In 2001 he was interviewed for the distinguished "Geographers on Film" series that highlights the career and work of notable American geographers. Kenneth C. Martis is a Professor Emeritus of Geography at West Virginia University and is the first awardee of that institution's highest academic honor, Benedum Distinguished Scholar. He was awarded the 2007 US/West Virginia Professor of the Year Award by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE), Washington, DC.
For his work on the historical geography of Congress and American politics he has received support from the National Endowment for the Humanities, National Science Foundation, Association of American Geographers, Everett McKinley Dirksen Congressional Leadership Research Center, Huntington Library, and the Newberry Library.


List of places in County Down


Wallingwells

Wallingwells is a small civil parish and hamlet in the Bassetlaw district of Nottinghamshire, England, with a population at the 2001 census of 22. The population remained less than 100 at the 2011 census. Details are included in the civil parish of Carlton in Lindrick. It lies about five miles north of Worksop.
The parish is one of the few in England still to have an exclave – in this case a small section of land separated from the parish by the Carlton in Lindrick parish.
Wallingwells Hall.
Wallingwells Hall is a grade II listed 17th-century country house built on the site of Wallingwells Priory. It was for several hundred years the seat of the House of White of Tuxford and Wallingwells.
It is constructed of coursed rubble, ashlar, brick and render with slate hipped roofs to an irregular floor plan, and is now divided into four private houses.
History.
Wallingwells was granted by Queen Elizabeth I in 1563–64 to Richard Pype (a leather seller) and Francis Bowyer (a grocer) of London, together with various lands in Wiltshire, and the house built from the ruins of the priory. It was purchased by Major Samuel Taylor in 1698. It passed to his son Richard Taylor, who was High Sheriff of Nottinghamshire for 1689 and MP for East Retford from 1690 to 1698. Richard died in 1699 leaving a sole surviving daughter, Bridget, who had married Thomas White, a wealthy and influential landowner, who owned the manor of Tuxford. The couple decided to make Wallingwells the family seat, keeping Tuxford as the second/dower estate. Thomas White was MP for East Retford for much of the time between 1701 and 1732. He died in 1732 leaving his estates to his eldest son John White, who was also MP for East Retford. John died unmarried and was succeeded by his younger brother, the barrister Taylor White. Taylor had married Sarah Woollaston (heiress of Sir Isaac Woollaston of Lowesby) and their grandson Thomas Woollaston White was created a baronet..
Thomas White was created a baronet by King George III on 20 December 1802 for twice raising, clothing, housing and arming a regiment of militia at the height of the Napoleonic Wars. The regiment was first raised in 1794 as the Sherwood Rangers Yeomanry Cavalry and is still in existence as 'A' Squadron Royal Yeomanry. The 2nd Baronet was High Sheriff of Nottinghamshire for 1833–34.
Wallingwells was finally sold by the 4th Baronet in 1919 and the main block divided into four separate dwellings in 1926. The adjoining estate offices and servants' wing to the north was also converted into 3 cottages. The stables of Wallingwells were developed into a home in the early 2000s after being derelict since World War I. There is also a private red brick house in the corner of Wallingwells which was built in the 20th century.
Although now divided into four with 3 adjoining cottages, it remains a beautiful house, not having changed appreciably. It has 3 floors, but looks higher than any three-storey house. It has large sash windows, a flat roof at the back, and pitched roofing at the front. The hall has exquisite gardens, orchards and woods, and nearby is a private lake. In total the hall has over 20 chimneys, over 50 windows including a glass dome, more than 20 bedrooms, and 7.75 acres of land, now mainly fields and gardens. Although there is said to be a "Curse of Wallingwells Hall".


Abuna River

The Abuna River (, ) is a river in South America. As a part of the Amazon Basin, it forms part of the border between northern Bolivia and north-western Brazil.
The river has a total length of . It originates in several streams east of the Cordillera Oriental of the Peruvian Andes. The river is navigable for circa in its lower northeastern part. At Manoa it joins the Río Madeira, a tributary of the Amazon. Opposite the river mouth there is the town of Abunã on the Brazilian side of the confluence.


Subdivisions of Lesotho

Administratively, Lesotho is divided into ten districts, each headed by a district administrator. Each district has a capital known as a "camptown".
The districts are further subdivided into 80 constituencies, which consists of 129 local community councils.


Vietnam Center and Archive

The Vietnam Center and Archive collects and preserves the documentary record of the Vietnam War. The Vietnam Center and Archive, part of Texas Tech University, is the nation's largest and most comprehensive collection of information on the Vietnam War. On August 17, 2007, the Texas Tech Vietnam Center became the first U.S. institution to sign a formalized exchange agreement with the State Records and Archives Department of Vietnam. This opens the door for a two-way exchange between the entities.
History.
In May 1989, a group of Vietnam veterans from West Texas gathered at Texas Tech University to discuss what they might do, in a positive way, about their experiences in Vietnam. Their meeting was spearheaded by Dr. James Reckner, a Texas Tech military history professor and two-tour Navy veteran of the Vietnam War who had become concerned with his students’ lack of knowledge about the war. The group's immediate decision was to form a Vietnam Archive and begin collecting and preserving materials relating to the American Vietnam experience.
On December 2, 1989, the Texas Tech University Board of Regents approved the creation of the Center for the Study of the Vietnam Conflict. Its dual missions are to fund and guide the development of the Vietnam Archive and encourage continuing study of all aspects of the American Vietnam experience.
The group of veterans who first met in May 1989 was invited to form a board to provide guidance and support for the Vietnam Center. Since then, the Vietnam Center Advisory Board has met regularly to provide advice as the Vietnam Center and Archive at Texas Tech has evolved.
Many of the veterans who attended the first meeting in May 1989 continue to advise the Vietnam Center today.
In 2009, the Vietnam Center and Archive celebrated its 20th Anniversary. The guest speaker for the 20th Anniversary Ball was H. Ross Perot. Mr. Perot spoke about his work on POW/MIA issues, as well as the experiences of his friend, Congressman Sam Johnson, a former POW from the Vietnam War.
Vietnam Center and Archive's goals.
The Vietnam Center's mission is to support and encourage research and education regarding all aspects of the American Vietnam experience; promoting a greater understanding of this experience and the peoples and cultures of Southeast Asia. The Vietnam Center provides administrative support for the Vietnam Archive and promotes education by organizing and hosting conferences and symposia each year. The Vietnam Center is currently located in the basement of the Math building at Texas Tech University.
The Vietnam Archive's mission is to collect and preserve the documentary record of the Vietnam War. The Archive is committed to preserving the record of individuals who participated in the War and to providing greater understanding of their experiences. While the Vietnam Archive continues this commitment as its primary objective, it has expanded its collection policy to include records of veterans' organizations and scholars of the period as well as other individuals and organizations who share experiences from the war in Vietnam.
The Vietnam Archive has collected millions of pages of material and tens of thousands of photographs, slides, maps, periodicals, audio, moving images, and books related to the Vietnam War, Indochina, and the impact of the war on the United States and Southeast Asia. The Vietnam Archive continues to collect materials today. It is a donation-driven archive, meaning they only have items that people have donated to them. A large portion of their materials are from military veterans, but the archive also contains collections donated by researchers and civilian anti-war demonstrators. The Vietnam Archive places equal importance upon preserving records relating to all aspects of the Vietnam War and wishes to preserve a complete history of the war era. It is currently located in the Southwest Collection/Special Collections Library building at Texas Tech University.
Special Projects.
The Virtual Vietnam Archive.
The Virtual Vietnam Archive was created in December 2000 through funding provided by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) and currently contains over 3.2 million pages of scanned materials. Types of material include documents, photographs, slides, negatives, oral histories, artifacts, moving images, sound recordings, maps, and collection finding aids. All non-copyrighted and digitized materials are available for users to download free of charge. When the Virtual Vietnam Archive project is complete, it will include a record for every item in the Vietnam Archive. A staff of full-time employees and part-time student employees work to digitize the materials and place them onto the Virtual Archive.
Over 1400 of the Vietnam Archive's collections have been partially or completely digitized. Digitized collections include the Pike Collection, Social Movements Collection, Admiral Elmo Zumwalt Collection, the Combined Document Exploitation Center (CDEC) Collection, and the Diaries of Dr. Dang Thuy Tram. Additionally, over 12,000 documents from the US Marine Corps History Division are available in the Virtual Archive. Over 700 Oral Histories are available online, many transcribed, as well as over 100,000 images. New materials are being added daily.
In addition to the Virtual Vietnam Archive search page, which allows users to research across all media types, the Vietnam Archive has also created a search page specifically for their map collection. This page allows for searching by map title, scale, latitude/longitude, and grid zone. There are currently over 1000 maps are available.
The Oral History Project.
The Oral History Project of the Vietnam Archive was created in 1999. The history of the wars in Southeast Asia is not complete without the inclusion of the voices of those who were in some way involved. To that end, the mission of the OHP is to create and preserve a more complete record of the wars in Southeast Asia by preserving, through recorded interviews, the recollections and experiences of all who were involved in those wars. Anyone can participate, whether an American veteran, a former ally or enemy of the U.S., an anti-war protester, a government employee, a family member of a veteran, etc. Currently the Oral History Project has conducted interviews with over 700 people. The audio of all of the interviews is available online, and many have been completely transcribed.
The Vietnamese American Heritage Project.
The Vietnamese American Heritage Project, created in 2008, supports the Vietnam Archive’s mission to document the war from all perspectives by providing documentation of the post-war social and political history of Vietnamese Americans who immigrated to the United States during and after the Vietnam War. A component of the archive, the VAHP is composed of a full-time Vietnamese American Heritage Archivist and one part-time student assistant who collect, preserve, and make accessible to the public materials that document the experiences and contributions of Vietnamese Americans in American society. The VAHP aims to enhance the study of the Vietnamese immigration and resettlement experience by providing reference services to researchers and increasing Vietnamese American participation in the archive’s Oral History Project, conducting outreach activities, and developing cooperative relationships with other institutions dedicated to preserving Vietnamese American’s rich heritage. The cornerstone of the VAHP is the Vietnam Archives’ Families of Vietnamese Political Prisoners Association (FVPPA) Collection. During the 1980s and 1990s, the FVPPA successfully helped over 10,000 former Vietnamese reeducation camp detainees and their families immigrate to the US and other countries through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugee’s (UNHCR) Orderly Departure Program (ODP).
Veterans' Organizations and Associations.
The Vietnam Archive is actively striving to preserve the history and documents of the Veterans Associations and Organizations, as well as their members. Vietnam Archive staff travel to numerous reunions each year, and many Associations and their members have donated collections of materials.
All donated materials are digitized and added to the Virtual Vietnam Archive.
Online Exhibits.
Online Exhibits are used to highlight Vietnam Archive materials and to celebrate or commemorate events or aspects of the Vietnam War. Recently added exhibits include The Tet Offensive; Saigon: April 30, 1975, and pages celebrating the birthdays of each of the US Military Branches. The Online Exhibit program is ongoing, and new exhibits are added often.
Subject Guides.
Staff of the Vietnam Archive have created subject guides on a variety of topics in order to provide researchers with better and more comprehensive access to the materials in the Vietnam Archive's collections. Recently added topics include: The Tet Offensive; April 30, 1975 Saigon; Dustoff / Medevac; and Agent Orange. Subject Guides include links to digital materials, including still images, moving images, documents, maps, and oral histories.
Conferences, Symposia, and Events.
The Vietnam Center and Archive maintains an active schedule of events, including a yearly conference or symposium, a guest lecture series, annual film festival, and an annual celebration of the Vietnamese New Year, Tet. Many of these events are free and open to the public.
Conferences and Symposia.
Since 1993, the Vietnam Center has hosted at least one conference a year, usually in the spring, with every third year being a larger symposium. The smaller yearly conferences are focused on a single topic, with the topic changing each year, and feature one panel of presentations at a time. Recent topics include: "Lessons Learned, Lessons Lost: Counterinsurgency from Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan;" "Laos, Cambodia, Thailand and the Vietnam War;" and "The Impact of Culture, Ethnicity, Race, and Religion in the Vietnam War." The Triennial Symposiums are much larger and have a variety of topics. Any interested person can submit a paper for presentation, and there are often multiple simultaneous presentations. All sessions of the conferences and symposia are filmed, and the videos are placed online for researchers and people who were unable to attend to view.
Guest Lecture Series.
In 2011, the Vietnam Center and Archive initiated their first Guest Lecture Series. Speakers for the inaugural season included: Adrian Cronauer, the Former Air Force DJ made famous in the movie "Good Morning Vietnam!" Adrian later served as a Special Assistant to the Director of the Pentagon's POW/MIA Office; Kim Phuc, also known as "the girl in the picture," was photographed running down a road naked and on fire after a napalm strike on her village. Kim now runs a non-profit organization dedicated to healing children in war-torn areas and is a UNSECO Goodwill Ambassador for Peace; LeAnn Thieman, a nurse involved in Operation Babylift, a mission to evacuate Vietnamese babies from South Vietnam as it fell to communist troops in 1975; Dr. Kara Dixon Vuic, a professor at Bridgewater College in Virginia and author of "Officer, Nurse, Woman: The Army Nurse Corps in the Vietnam War;" and Dave Carey, a retired Navy Captain shot down over Vietnam who spent five and a half years as a POW in Hanoi.
The lecture series continues in 2012 with five new speakers, including noted author and veteran of the Vietnam War Dr. Lewis "Bob" Sorley; Chief Executive Officer of the Marine Corps University Foundation Brig. General Tom Draude; PTSD expert, author and veteran of the Vietnam War Dr. Raymond Scurfield; former Air Force Pilot and member of the National Aviation Hall of Fame Dick Rutan; and former running back for the Pittsburgh Steelers and member of the 196th Light Infantry Brigade in Vietnam Rocky Bleier.
Asian Pacific American Heritage Month Film Festival.
The Vietnam Center and Archive holds a film festival every month celebrating Asian Pacific American Heritage Month (APAHM). Selected films cover a wide range of topics, and often focus on the Vietnamese American experience. Films in the 2011 festival include Green Dragon; Rashomon; the Toll of the Sea; and Kim's Story. APAHM is May, but the film festival is held in April so that students at Texas Tech may attend before finals and the summer break.
Tet, The Vietnamese New Year.
Every year the Vietnam Center hosts a celebration of the Vietnamese New Year, Tet, on the Texas Tech Campus. The festivities include Vietnamese food traditionally served on New Years, and a program about Tet. Recent programs have been put on by members of the TTU Vietnamese Student Association.
Future of the Vietnam Center and Archive.
The remembrance of the Vietnam War has expanded at a fast pace at Texas Tech, and the Vietnam Center and Archive are rapidly outgrowing their current spaces and in need of a greatly enlarged new facility. The Texas Tech System Board of Regents has allocated 12 acres of land on the existing Texas Tech campus for this new building, which will enable the gathering of all aspects of the Center and Archive under one roof. As well, the creation of a world-class museum of the Vietnam War will portray the young men and women who served in Vietnam in an honorable and objective way. At the same time, the museum will critically examine all aspects of American policy in Vietnam.
The facility must provide adequate storage and office space for a rapidly expanding archive, oral history project, Virtual Vietnam Archive and Vietnam Center Staff. Also important, the building will provide meeting facilities for Vietnam veteran groups to hold reunion meetings, facilitating Vietnam Center and Archive staff in displaying veteran group-specific artifacts that might not at that time be on display for the general public. Vietnam veterans will have an opportunity to critique the Texas Tech Vietnam War museum, and provide memories and other insights that will help the project staff to gather correct versions of individual stories. The new facility will attract even greater donations of artifacts and documents, making the planning of future space essential. The facility will also have adequate outdoor spaces for static display of major military artifacts, such as aircraft and military equipment.


Bug (river)

The Bug ( ) or Western Bug (, "Zakhidnyy Buh, ", "Zakhodni Buh"; , "Zapadnyy Bug") is a major river mostly located in Eastern Europe, which flows through three countries with a total length of .
A tributary of the Narew, the Bug forms part of the border between Ukraine and Poland
for , and between Belarus and Poland for , and is the fourth longest Polish river.
History.
The name "Bug" probably came from the old Germanic word "*baug-s", which meant something winding or bent. Slavs adopted the word "Baug" from the Goths, who previously lived in large numbers near the river.
Traditionally, e.g. by the drafters of the Curzon Line, the Bug River has been considered to be the ethnographical border between the East and West as well as the border between Polish Orthodox and Catholic peoples.
The Bug was part of the frontier between the slices of Poland occupied by Austria and Russia after the Third Partition of Poland in 1795, the southern half of the eastern border of the Duchy of Warsaw (1809-1815), Congress Poland (1815-1867), of the Vistula Land (1867-1913), and of the Regency Kingdom of Poland (1917-1918). The Bug also formed part of the dividing line between German Wehrmacht and Soviet Red Army zones specified in a secret clause of the German–Soviet Frontier Treaty of 28 September 1939 following the September 1939 invasion of Poland in the Second World War.
Geographic characteristics.
The Bug is a left tributary of the Narew. It flows from the Lviv Oblast in the west of Ukraine northwards into the Volyn Oblast, before passing along the Ukraine-Polish and Polish-Belarusian border and into Poland, where it follows part of the border between the Masovian and Podlaskie Voivodeships. It joins the Narew at Serock, a few kilometers upstream of the artificial Zegrze Lake.
This part of the Narew between the confluence and the Vistula is sometimes referred to as Bugo-Narew but on December 27, 1962, the Prime Minister of Poland's act abolished the name "Bugo-Narew", soon after Zegrze Lake was completed.
On the Bug, a few kilometers from the Vysokaye in Kamenets District of the Brest Region, is the westernmost point of Belarus. It is also connected with the Dnieper via the Mukhavets, a right-bank tributary, by the Dnieper-Bug Canal.
Basin.
The total basin area of Bug is of which half, or, 50%, is in Poland. Somewhat more than a quarter, or 29%, is in Belarus, and a bit under a quarter, or 22% lies in Ukraine.
The climate of the Bug basin is temperate.
The basin experiences annual high-water levels during spring flooding due to thawing snow, after which a low flow period starts and lasts until October or mid-November. Occasional summer floods often occur in the headlands, where mountains influence favorable flash-flood conditions. In Autumn the water level increases are inconsiderable; in some years they do not happen at all. During the winter the river can have temporary ice-outs that sometimes provoke ice jams, causing an increase of the level up to . The resultant water levels are changeable due to the instability of ice cover.
Flooding.
Significant floods during the last 60 years in Belarus were registered in 1958, 1962, 1967, 1971 and 1974. The largest spring flood was observed in 1979, when the maximum water discharge was 19.1 cubic metres per second on 24 March 1979, at the village of Chersk; 166 cubic metres per second near the village of Tyukhinichi (Lyasnaya river) on 31 March 1979; and 269 cubic metres per second near Brest on 1 April 1979. A similar spring flood occurred in 1999, when the spring run-off in March–May exceeded the average annual value by almost half again (48%).
The last time the Bug flooded in Poland and Ukraine was in 2010 and the last time it flooded in Belarus was in 1999.


Cossack Lullaby

"The Cossack Lullaby" () is a cradle song that Russian writer Mikhail Lermontov wrote in 1838 during his exile in Caucasus.
Background.
In 1837, Alexandr Pushkin had a duel with Georges d'Anthes and two days later died. Mikhail Lermontov, who had adored Pushkin, wrote a poem entitled the "Death of the Poet" and lamented that he fell as a victim of the aristocracy surrounding the Czar. He was immediately exiled to the Caucasus.
While in Caucasus, he heard an old Terek Cossack woman sing a cradle song, which he transcribed as the Cossack Lullaby. At that time, the Terek Cossacks defended Russia's southern border against the Ingush and Chechens. Lermontov is said to have actually put the song in music in Voronezh on his way to Saint Petersburg. The song was later sent to Saint Petersburg and Moscow and became popular.
Words and translation.
The song has six stanzas, of which two are described below with a direct English translation.


Piran

Piran (; ) is a town in southwestern Slovenia on the Gulf of Piran on the Adriatic Sea. It is one of the three major towns of Slovenian Istria. The town is known for its medieval architecture, with narrow streets and compact houses. Piran is the administrative seat of the Municipality of Piran and one of Slovenia's major tourist attractions. Until the mid-20th century, Italian was the dominant language, but it was replaced by Slovene as demographics shifted.
History.
In the pre-Roman era, the hills in the Piran area were inhabited by Illyrian Histri tribes who were farmers, hunters and fishermen. They were also pirates who disrupted Roman trade in the northern Adriatic.
The Piran peninsula was incorporated into the Roman Empire in 178 and 177 BC and settled in the following years with rural homes ("villae rusticae").
The decline of the Roman Empire, from the 5th century AD onward, and incursions by the Avars and Slavs at the end of the 6th century, prompted the Roman population to withdraw into easily defensible locations such as islands or peninsulas. This started local urbanisation and by the 7th century, under Byzantine rule, Piran had become heavily fortified. Despite the defences, the Franks conquered Istria in 788 and Slavs settled in the region. By 952, Piran had become a part of the Holy Roman Empire.
The earliest reliable records of the area are in the 7th century work Cosmographia by an anonymous cleric of Ravenna. The name of the town most probably originates from the Greek "pyrrhos", which means "red", because of the reddish flysch stones commonly found in the town's area.
Some historians also refer it to "pyros", meaning fire, due to ancient lighthouses which were supposed to be on the edge of the marina.
From 1283 to 1797, the town became part of the Republic of Venice, where it was governed in a semi-autonoumous way, with a council of local noblemen assisting the Venetian delegate. Several enemy (e.g. from the Republic of Genoa) and pirate assaults were repelled during the late Middle Ages; a great pestilence hit the town in 1558, killing about two thirds of the population. The last decades of Venetian rule were marked by decadence, due to the competition with the nearby Austrian port town of Trieste.
The town was annexed to the Austrian Empire in 1797; but during the years from 1806 to 1814, when it was ceded to the Napoleonic Empire. On 22 February 1812, the Battle of Pirano was fought between a British and a French ship of the line in the vicinity of Piran. This was a minor battle of the Adriatic campaign of the Napoleonic Wars. The French "Rivoli" had been recently completed at Venice. The French naval authorities intended her to bolster French forces in the Adriatic, following a succession of defeats in the preceding year. Captain John Talbot of HMS "Victorious" arrived off Venice in mid-February and blockaded the port. When the "Rivoli" attempted to escape under the cover of fog, Talbot chased her and forced her to surrender in a five-hour battle, the "Rivoli" lost over half her crew as either wounded or dead. This was the only battle ever fought in the sea nowadays belonging to Slovenia.
At the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, Piran was an Austro-Hungarian town with over 12,000 inhabitants, larger than nearby Koper. It was a flourishing market and spa town with good transport connections. The first trolleybus line in the Balkans was introduced to public service on 24 October 1909 in Piran. In 1912, it was replaced by a tramway that operated on the same route till 1953.
After the First World War, together with Trieste and all Istria, the town was ceded to Italy. There were no particular events in those years, until Italy entered the Second World War in 1940. With the defeat of the Axis powers and the rise of Tito's rule, Piran was assigned to the Free Territory of Trieste, Zone B, under Yugoslavian administration. The town was annexed to Yugoslavia in 1954, according to the London Memorandum signed together with Italy. A significant part of Piran's population chose to emigrate to Italy or abroad in the final phase of the Istrian exodus, rather than stay in socialist Yugoslavia. The annexation to Yugoslavia was finally ratified with the Osimo Treaty in 1975, signed by Italy as well. Since 1991, Piran has been part of independent Slovenia.
On 24 October 2010, Slovenia became the first country of former communist Europe to elect a black mayor. The physician Peter Bossman, who came from Ghana in the late 1970s, was elected the Mayor of Piran. He officially took office at the first constitutional meeting of the Municipal Council on 12 November 2010, succeeding Tomaž Gantar. He represents the Social Democrats.
The territorial claims of Croatia and Slovenia in the Gulf of Piran remain an important matter of debate in the Croatia–Slovenia border disputes that began after the dissolution of Yugoslavia.
Culture and education.
Piran is the birthplace of the composer and violinist Giuseppe Tartini, who played an important role in shaping its cultural heritage. The town's main square, Tartini Square (, ), is named after him. In 1892, the 200th anniversary of his birth, a monument to Tartini was erected in Piran. Venetian artist Antonio Dal Zotto was commissioned to create a larger-than-life bronze statue, which was mounted on its pedestal in 1896. The statue dominates the square, overlooked by the Cathedral of Saint George. The painter Cesare Dell'Acqua was also born in Piran.
Piran is the seat of the Euro-Mediterranean University of Slovenia (EMUNI), founded in 2008 as one of the cultural projects of the . The Piran Coastal Galleries, a public institution encompassing a group of six public contemporary art galleries, is based in Piran.
Cultural events.
Musical evenings have taken place for decades in the Greyfriars Franciscan monastery's atrium, one of the most beautiful cloister atriums in the Slovenian Littoral, which has good acoustics.
The municipality's festival is 15 October, which celebrates the foundation of the first Slovenian partisan naval detachment, named Koper, in 1944.
Geography and climate.
Piran is located at the tip of the Piran peninsula on the Gulf of Piran.
To the east of the town, along the northern coastline (in the direction to Strunjan) there is a small tourist settlement named Fiesa. Piran and Fiesa are connected by a promenade along the beach. Piran has a humid subtropical climate with warm summers and cool rainy winters. Snow is rare (usually 3 days per year, almost always in traces). There are 22 days a year with maximum temperatures of or higher; on one day a year the temperature does not exceed . Fog appears about 4 days per year, mainly in winter.
Demographics.
According to the Austrian language census of 1910, there were 7,379 inhabitants in the town proper, 95.97% Italians and 0.09% Slovenes. In 1945, the town proper had 5,035 inhabitants, 91.32% Italian and 8.54% Slovene speakers. In 1956 there were 3.574 inhabitants, 67.6% Slovene and 15.5% Italian. After 1947, the ethnic composition changed radically due to the exodus of Italians to Italy and their replacement by Slovene settlers, both from other areas of Slovenian Istria and from interior areas of the country.
Monuments.
Piran was heavily influenced by the Venetian Republic and Austria-Hungary, therefore the monuments differ greatly from those in inner parts of Slovenia. The Piran town walls were constructed to protect the town from Ottoman incursions; many parts of the town walls from different eras remain, and are of interest to tourists. In the middle of the town is the Tartini Square, with a monument in memory of Giuseppe Tartini. Nearby are located various important buildings, such as Tartini’s house, first mentioned in 1384 and one of the oldest in town, the Municipal Palace, Loggia and Benečanka, among others. On the hill above the town is the biggest and most important church, the Saint George's Church, with a Franciscan monastery nearby.
Communications and transport.
There is an international airport and a marina in the vicinity of the town. The medium-wave transmitter of Radio Koper is in Piran. It transmits on 1170 kHz and has a 123.6-metre-tall guyed mast with cage antenna. The town is connected with Koper, Izola, Portorož (the location of the airport), Sečovlje and Lucija by a cheap bus line. The lines of other coastal settlements operate mostly during the tourist season.
The first trolleybus line in the Balkans entered public service on 24 October 1909 in Piran, then part of Austria-Hungary. It ran from Tartini Square along the coast and the shipyard to Portorož and Lucija. The town authorities bought five trolleybuses manufactured by Austrian company Daimler-Motoren-Gesellschaft. In 1912, it was replaced by a tram system that operated until 1953, when it was superseded by buses.
Sports.
Pod Obzidjem Stadium () is a multi-purpose stadium in Piran. It is used for football matches and is the home ground of football team NK Portorož Piran. The stadium currently holds 750 spectators, 500 of them can be seated.
International relations.
Twin towns and sister cities.
Piran is twinned with:


Warbstow

Warbstow () is a village and civil parish in Cornwall, England, United Kingdom. The parish has a population of 439 according to the 2001 census, increasing to 520 at the 2011 census.
The parish is one of the few left in England to still have an exclave. The main body of the parish includes the villages of Warbstow, Warbstow Cross and Trelash and a number of hamlets, whereas the exclave (from which the main part is separated by about 150m) includes the hamlet of Canworthy Water.
Both the neighbouring parish of Treneglos and Warbstow belonged in the 12th century to the Lords of Cardinham who donated them to the priory of Tywardreath. Warbstow was then a chapelry to Treneglos and the two benefices were later united as a vicarage. According to Charles Henderson, writing in 1925, "The presence ... of St Werburga ... is not easily accounted for (though the parish is famous for geese which figure in her legend)".
At Youlstone an Iron Age bronze bowl was discovered in 1925. At Lower Youlton farm is a Cornish cross in use as a footbridge; it has undergone much wear from foot passengers and its original location is unknown.
Places of interest.
The parish church of St Werburgh was originally Norman, but largely rebuilt in the 15th century. Warbstow Bury is a large Iron Age hillfort with massive ramparts. It was once the venue for an annual gathering of Methodists from the circuits of Camelford, Holsworthy (Devon) and Launceston who assembled here on Whit Tuesday for an open air service.


Partition of Babylon

The Partition of Babylon was the first of the conferences and ensuing agreements that divided the territories of Alexander the Great. It was held at Babylon in June 323 BC.
Alexander’s death at the age of 32 had left an empire that stretched from Greece all the way to India. The issue of succession resulted from the claims of the various supporters of Philip Arrhidaeus (Alexander’s half-brother), and the as-of-then unborn child of Alexander and Roxana, among others.
The settlement saw Arrhidaeus and Alexander’s child designated as joint kings with Perdiccas serving as regent. The territories of the empire became satrapies divided between the senior officers of the Macedonian army and some local governors and rulers. The partition was solidified at the further agreements at Triparadisus and Persepolis over the following years and began the series of conflicts that comprise the Wars of the Diadochi.
The term "Partition of Babylon" is a modern designation.
Definition of partition.
Territorial boundaries were to remain in question for the rest of the century, until 300 BC. The two main sources on the "Partition of Babylon" use equivocal language concerning it. According to Diodorus Siculus, a coalition of factions in the army "established" ("kathestesan") that Arridaeus, son of Philip, should be king, and his name changed to Philip. Perdiccas, "to whom the dying king had given his finger-ring", was to be "caretaker" ("epimeletes"). The most worthy of the companions were to "succeed" ("paralabein") to the satrapies, and obey the king and Perdiccas. Alexander and Philip before him had not merely been kings, they were "leaders" ("hegemones") in the League of Corinth. Perdiccas was not merely to be the king's manager, he was to succeed to the Hegemony, which apparently the king did not. "Holding a council" ("sunedreusas") as Hegemon, he assigned the various satrapies.
A catalogue of assignments follows. To this point it appears to be a list of successions, or promotions. Then Diodorus says: "the satrapies were partitioned ("emeristhesan") in this way." The word is based on "part" ("meros"). It is not the Companions who are being promoted to Satraps, but the satrapies that are being divided and distributed to the Companions, which is a different concept. Satraps who own their satrapies do not need a king. Quintus Curtius Rufus, who wrote more extensively about the transition, says much the same thing. Holding a "council of the chief men" ("consilium principum virorum"); that is, the "sunedrion", Perdiccas divides the "imperium", or "Empire", between the top rank ("summa") held by the king and the satrapes. He clarifies, "the empire having been divided into parts" ("divisis imperii partibus"), or partitioned between individuals who could defend or choose to expand them. He points out that those who a little before had been "ministri" under the king now fought to expand their own "kingdoms" ("regna") under the mask of fighting for the empire.
Johann Gustav Droysen, innovator of the historical concepts of a Hellenistic Period divided it into a Diadochi Period and an Epigoni Period, and adopted Curtius' view of the result of the "sunedrion" at Babylon as a partition. He refers to the "First Partition of the Satrapies" ("Erste Verteilung der Satrapien"). Droysen's view is that Perdiccas distributed the satrapies with a view toward removing his opponents from among the Companions at the scene; thus the changes were never legitimate promotions of Diadochi, persons who expected advancement within the Empire. George Grote, the Parliamentarian-turned-historian within the British Empire, did not share this skeptical view, at least of the assignments at Babylon. He says: "All the above-named officers were considered as local lieutenants, administering portions of an empire one and indivisible, under Arridaeus. ... No one at this moment talked of dividing the empire." Droysen's view prevailed. Contemporaneously with the two, another parliamentarian and historian, Edward Bunbury, was using the concepts of Droysen, not Grote, in the standard reference works being chaired by William Smith.
The differences in point of view derive from the ancient historians themselves. They in turn were categorizing the conflict as they knew or read of it. For example, Ptolemy I Soter asks for and receives from Perdiccas as Hegemon promotion to Satrap of Egypt. There he disposes of the Nomarch of Alexandria appointed by Alexander. Thereafter he refers to himself for the next nearly 20 years as Satrap, even though there was then no empire. Finally in 305, when all hope of empire was gone, he declares himself Pharaoh of Egypt. Meanwhile, he perpetuates the cultural legacy of Alexander, most notably with the musaion and library, and the recruitment of population for Alexandria from many different nations. Historians of Ptolemy divide his biography into Ptolemy Satrap and Ptolemy Basileus. Earlier it was Ptolemy Hetairos. The term "Diadochos" was used by the historians to mean any and all of these statuses.
Background.
Alexander died on June 11, 323 BC, in the early hours of the morning. He had given his signet ring to his second-in-command, Perdiccas, on the previous day, according to the main account, that of Quintus Curtius Rufus, in "History of Alexander", which is summarized here. Curtius claims that Alexander predicted his own death, as well as the chaos resulting from it. Modern authorities disagree on whether or not this report is true, but if it is, Alexander's prediction would not have required the gift of clairvoyance and would have been largely stating the obvious; he had been dealing with mutiny among the Macedonian troops since before the expedition to India. At that time he formed a special unit of Persian young men, the Epigoni, to be armed and trained in Macedonian ways. On his return from India he hired them exclusively as his bodyguards. The handful of Macedonian generals officially titled bodyguards he used as senior staff officers. He was covered with old wounds from head to foot. He was seriously ill days before his death.
Council in Babylon.
On the day of his death the "Somatophylakes" announced a council, to which they invited the main "Hetairoi" (officers of the cavalry) and the line officers of the infantry, to be held at the royal quarters. Disobeying orders and ignoring the invitation list, the common soldiers pushed their way in, displacing many officers. Yielding to the inevitable, the "somatophylakes" allowed them to stay and to vote at the council. Voting was by voice, except for beating on the shield with the spear, which signified "nay".
Perdiccas opened by exposing (the manner is not stated) Alexander's "chair", from which he rendered official decisions. On it were his diadem, robe, cuirass and signet ring, which he was accustomed to wear when he spoke "ex cathedra". At the sight of them the crowd grieved volubly. Perdiccas addressed the grief, saying that the gods had given them Alexander for an appointed time, and now that it was over, they had taken him back. He pointed out their position as conquerors among the conquered. It was vital to their continuance, he said, that they have a "head". Whether it is one or many is in your "power". He thus raised the main issue, the question of "one" or "many". Roxana, Alexander's Bactrian wife, was six months into her pregnancy. He suggested that they choose someone to rule. The floor was open for discussion.
Proposals.
Nearchus, the fleet commander, proposed Heracles, the illegitimate son of Alexander by his Persian mistress Barsine, be made king. The vote was "nay". Ptolemy took the floor to say that selecting either child would be a disgrace ("piget"), because their mothers were "captives" ("captivi"), and what would be the good of conquest if the conquered ruled the conquerors? Aristonous of Pella proposed the ring be restored to Perdiccas as Alexander’s choice. The vote was "aye". For whatever reason, Perdiccas stood for some time without reply. Then he moved behind the "somatophylakes". Curtius is of the opinion that he wished to be begged to take the position. His behavior was taken as a refusal. His enemies took advantage of the opening.
Meleager saw in the confusion a chance to attack Perdiccas. There was no difference, he said, in voting for either Perdiccas or Heracles, as the former would rule anyway as "guardian" ("tutela"). The implication is that Perdiccas had some sort of legal guardianship of Alexander's children that would automatically apply even if they were voted kings. If the soldiers really were the deciding authority, he said, then why should they not enrich themselves by plundering the treasury? Amidst the uproar he gave the appearance of leading away an armed party to do just that, "the assembly having turned to sedition and discord".
An ordinary soldier saved the day by standing forward to shout that there was no need for civil war when Arrhidaeus, Alexander's half-brother, was the legal heir. They would never find another Alexander. Why should his heir be defrauded of his inheritance? The crowd became suddenly silent, to be followed by a loud positive voice vote. Too late, Peithon began to speak in opposition – Arrhidaeus was mentally disabled – but was shouted down.
Development of factions.
The soldiers, though allowed a vote, were not officially part of the council. Peithon proposed that it appoint Perdiccas and Leonnatus "Guardians" of Hercules, while Craterus and Antipater were to "administer" Europe. The appointments were adopted without consulting Arrhidaeus. Meleager left and returned with Arrhidaeus, shouting for assistance from the soldiers. Two factions had now developed, one for Perdiccas, and one for the Arrhidaeans, supported by Meleager. In the uproar; Arrhidaeus escaped in fear. The crowd called him back, placing Alexander's robe around him. Meleager put on his armor in public view, preparing to defend Arrhidaeus. The soldiers threatened bodily harm to the Bodyguards. They rejoiced that the "empire" would remain in the same family. According to Peter Green, "xenophobia played its part here: the Macedonian rank and file did not relish the prospect of kowtowing to a half-Oriental monarch."
The party for Meleager collected so many adherents that Perdiccas, "terrified" , called for 600 elite troops, "the royal guard of young men"; that is, the unit of Persian Epigoni formed by Alexander to protect him from his men, under Ptolemy, and took up a defensive position around the quarters where Alexander's body yet lay. They would not be in favor of a faction that rejected Alexander's children because their mothers were Persian. Military action began. Missiles rained in on the defenders. The situation having gotten out of control, the senior officers with Meleager took off their helmets so that they could be identified and called to Perdiccas to surrender. He had no choice. He put down his arms, followed by the Epigoni putting down theirs.
Meleager commanded them to remain in place while he hunted Perdiccas, but the latter escaped to the Euphrates River, where he was reinforced by the Hetairoi cavalry under Leonnatus. It seems clear, Alexander's most trusted men backed Perdiccas. Meleager sent a commission of assassins to ask Perdiccas to return, with secret orders to kill him if he hesitated. Meeting them with a bodyguard of 16 Epigoni, Perdiccas reviled them as they approached. They returned, having accomplished nothing. The day ended.
War of nerves.
The next day, seeing who was not in their party, the soldiers of Meleager's faction had second thoughts. A mutiny developed. Representatives undertook to interrogate Arrhidaeus as to whether he had ordered Perdiccas’ arrest. He said that he did, but that it was at Meleager's instigation. He refused action against Perdiccas. The council that had been called the previous day was officially terminated. They were hoping Perdiccas would dismiss his men, but he did not. Instead he moved against the supply lines, cutting off the supply of grain. He did not dare attack the city, as the odds were overwhelming. Under properly skilled generals, the forces in the city might have sallied out to break the blockade and crush its instigators, but the defenders took no action. Famine began.
Holding another council, the Macedonians in the city decided the king should send emissaries to Perdiccas to ask for terms of peace. In terms of forces the opposite should have been true, but Perdiccas knew he had all the generals on his side. Moreover, according to Plutarch in "Life of Eumenes", one of the "Hetairoi", Eumenes, had remained behind and was trying to convince the soldiers to come to terms. Perdiccas demanded an investigation into what he was calling the sedition and that the leaders should be turned over to him. Even Arrhidaeus could see that he was after Meleager. With tears running down his cheeks Arrhidaeus addressed the assembly, stating that he would give up the throne rather than that any more blood should be shed. He offered the crown to any who should affirm they were qualified to take it. This natural goodness moved the assembly to reaffirm his position. Eumenes managed to sway Meleager's troops to a less belligerent position, proposing a compromise in which Arrhidaeus would be made king, and, if Roxana's child proved to be a son, he should be made joint king with Arrhidaeus. According to Curtius, the assembly sacrificed "the old view of the kingship". They sent emissaries to Perdiccas asking to set up a triumvirate of "chiefs": Arrhidaeus, Perdiccas and Meleager. Perdiccas accepted, explains Curtius, hoping to divide Meleager from Arrhidaeus. Arrhidaeus was made king and renamed Philip III, while Alexander's and Roxana's child, who would indeed be a son, would become Alexander IV.
Victory of Perdiccas's faction.
Meleager rode out at the head of his forces to enact a truce. As the men came together, Perdiccas’ troops began to complain that they should have to accept Meleager as duke. Curtius says that Perdiccas put them up to it. Meleager lost his temper. The two leaders embraced. Meleager complained to Perdiccas of what he had heard. The two agreed to purge the whole army of its divisive elements.
The ceremony of reconciliation, based on Macedonian practice, required assembly of both sides under arms in a field between the bowels of a sacrificed dog. The two sides would then proceed to each other and intermingle. Meleager’s infantry in battle array faced the "Hetairoi" cavalry enhanced by elephants. The infantry flinched as the cavalry started toward them but stood fast. The king, however, had conferred with Perdiccas about the sedition. As the gap narrowed, he rode up and down the line singling out the leaders who had stood with Meleager against Perdiccas. He was not informed of Perdiccas' intention. As the two sides closed, Perdiccas's men, perhaps the Epigoni, arrested 300 known leaders of sedition, dragging them away for immediate execution, by one account by being trampled by war elephants goaded on for the purpose. Initially Meleager was spared and was appointed Perdiccas's deputy ("hyparchos"), but after the crisis had passed and the situation was again under control, Meleager, who saw them coming for him, took refuge in a temple, where he was murdered. The army meanwhile mingled and the schism was healed.
Another council in Babylon.
Perdiccas, as "epimelētēs" (guardian or regent) and with the authority conferred by Alexander's seal ring, summoned a new council, in the language of ancient legislators, "to which it was pleasing to divide the empire". Most of the great marshals were present, but three were not. Antipater, who had been in charge of Macedonia, was in Pella. Alexander had summoned Antipater to Babylon a few months before his death, but Antipater, suspecting he would be killed if he went, sent his son Cassander instead. Craterus, whom Alexander had appointed to replace Antipater, was on his way to Europe with Polyperchon and ten thousand veterans. They had reached Cilicia, when they learned of Alexander's death, and decided to stay there until they received further news. Antigonus One-Eye, who was commander of central Phrygia and responsible for keeping the route to Europe open, stayed where he was, in the fortress at Celaenae.
Nevertheless, the partition took place forthwith, the divisions apparently being negotiated ad hoc, as Ptolemy was able to ask for and received the satrapy of Egypt. "Ptolemy was one of the few to realize that limiting his ambitions would actually get him farther in the long run." Europe had not yet been divided into satrapies. There was no need to replace any eastern satraps. Perdiccas believed he was carrying out Alexander's plans, extending the modified Persian Empire into Greece, western Asia and Africa. He insisted on the supreme authority in the name of the king. Shortly that fiction was to be assaulted, ending in the second of the three partitions, which was an overt one manifestly to all. After the partition the council turned to the business of disposing of Alexander's body, which had lain unburied for seven days. The date of the partition was therefore June 18, 323 BC, or near it.
Ancient sources.
Curtius is the main source for the events immediately following the death of Alexander. No one else presents the same depth of detail. For the distribution of satrapies in the partition there are some several sources, not all of equal value.
The only complete account is Diodorus Siculus's "Bibliotheca historica", which was also the first to be written, c. 40 BC, and should thus be considered the more reliable source.
The Byzantine bishop Photius (c. 820–893) produced an epitome of 279 books in his "Bibliotheca", which contains two relevant (but much abbreviated) accounts. The first is Arrian's "Continuation" or "After Alexander" (codex 92). The second is Dexippus's "History" of events after Alexander (codex 82), which itself seems to be based on Arrian's account; compare Arrian: Cappadocia, Paphlagonia, and the country on the shore of the Euxine as far as Trapezus (a Greek colony from Sinope), to Eumenes with Dexippus: Eumenes Cappadocia, Paphlagonia, and the shores of the Euxine as far as Trapezus (Trebizond). However, the epitome of Dexippus contains some information which was presumably excerpted from the epitome of Arrian.
The final source is Justin's epitome of Pompeius Trogus's "Philippic History", which is probably the latest source and diverges from the other sources, seemingly containing several obvious mistakes.
All the latter sources seem to have read (and to an extent copied) Diodorus, or the most likely source of Diodorus's list, Hieronymus of Cardia. One passage in particular (see below) is very similarly worded in all accounts, although ironically this same passage contains most of the ambiguities that are to be found.
It is possible there is a copying error in Justin's work; the name of a satrap often occurs adjacent to the satrapy that Diodorus allots them (but not directly associated with it). "Pelasgia" does not appear to have been the name of a real Persian or Greek satrapy and the insertion of this word may have shifted the satraps by one place in the list, dislocating them. In addition, Armenia (not mentioned as a satrapy in any other account) may be a mistake for Carmania (which occurs in the same place in Diodorus's list). One possible interpretation of the passage would be: Amyntas was allotted the Bactrians, Scythaeus the Sogdians, Nicanor; the Parthians, Philippus; the Hyrcanians, Phrataphernes; the Armenians (the Carmanians), Tleptolemus; the Persians, Peucestes; the Babylonians, Archon; the Pelasgians Arcesilaus, Mesopotamia. By removing one (apparently meaningless) word and slightly altering the punctuation, five satraps now match the satrapy allotted to them in Diodorus. However, it is clear that the problems with this passage are more extensive, and cannot be easily resolved.
Partition.
Western Asia.
The next satrapies moving eastward are much more problematic, with Justins's account widely diverging from both Diodorus and Arrian/Dexippus. The following passage is the source of most of these differences:
The Arachosians and Gedrosians were assigned to Sibyrtius; the Drancae and Arci to Stasanor. Amyntas was allotted the Bactrians, Scythaeus the Sogdians, Nicanor the Parthians, Philippus the Hyrcanians, Phrataphernes the Armenians, Tlepolemus the Persians, Peucestes the Babylonians, Archon the Pelasgians, Arcesilaus, Mesopotamia.
This passage seems to be directly derived from Diodorus, listing the satrapies in more-or-less the same order, cf.
He gave Arachosia and Cedrosia to Sibyrtius, Aria and Dranginê to Stasanor of Soli, Bactrianê and Sogdianê to Philip, Parthia and Hyrcania to Phrataphernes, Persia to Peucestes, Carmania to Tlepolemus, Media to Atropates, Babylonia to Archon, and Mesopotamia to Arcesilaüs.
Pelasgia does not appear in any other accounts, and does not seem to have been a real satrapy; it is possible that the insertion of this word has caused some of the satraps to shift by one place in the interpretation of Justin's passage.Note 1 In addition, Armenia, also not mentioned in any other accounts as a satrapy may be a mistake for Carmania (which appears in the same position in Diodorus's list).
The equivalent passage is missing from Arrian, although it does appear in Dexippus – albeit with its own mistakes:
Siburtius ruled the Arachosians and Gedrosians; Stasanor of Soli the Arei and Drangi; Philip the Sogdiani; Radaphernes the Hyrcanians; Neoptolemus the Carmanians; Peucestes the Persians ... Babylon was given to Seleucus, Mesopotamia to Archelaus.
Radaphernes is presumably Phrataphernes, and Dexippus has possibly confused Tlepolemus (clearly named by Arrian, Justin and Diodorus) with Neoptolemus (another of Alexander's generals). It is well established that Seleucus only became satrap of Babylonia at the second partition (the Partition of Triparadisus), so Dexippus may have mixed up the two partitions at this point.


Subdivisions of Malawi

Malawi is divided into 28 districts within three regions:


Metropolis of Ioannina

The Metropolis of Ioannina (, "Iera Mitropolis Ioanninon") is a Greek Orthodox diocese centred on the city of Ioannina, in the Epirus of Greece. As one of the "New Lands", it belongs formally to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, but is administered by the Church of Greece. , the Metropolitan of Ioannina is Maximos Papagiannis.
History.
The exact time of Ioannina's foundation is unknown. It is commonly identified with an unnamed new, "well-fortified" city, recorded by the historian Procopius ("De Aedificiis", IV.1.39–42) as having been built by the Byzantine emperor Justinian I () for the inhabitants of ancient Euroia, but archaeological evidence for this is lacking; indeed, early 21st-century excavations have brought to light fortifications dating to the Hellenistic period (4th–3rd centuries BC), the course of which was largely followed by the later Castle of Ioannina.
The name Ioannina appears for the first time in 879, in the acts of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, which refer to one Zacharias, Bishop of Ioannine, a suffragan of Naupaktos. After the Byzantine conquest of Bulgaria, in 1020 Emperor Basil II () subordinated the local bishopric to the Archbishopric of Ohrid. In the treaty of partition of the Byzantine lands after the Fourth Crusade, Ioannina was promised to the Venetians, but in the event, it became part of the new principality of Epirus, founded by Michael I Komnenos Doukas.
Following the assassination of the last native ruler, Thomas I Komnenos Doukas by his nephew, Nicholas Orsini, in 1318, the city refused to accept the latter and turned to the Byzantines for assistance. On this occasion, Emperor Andronikos II Palaiologos () elevated the city to a metropolitan bishopric, and in 1319 Andronikos II issued a chrysobull conceding wide-ranging autonomy and various privileges and exemptions on its inhabitants. The new metropolis was placed in 53rd place among the metropolitan sees subject to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, but rose to 42nd place under Andronikos III Palaiologos (), and further to 33rd place in . The suffragan sees of the new metropolis in the 14th century are not known, but are likely the same four sees as those attested for : the bishoprics of Vela, Dryinoupolis, Bouthrotos/Glyky, and Himarra.
Under the regime of Thomas II Preljubović (1367–1384), the citizens and the local Church suffered greatly: Thomas confiscated property in favour of his Serb followers, and drove the Metropolitan Sebastianos to exile; nevertheless, he was able to repel successive attempts by the Albanian chieftains Peter Losha and John Bua Spata to capture the city, most notably the great surprise attack of 1379, whose failure the Ioannites attributed to intervention by their patron, Saint Michael. After Thomas' murder in December 1384, the citizens of Ioannina offered their city to Esau de' Buondelmonti. Esau took care to recall those exiled under Thomas, including the Metropolitan Gabriel, and restore the properties confiscated by him. Esau secured a period of peace for the city, which lasted until his death in 1411. The Ioannites then invited the Count palatine of Cephalonia and Zakynthos, Carlo I Tocco, as their new ruler. Following the death of Carlo I in 1429, in October 1430 Ioannina surrendered to an Ottoman army.
Led by the Metropolitan, the notables of the city secured a charter, the "Order of Sinan Pasha" (ὁρισμὸς τοῦ Σινᾶν πασᾶ), which outlined the privileges of the city: the church bells would continue to be tolled, no mosques were to be erected, and the authority of the Metropolitan and the possessions of the Church were to be respected. This privileged position lasted until 1611, when the city was engulfed by the peasant revolt led by Dionysius the Philosopher, the Metropolitan of Larissa. In its aftermath, Christians were evicted from the Ioannina Castle, and Muslim and Jewish families settled in their stead. The residence of the Metropolitan was moved from the Castle to the Church of St. Athanasios, where it remains to this day (the church was rebuilt in 1832 after it was gutted in a fire in 1820). The original cathedral of the city, which lay in the southeastern part of the Castle, survived at least until 1430, but is recorded as being ruined by 1596/97. Columns from it were reused in the Fethiye Mosque, built by Ali Pasha in 1795.
A separate bishopric for the region Zagori was established from the Metropolitan's jurisdiction in the late 16th century, but it was disestablished soon after. Its seat was probably the Rongovou Monastery. In 1659, Sultan Ahmed III established the Exarchate of Metsovo as a special privilege for the villages of the region of Metsovo. The exarchate was under the direct jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and lasted until 1795. Following the Asia Minor Disaster and the Greco-Turkish population exchange, in 1924 a separate Metropolis of Metsovo was established for the provisional settlement of bishops evicted from Asia Minor. Its first and only metropolitan was the former Metropolitan of Ganos and Chora, Timotheos (1924–1928).
Bishops.
Apart from Bishop Zacharias in 879, no incumbent of the see is known by name prior to its raising to metropolitan status. From the 14th century, the episcopal list is as follows:


Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh

The Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh were areas of Azerbaijan, situated outside the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO), which were occupied by the military forces of Armenia and the internationally unrecognized Republic of Artsakh from the end of the First Nagorno-Karabakh War (1988–1994) to 2020, when the territories were returned to Azerbaijani control in accordance to the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement.
Unlike Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast, the population of all the adjacent Armenian-occupied districts were majority-Azerbaijani until their deportations from the districts during the First Nagorno-Karabakh War.
The United Nations Security Council adopted four resolutions during the First Nagorno-Karabakh War demanding that all occupying forces in the territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh withdraw. In 2008, the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 62/243, demanding the withdrawal of all Armenian forces from all the occupied territories of Azerbaijan.
In the wake of the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, Armenian forces lost control of Fuzuli, Jabrayil, Zangilan and Qubadli districts, and agreed to withdraw from Agdam, Kalbajar and Lachin districts, returning them to Azerbaijani control, by 20 November, 25 November and 1 December 2020, respectively. This agreement was codified in a Russian-brokered ceasefire agreement and will be enforced by Russian peacekeepers under an initial 5-year mandate. As part of this settlement, Russian peacekeepers are deployed in the Lachin corridor connecting Armenia to the areas of Nagorno-Karabakh that remain under Armenian control.
History.
At the outset of the 1991-1994 Karabakh conflict, the majority-Armenian Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was surrounded by regions with Azerbaijani majorities and had no land border with Armenia.
From then till the 2020 war, Armenians were in control of most of the territory of the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast, with Azerbaijan controlling parts of the eastern Martuni and eastern Mardakert. In addition, since that time and until 2020, Armenians occupied all of the territory between the former NKAO and Iran, as well as all of the territory between the former NKAO and Armenia, and some areas to the east surrounding Aghdam. Nagorno-Karabakh also claims but did not control the region known until 1992 as Shahumian, which although being majority-Armenian before 1992, was not part of the NKAO. Shahumian's Armenian population was driven out during the war, and the Armenian and Azeri forces were separated on the northern front by the Murovdag mountain chain until 2020.
Since 1994, Armenia and Azerbaijan have held talks on the future of the occupied territories. The Armenian side offered to use a "land for status" formula (returning the occupied territories to the control of Azerbaijan in exchange for Azerbaijan recognizing the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh and giving security assurances to Nagorno-Karabakh and the Lachin corridor), while Azerbaijan offered a formula of "land for peace" (returning the occupied territories back to Azerbaijan in exchange for security guarantees with Azerbaijan controlling the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh). Mediators offered another "land for status" option (returning the occupied territories to the control of Azerbaijan in exchange for guarantees by Azerbaijan to hold at some point a referendum on the status of Nagorno-Karabakh). The involved parties have failed to reach any agreement.
Territory and Population.
Before 2020 war.
An OSCE Fact-Finding Mission visited the occupied territories in 2005 to inspect settlement activity in the area and report its findings to the Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group. According to FFM figures, at that time the number of Armenian settlers in Kelbajar District was approximately 1,500, in Agdam District from 800 to 1,000, in Fizuli District under 10; in Jebrail District under 100, in Zangelan District from 700 to 1,000, in Kubatly District from 1000 to 1,500, and in Lachin District about 8,000. The OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs, who conducted a Field Assessment Mission to the occupied territories of Azerbaijan in October 2010 reported that there was no significant growth in the population since 2005, and the overall population was roughly estimated as 14,000 persons. They also reported that towns and villages that existed before the conflict were abandoned and almost entirely in ruins, and Armenian settlers lived "in precarious conditions, with poor infrastructure, little economic activity, and limited access to public services". In later years, Armenians from Lebanon and Syria settled in the occupied territories.
Based on the administrative and territorial division of Azerbaijan, Armenian forces controlled the territory of the following districts of Azerbaijan from 1994 to 2020:
The outer perimeter of these territories was a line of direct contact between the military forces of the Republic of Artsakh and Azerbaijan.
2020 war.
On 27 September 2020, a war broke out in Nagorno-Karabakh, following skirmishes that occurred on the border between Armenia and Azerbaijan in July 2020. Thousands of Azerbaijanis demonstrated for war against Armenia in response, with Turkey propagandising in support of Azerbaijan. The Azerbaijani forces started operations along the Aras River on the same day, with advancements in Jabrayil and Fuzuli districts, and the initial objective to seize control of Cəbrayıl and Füzuli. The Azerbaijani authorities claimed to have taken a mountain peak in the Murovdag range in Kalbajar District. They then stated that the Azerbaijani forces had taken effective control of the Vardenis–Martakert/Aghdara highway connecting Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia. On 23 October, the clashes spilled to Qubadlı, with the suspected goal of taking control of the Lachin corridor. Two days later, the Azerbaijani forces had seized control of Qubadlı, the administrative center of Gubadly District; Azerbaijan released confirmary footage. The Azerbaijani forces soon entered Lachin District, with its administrative center, Laçın, getting constantly shelled until the end of the conflict.
Three ceasefires brokered by Russia, France, and the United States failed to stop the fighting. Following the capture of Shusha, the second-largest settlement in Nagorno-Karabakh, a ceasefire agreement was signed between the President of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, the Prime Minister of Armenia, Nikol Pashinyan, and the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, ending all hostilities in the area from 00:00, 10 November 2020 Moscow Time. The President of Artsakh, Arayik Harutyunyan, also agreed to end the hostilities. Under the agreement, which is being enforced by Russian peacekeepers under an initial 5 year mandate, the former combatants will keep control of their currently held areas within Nagorno-Karabakh, while Armenia will return the surrounding territories it occupied in 1994 to Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan will also gain a corridor in Armenian territory to provide direct access to its Nakhchivan exclave bordering Turkey and Iran.
Ahead of the transfer of Kalbajar District from Artsakh to Azerbaijan under the terms of the ceasefire agreement, ethnic Armenians burnt their homes, many of which were once inhabited by Azerbaijanis, to prevent them being reinhabited by the Azerbaijanis. The district had been mostly inhabited by ethnic Azerbaijanis before the First Nagorno-Karabakh War and was re-settled by Armenian citizens after the conflict. Some Armenians took their dead relatives' remains with them, and "Reuters" reported that villagers were "carting off everything they could as trucks nearby loaded up with household possessions". Reports of house burning emerged on 13 November, and on 15 November "Agence France-Presse" reported that in Çərəktar at least six houses were set on fire. "BBC Russian Service" reported that houses were also burning in neighboring Dadivank, and in other villages along the way. The fleeing Armenians were also sawing trees en masse, taking the firewood back to Armenia. Azerbaijan denounced civilians leaving the area for burning houses and committing what it termed "ecological terror"; President Ilham Aliyev called Armenians who destroyed their properties a "wild enemy". At Armenia's request, Azerbaijan extended the deadline for Armenians to fully vacate Kalbajar District by 10 days, until 25 November. Azerbaijan's Presidential Office stated that it took the worsening weather and the fact that there was only one road to Armenia into consideration when agreeing to extend the deadline.
The first district to be handed over to Azerbaijan was Agdam District, on 20 November. Prior to the transfer of control, Armenians living in Agdam District also set their homes on fire, and on 19 November, "Agence France-Presse" reported that Armenian soldiers had destroyed their headquarters in Agdam. Agdam was a predominantly Azerbaijani town until the 1993 battle over the city, after which it became a ghost town, labelled the "Hiroshima of Caucasus", The "Associated Press" reported that Aghdam Mosque, which had been vandalized with graffiti and used as a stable for cattle and swine, was the town's only structurally whole building. Also, on 30 November, Iranian-French photojournalist Reza Deghati reported that the Armenian forces, before handing over the region, had sacked and burned down an 18th-century mosque, which they used as a barn for cows, in Qiyasli, Agdam. Rustam Muradov, commander of the Russian peacekeeping task force in the region, stated that the handover operation had been carried out without incident. The transfer was celebrated in Baku, where cars paraded through the city with Azerbaijani, Russian and Turkish flags. On 24 November, with the permission of the Azerbaijani military, some Armenians returned to Gülablı to collect their clothing and were offered residency in Agdam as Azerbaijani citizens. On 22 November, the Azerbaijani military reported that it had defused more than 150 mines in the district.
On 25 November, Kalbajar became the second district to be returned to Azerbaijan. Armenian forces blew up their military headquarters before returning the district. The President of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, vowed to rebuild and revive Kalbajar District, and the event was also celebrated by a rally in Baku. Internally displaced Azerbaijanis from Kalbajar who had settled in Ganja also celebrated the occasion. The Azerbaijani Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources stated that it would evaluate the mineral deposits of Kalbajar District in order to calculate "the amount of damage caused to Azerbaijan" during the period of Armenian occupation. On 26 November, Armenian media reported that a group of 250 Azerbaijani soldiers had arrived at Zod gold mine, one of the largest gold deposits in the South Caucasus, located on the border of Kalbajar District and Gegharkunik Province in Armenia, and demanded its handover, establishing a military post at the mine. The Armenian defense ministry refuted this account, stating that Azerbaijani forces, having found an Armenian border checkpoint unacceptable, contacted the Armenian side via loudspeaker and negotiated with Russian peacekeepers over the issue. Armenian and Azerbaijani authorities started to demarcate the border on the same day. Armenian military authorities then stated that half of the mine area had been passed to Azerbaijan.
Ahead of the transfer of Lachin District, a predominantly-Azerbaijani and Kurdish populated region before its occupation by the Armenian Armed Forces in 1992, which resulted in its population fleeing the region, and the Armenian forces burning Lachin, the district's administrative center, which was re-settled by ethnic Armenian migrants from Armenia, to Azerbaijan, some ethnic Armenians fled from the city of Lachin, despite the Russian supervision over the land corridor passing thorough the city, which links Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia. The Russian peacekeepers also set up a post in a town previously called Zabukh by the local Azerbaijanis before it was destroyed in 1992, but later on the ruins there was built a village inhabited by Lebanese-Armenians. From 27 November, citing the city's self-proclaimed mayor, Narek Aleksanyan, who called on the ethnic Armenian population to flee the region, the Armenian media alleged that "the agreement has been amended," adding that Lachin, Sus, and Zabukh would not be handed over to Azerbaijan. These claims were refuted by the chairman of the Azerbaijan-based Center for Social Research, MP Zahid Oruj. According to "BBC Russian Service" correspondent, Yuri Vekdik, despite Aleksanyan's calls, the vast majority of Armenian settlers in Lachin, as well as the Lebanese-Armenians in Zabux, had fled the region. On 1 December, the Azerbaijani forces, with tanks and a column of trucks, entered the district, and the Azerbaijani MoD released footage from the city of Lachin. The Azerbaijani authorities stated that the district had suffered "great damage over the years", while it was administrated by the Republic of Artsakh as its Kashatagh Province.
Legal status.
During the first Nagorno-Karabakh War, the United Nations Security Council adopted four resolutions calling for the withdrawal of occupying forces from the territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh. In 2008, the United Nations General Assembly passed the Resolution 62/243 by 39 to 7, calling for the withdrawal of Armenian forces from the occupied territories of Azerbaijan.


Karanac

Karanac (; ) is a settlement in the region of Baranja, Croatia. Administratively, it is located in the Kneževi Vinogradi municipality within the Osijek-Baranja County. Population is 1,065 people.


Natural border

A natural border is a border between states or their subdivisions which is concomitant with natural formations such as rivers or mountain ranges. The "doctrine of natural boundaries" developed in Western culture in the 18th century being based upon the "natural" ideas of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and developing concepts of nationalism. The similar concept in China developed earlier from natural zones of control.
Natural borders have historically been strategically useful because they are easily defended. Natural borders remain meaningful in modern warfare even though military technology and engineering have somewhat reduced their strategic value.
Expanding until natural borders are reached, and maintaining those borders once conquered, have been a major policy goal for a number of states. For example, the Roman Republic, and later, the Roman Empire expanded continuously until it reached certain natural borders: first the Alps, later the Rhine river, the Danube river and the Sahara desert. From the Middle Ages onwards until the 19th century, France sought to expand its borders towards the Alps, the Pyrenees, and the Rhine River.
Natural borders can be a source of territorial disputes when they shift. One such example is the Rio Grande, which defines part of the border between the United States and Mexico, whose movement has led to multiple conflicts.
Natural borders are not to be confused with landscape borders, which are also geographical features that demarcate political boundaries. Although landscape borders, like natural borders, also take forms of forests, water bodies, and mountains, they are manmade instead of natural. Installing a landscape border, usually motivated by demarcating treaty-designated political boundaries, goes against nature by modifying the borderland's natural geography. For one, China's Song Dynasty built an extensive defensive forest in its northern border to thwart the nomadic Khitan people.
Criticism.
In Chapter IV of his 1916 book "The New Europe: Essays in Reconstruction", British historian Arnold J. Toynbee criticized the concept of natural borders. Specifically, Toynbee criticized this concept as providing a justification for launching additional wars so that countries can attain their natural borders. Toynbee also pointed out how once a country attained one set of natural borders, it could subsequently aim to attain another, further set of natural borders; for instance, the German Empire set its western natural border at the Vosges Mountains in 1871 but during World War I, some Germans began to advocate for even more western natural borders--specifically ones that extend all of the way up to Calais and the English Channel--conveniently justifying the permanent German retention of those Belgian and French territories that Germany had just conquered during World War I. As an alternative to the idea of natural borders, Toynbee proposes making free trade, partnership, and cooperation between various countries with interconnected economies considerably easier so that there would be less need for countries to expand even further--whether to their natural borders or otherwise. In addition, Toynbee advocated making national borders based more on the principle of national self-determination--as in, based on which country the people in a particular area or territory actually wanted to live in.


List of Landeshauptmann of Bukovina

This list outlines the Landeshauptmen of the Crownland Duchy of Bukovina at the time of the reign of the Habsburg Empire.


Subdivisions of Togo

Togo is divided into 5 regions, which are subdivided in turn into 30 prefectures and 1 commune.
 assignes codes for the 5 regions.