\section{Introduction}
	\label{Section:Introduction}
	Present-day detectors and data processing methods made it possible to resolve the photometry and kinematics of individual stars (even in components of binary and higher-order hierarchical stars) in star clusters \citep{Giesersetal2018,Giesersetal2019}. These observations reveal global bulk rotation of the star clusters and even resolve the rotational kinematics of the extremely dense star cluster cores. On top of this, the kinematic patterns of multiple populations in star clusters can and have been mapped out  \citep{Bianchinietal2016,Bianchinietal2018,Bianchinietal2019,Ferraroetal2018,Lanzonietal2018a,Lanzonietal2018b,Kamannetal2016,Kamannetal2018a,Kamannetal2018b,Kamannetal2019,Sollimaetal2019,Tiongcoetal2019,Tiongcoetal2021}. Moreover, we are beginning to solve the complex interaction between a star cluster and its tidal field and the imprint that the tidal field may leave on the internal cluster dynamics \citep{Tiongcoetal2016a,Tiongcoetal2016b,Tiongcoetal2017,Tiongcoetal2018}. \\
	Using these observations of the internal star cluster kinematics and rotation, existing theoretical models of star cluster dynamics can be refined. Whilst the observational evidence of rotating flattened clusters accumulates, the majority of numerical and theoretical models of star clusters still rely on the simplistic assumption of non-rotating spherical symmetry (e.g. \cite{Wangetal2016,Askaretal2017a,Rizzutoetal2021a,Rizzutoetal2021b,Kamlahetal2021}), which are supported by a wide range of models with fully self-consistent energy and angular momentum distribution functions (e.g. \cite{Plummer1911,King1962,Wilson1975}). Moreover, some methods require spherical symmetry. This is the case of Monte Carlo models and these are, currently, unable to evolve initially rotating star cluster models \citep{Henon1975,Cohn1979,Stodolkiewicz1982,Stodolkiewicz1986,Giersz1998,Gierszetal2015,Merritt2015,Askaretal2017a,Kremeretal2020a,Kremeretal2021}, although it must be said that \cite{Vasiliev2015} has developed a novel Monte Carlo method for simulating the dynamical evolution of stellar systems in arbitrary geometry. Recently, \cite{Lahenetal2020b} ran simulations of young massive star clusters forming in metal-poor starburst dwarf galaxies and found that the star clusters have significant angular momentum. In these simulations, the more massive star clusters tend to have larger angular momentum. But they also find that the angular momentum is not always aligned with flattening, thereby indicating a complex kinematic structure. Additionally, both observations and simulations support these results and find that star clusters show significant fractality \citep{Balloneetal2020,Pangetal2021a}, and internal rotation at birth in general \citep{Balloneetal2021}. Velocity anistropy has been observed in star clusters with detected elongated structures \citep{Pangetal2020,Pangetal2021a}, which might be induced by rotation.\\
	\citet{AkiyamaSugimoto1989} already described the basic phenomena in a surprisingly small 1000 body direct $N$-body simulation; they found ``(1) violent relaxation; (2) a gravogyro catastrophe of finite amplitude driven by the negative moment of inertia of a self-gravitating system through the transport of angular momentum; (3) a leveling off of the gravogyro instability where the transport of angular momentum is driven by coexisting, yet still slow, gravothermal instability; and (4) a relatively rapid gravothermal collapse'', directly cited from the abstract of \citet{AkiyamaSugimoto1989}. In the following years the focus shifted to the derivation of rotating equilibrium models, by \citet{Goodman1983a,LongarettiLagoute1996,VarriBertin2012}. These models are an extension of standard King models, adding a rotational parameter and a dependency of the distribution function on the angular momentum, and we denote them in the following as rotating King models. Such models were used as initial models for numerical solutions of the corresponding 2-D orbit-averaged Fokker-Planck (FP) equation. These models showed that not only the birth distribution, but also the long-term dynamical evolution of a star cluster is significantly affected by its initial bulk rotation, and follow-up work included binary heating and a stellar mass spectrum  \citep{Kimetal2002,Kimetal2004,Kimetal2008,Fiestasetal2006}. Direct $N$-body models were resumed by \citet{Ernstetal2007,Hongetal2013}, in the first place to compare and check the numerical solutions of the FP equation. Rotation in nuclear star clusters was studied using the FP model \citep{FiestasSpurzem2010,Fiestasetal2012} and by $N$-body and semi-analytic models of  \citet{Szolgyenetal2018,Szolgyenetal2019,Szolgyenetal2021} - they were interested into the formation and evolution of rotating stellar or black hole disks in nuclear star clusters. Large and long term $N$-body simulations of star clusters, similar to globular clusters, were only recently published by \citet{Tiongcoetal2022,Livernoisetal2022}, though with some restrictions on the stellar mass function. \\
	In this paper we present and discuss the results of direct $N$-body simulations of rotating star clusters with and without stellar evolution switched on. The models feature primordial (hard) binaries, a continuous mass spectrum, differential rotation, and tidal mass loss induced by the overall gravitational field of the host galaxy.
	The paper is structured as follows: in Section \ref{Section:Gravothermal-gravogyro catastrophe}, we summarize the research status on the gravothermal-gravogyro catastrophe. In Section \ref{Section:Methods} we discuss the methodology and in Section \ref{Section:Initial conditions} we outline the initial conditions for the simulations. In Section \ref{Section:Results} we present the simulation results and in Section \ref{Section:Summary, conclusion and perspective} we summarize and conclude the work and we give a perspective on future work and open questions.

	\section{Gravothermal-gravogyro catastrophe}
	\label{Section:Gravothermal-gravogyro catastrophe}
	In the following we introduce the two main processes that mostly regulate the evolution of our rotating clusters, namely the gravothermal and gravogyro catastrophes.

	\subsection{Gravothermal catastrophe}
	\label{Section:Gravothermal catastrophe}
	To understand the gravogyro catastrophe, it is didactically sensible to first illustrate the gravothermal catastrophe. Phenomenologically, it has been known that adding energy to a star cluster will make it cool down and expand \citep{LyndenBell1999}. This process was first proposed by \cite{Antonov1960,Antonov1961,Antonov1962}. He found that an isothermal gas sphere is the most probable state (maximum entropy $S$) of an initially spherical self-gravitating system of $N$ particles with energy $E$. However, he additionally found that this is not a global maximum. Below a certain density contrast between the central density $\rho_{c}$ (sphere of radius $r_{c}$) and the density at the edge of the sphere (sphere of radius $r_{e}$) $\rho_{e}$ ($\rho_{e}/\rho_{c}<1/709$), he showed that there exists no global maximum to the entropy $S$ at any fixed energy $E$. This effect is purely gravitational in nature and disappears in the absence of gravity \citep{LyndenBell1999}. \\
	\cite{LyndenBellWood1968} then developed the thermodynamic theory of self-gravitating gas spheres. With linear response theories, they were able to demonstrate that for certain configurations of such systems, there exists no equilibrium state. Furthermore, they showed that the specific heat capacity $C_{\mathrm{V}}=\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}T$ of the system becomes infinitely negative at around $3/100\lesssim\rho_{e}/\rho_{c}$ and approaches and ultimately reaches zero when the density contrast limit predicted by \cite{Antonov1962} is reached. Systems of self-gravitating gas spheres between the two limits are stable at fixed $E$ and $r_{\mathrm{E}}$ and they possess a negative heat capacity $C_{\mathrm{V}}$. For larger density contrasts than $1/709$, the system is unstable (no maximum entropy $S$). \\
	The following thought experiment is adapted from \cite{LyndenBell1999}. We can consider an isothermal gas sphere in a density contrast that eventually results in a negative specific heat capacity $C_{\mathrm{V}}$ as an analogy to a star cluster in order to understand the gravothermal catastrophe. We assume that the gas sphere expands adiabatically. We would observe a gas sphere with a much denser core than halo. As a result, mostly only the gas in the halo of the sphere will adiabatically expand. Consequently, the drop in temperature by the gas in the halo occurs much faster than the drop in temperature of the gas in the core. Keep in mind, that the specific heat capacity of the total system, $C_{\mathrm{V,total}}$ can be split up into the specific heat capacity of the gas in the core $C_{\mathrm{V,core}}$ core and the specific heat capacity of the gas in the halo $C_{\mathrm{V,halo}}$ Due to the resulting temperature gradient, heat will flow from the core to the halo of the gas sphere. As a result of the negative $C_{\mathrm{V,core}}$ the core will then contract and become hotter. The gas in the halo will also get hotter but in contrast to the gas in the core, it expands, because it has a positive $C_{\mathrm{V,halo}}$ If $C_{\mathrm{V,halo}}$is very large, then this process will proceed indefinitely (in theory). The core will continuously lose more and more heat and this will cause it to contract further and further. This process is called the gravothermal catastrophe under the condition that $C_{\mathrm{V,total}}$should continuously increase and reach zero once the boundary condition by \cite{Antonov1962} ($\rho_{e}/\rho_{c}=1/709$) is met. \\
	We now understand what happens in an adiabatically expanding, self-gravitating isothermal gas sphere. But in the context of stellar dynamics and realistic star clusters, the situation is much more complex. When replacing the gas molecules with actual stars in the thought experiment above, we now deal with a isothermal, self-gravitating sphere of stars. Heat is exchanged by repeated gravitational two-body encounters between the stars. The timescale for these encounters is much shorter at the centre of the cluster than at the outskirts of the star cluster. Therefore, when a star cluster adiabatically expands it is subject to the gravothermal catastrophe. The stellar density at the centre and the temperature (velocity dispersion) increases at ever smaller scales while the density in the halo decreases. This collapse would produce extremely large stellar densities at the core of the star cluster \citep{LyndenBellEggleton1980,InagakiLyndenBell1983,HachisuSugimoto1978,Hachisuetal1978,LyndenBell1999}. Therefore, we have to answer why we do not observe star clusters with such density profiles in the universe. We now know that it stems from the fact that binary stars (and hierarchical systems) act as gravitational energy sources \citep{Aarseth1972,Aarseth1985,Heggie1975,Henon1975,Heggie1984} that can halt core-collapse. It has been shown that a collisional stellar system will evolve to a state of stars with predominantly radial orbits in the halo and a central core, which has an isotropic velocity distribution and possesses a central density that increases steadily \citep{Larson1970a,Larson1970b,Henon1972a,Henon1972b,Cohn1980,Bettwieser1983,BettwieserSpurzem1986}. The inclusion of binary stars on the other hand has a drastic effect, see \cite{BettwieserSugimoto1984}. They confirmed that binary formation happens near the centre of the star cluster and that they they release energy. This causes the core to expand and to cool in temperature. The energy exchange between the core and the halo will result in an isothermal system. As a result, the gravothermal collapse occurs once more. This process may repeat many times in a simulation in the presence of binary stars \citep{LyndenBell1999}. \\
	So far, only closed-off systems were considered. If stars are allowed to escape the system by a series of weak gravitational encounters or a strong encounter or stellar evolution natal kicks, then this will accelerate the process of the gravothermal catastrophe and, ultimately, the whole system will disperse leaving behind only a single or a collection of extremely hard binary stars \citep{Padmanabhan1990}.

	\subsection{Gravogyro catastrophe and its coupling with the gravothermal catastrophe}
	The linear response theories developed by \cite{LyndenBellWood1968} were first applied to rigidly rotating and isothermal self-gravitating gas cylinders by \cite{InagakiHachisu1978}. They were able to define certain stability criteria for such systems, but were unable to define the coupling of the heat to angular momentum transport. To shed more light on this issue, \cite{Hachisu1979} used the theories by \cite{HachisuSugimoto1978} and he demonstrated that an unstable system as set up above has a negative specific moment of inertia even though its specific heat capacity $C_{\mathrm{V}}$ is positive. This can be explained by visualing a fluid element in a rigidly rotating and self-gravitating isothermal gas cylinder. When angular momentum is removed from the fluid element, then its angular speed also decreases. The region contracts towards the rotation axis of the gas cylinder. The moment of inertia of this fluid element decreases as a result. If the decrease of moment of inertia or the degree of contraction are large enough, then the angular speed actually becomes greater than its value before the removal of angular momentum. Ignoring gravity this may be coined as an effective negative specific moment of inertia in analogy to the negative specific heat capacity of gravothermal systems (see Section \ref{Section:Gravothermal catastrophe}). Along these lines, \cite{Hachisu1979} called the underlying process the \textit{gravogyro catastrophe} in analogy to the gravothermal catastrophe discussed above (the angular velocity $\omega$ and the specific angular momentum $j$ correspond to the temperature $T$ and the specific entropy $s$ \citep{AkiyamaSugimoto1989}). \cite{Hachisu1979} then predicted two further important effects. Firstly, the gravogyro catastrophe cannot proceed indefinitely since the contraction of the star cluster is halted by binary stars. Secondly, the heat transport from the inner regions of the star cluster to outer regions assists the gravogyro catastrophe, because a loss of heat is also associated with a loss of pressure from the fluid element and thus its contraction is accelerated. \\
	Later, the theories by \cite{LyndenBellWood1968,InagakiHachisu1978,Hachisu1979} were also applied to rotating and self-gravitating, isothermal gaseous disks and expanded to general three-dimensional bodies by \cite{Hachisu1982}, who confirmed that the instabilities are originating from a coupling of the gravothermal and the gravogyro catastrophes. They found that in general configurations of rotating bodies, both the gravothermal and the gravogyro catastrophes will prevail if either one of the following conditions hold: the central concentration of the gas needs to be large enough or if both the rotation is fast and the temperature of the gas is low enough. \cite{AkiyamaSugimoto1989} conducted first direct $N$-body simulations ($N=1000$, which is very small for statistical purposes \citep{EinselSpurzem1999}) using the direct $N$-body code \texttt{Nbody2} \citep{Aarseth1985}, which is a precursor to the direct $N$-body code \textsc{Nbody6++GPU} \citep{Wangetal2015,Wangetal2016} used in the work presented here. They observed a four-phase evolution in their simulations already outlined in Section \ref{Section:Introduction} and also concluded that such a series of evolutionary phases in combination of galactic tidal loss of stars would result in an overall loss of angular momentum from the cluster.

	\subsection{2-D Fokker-Planck models vs. direct $N$-body simulations}
	Expanding on the solvers for the two-dimensional orbit-averaged Fokker-Planck (FP) equation in $(E,J_{\mathrm{z}})$ space developed by \cite{Goodman1983a}, \cite{EinselSpurzem1999} modelled the evolution of rotating stellar systems while assuming cylindrical coordinates and ignoring the existence of a third integral of motion. They propose a rotating King model in the form of
	\begin{equation}
	f_{\mathrm{rk}} \propto \left(\mathrm{e}^{\beta E}-1\right)\times \mathrm{e}^{-\beta\Omega_0 J_{\mathrm{z}}}
	\end{equation}
	as a background distribution for the stars following \cite{LuptonGunn1987}, where $\beta = 1/(m\sigma_{\mathrm{c}}^2)$ and the dimensionless angular velocity is given by $\omega_{0}=\sqrt{9/4\times \pi Gn_{\mathrm{c}}}\times \Omega_{0}$. Potential-density pairs (see e.g. \cite{Binney2008}) for these models are created by relating $\beta$ to the King parameter $W_0$ via $W_0 = \beta m(\psi-\psi_{\mathrm{t}})$, where $\psi$ and $\psi_{\mathrm{t}}$ are the central King potential and the King potential at the truncation radius $r_{\mathrm{t}}$ as well as the number of stars and shells in the computation. \cite{EinselSpurzem1999} then established a family of rotating King models that are parameterised by pairs of $(W_{0},\omega_{0})$ using numerical and computational methods by \cite{Heyeyetal1959,Cohn1979,Spurzem1994,Spurzem1996}. \cite{EinselSpurzem1999} found that with increasing initial angular velocity parameter $\omega_{0}$, the system is driven into strong mass loss and it contracts moderately. Furthermore, the models exhibit the expected features for the gravogyro catastrophe expected by \cite{Hachisu1979} outlined above: a faster rotating core, although angular momentum is transported outwards from the star cluster. \\
	The work by \cite{EinselSpurzem1999} was then improved through the inclusion of three-body binary heating \citep{Kimetal2002}. They performed simulations of equal-mass systems without stellar evolution or tides, but nevertheless they confirmed that the collapse time could be significantly reduced due to rotation. \cite{Kimetal2004} then improved the research further by including a two-component mass spectrum. They were able to show that generally the angular momentum is transported from the high mass to the low mass group as long as dynamical friction \citep{Chandrasekhar1943a,Chandrasekhar1943b,Chandrasekhar1943c} wins over the gravogyro catastrophe. In general, however, the underlying assumptions in the 2-D FP models by \cite{EinselSpurzem1999} (neglect of third integral of motion, axisymmetry, see also \cite{Spurzemetal2005} for a discussion of tidal fields) require comparisons with direct $N$-body simulations. For this purpose, \cite{Kimetal2008} then investigated single component models and showed that the FP results are generally consistent with the $N$-body calculations. Their results also confirmed earlier $N$-body simulations by \cite{Ernstetal2007}. The comparative studies between FP and direct $N$-body models were later expanded upon by \cite{Hongetal2013}, who showed that the cluster evolution is accelerated by not only the initial rotation but also the mass spectrum of the cluster. They also demonstrated that the total angular momentum and the total mass of the cluster both decrease rapidly, while a bar-like structure forms and persists in the cluster centre. Furthermore, it was confirmed that there is no conflict with observed limits of Galactic globular cluster rotation by expanding upon earlier comparisons between the FP models and observations from \cite{Fiestasetal2006,FiestasSpurzem2010}. \cite{Szolgyenetal2019}, who initialised their $N$-model simulations with rotating King models from \cite{LongarettiLagoute1996}, found a process of anisotropic segregation of heavy masses towards the central region, forming a disk-like structure. This has been proposed earlier for galactic nuclei \citep{Szolgyenetal2018} and studied in more detail in \cite{Szolgyenetal2021}. The formation of such a disk is very likely linked to the gravothermal-gravogyro catastrophe and similar to the formation of the bar-like structure found by \cite{Hongetal2013}. \\
	The work presented in this paper adds to the large body of theoretical work listed above. For the first time, we study the impact of initial bulk rotation, realistic stellar evolution mass loss models in combination with primordial binaries and stars drawn from a continuous IMF \citep{Kroupa2001} and the impact of the tidal field on the global dynamics of the star clusters. With these settings, we study the development, evolution and coupling of the gravothermal and gravogyro catastrophes using direct $N$-body methods during the pre- and post-core collapse phases of star cluster evolution.

	\section{Methods}
	\label{Section:Methods}
	\subsection{\textsc{Nbody6++GPU}}
	The rotating star cluster models are evolved using the state-of-the-art direct force integration code \textsc{Nbody6++GPU}, which is optimised for high performance GPU-accelerated supercomputing \citep{Spurzem1999,NitadoriAarseth2012,Wangetal2015}. It is a successor to the many direct force integration $N$-body codes of gravitational $N$-body problems, which were originally written by Sverre Aarseth (\citet{Aarseth1985,Spurzem1999,Aarseth1999a,Aarseth1999b,Aarseth2003b,Aarseth2008} and sources therein).
	\\
	The code is optimised for large-scale computing clusters by utilising MPI \citep{Spurzem1999}, SIMD, OpenMP and GPU \citep{NitadoriAarseth2012,Wangetal2015} parallelisation techniques. In combination with the Kustaanheimo-Stiefel (KS) regularisation \citep{Stiefel1965}, the Hermite scheme with hierarchical block time-steps \citep{McMillan1986,Hutetal1995,Makino1991,Makino1999} and the Ahmad-Cohen (AC) neighbour scheme \citep{AhmadCohen1973}, the code allows for star cluster simulations of realistic size without sacrificing astrophysical accuracy by not properly resolving close binary and/or higher-order subsystems of (degenerate) stars. With \textsc{Nbody6++GPU} we can include hard binaries and close encounters (binding energy comparable or larger than the thermal energy of surrounding stars) using two-body and chain regularization \citep{MikkolaTanikawa1999a,MikkolaTanikawa1999b,MikkolaAarseth1998}, which permits the treatment of binaries with periods of days in conjunction and multi-scale coupling with the cluster environment. The AC scheme permits for every star to divide the gravitational forces acting on it into the regular component, originating from distant stars, and an irregular part, originating from nearby stars (``neighbours''). Regular forces, efficiently accelerated on the GPU, are updated in larger regular time steps, while neighbour forces are much more fluctuating and need update in much shorter time intervals. Since neighbour numbers are usually small compared to the total particle number, their implementation on the CPU using OpenMP \citep{Wangetal2015} provides the best overall performance. Post-Newtonian dynamics of relativistic binaries is currently still using the orbit-averaged Peters \& Matthews formalism \citep{PetersMathews1963,Peters1964}, as described e.g. in  \citet{DiCarloetal2019,DiCarloetal2020a,DiCarloetal2020b,DiCarloetal2021,Rizzutoetal2021a,Rizzutoetal2021b,ArcaSeddaetal2021}.

	\subsection{\textsc{McLuster} and \textsc{fopax}}
	The star clusters are initialised with \textsc{McLuster} \citep{Kuepperetal2011a,Kamlahetal2021,Levequeetal2022}. This code is used to either set up initial conditions for $N$-body computations or to generate artificial star clusters for direct investigation \citep{Kuepperetal2011a}.  The \textsc{McLuster} output models can be read directly into the \textsc{Nbody6++GPU} as initial models (also other codes, e.g. \textsc{MOCCA} \citep{Kamlahetal2021}). This makes \textsc{McLuster} the perfect tool to initialise realistic star cluster simulations. The input parameters are given in the next Section and they can be found in Tab.\ref{Global_properties_newtidal}. \\
	We post-process the initial $N$-body distribution given \textsc{McLuster} using \textsc{fopax} \citep{EinselSpurzem1999,Kimetal2002,Kimetal2004,Kimetal2008}. We use rotating King model $N$-body distributions that are characterised by $(W_{0},\omega_{0})$ as described above and combine and re-scale the King models created from \textsc{McLuster} in the first step with these. It is important here that the dimensionless King model parameter $W_0$ is identical in both \textsc{McLuster} and \textsc{fopax} (In our set-up $W_{0}=6.0$). In this way, we create models $(W_{0}=6.0,\omega_{0}\in[0.0, 0.6, 1.2, 1.8]$; see Tab.1 in \cite{EinselSpurzem1999} for up to $\omega_{0}=1.0$) in the construction of the initially rotating $N$-body distributions of star cluster models presented in this paper.\\
	Furthermore, the rotating King model initial distributions are more compact with increasing $\omega_{0}$ (see Fig.1 in \cite{EinselSpurzem1999}). Therefore, the structural input parameters from \textsc{McLuster}, such as the half-mass radius $r_{\mathrm{h}}$, are (slightly) changed in this step. Since the traditional calculation of the half-mass radii $r_{\mathrm{h}}$ and by extension also the Lagrangian radii $r_{\mathrm{Lagr}}$ rely on the assumption of spherical symmetry, which breaks down for the rotating models (and in general, also for initially spherical star clusters in tidal fields), they can only be used as an approximate or indicative measure for the global, structural evolution of the star clusters.

	\section{Initial conditions}
	\label{Section:Initial conditions}
	\subsection{Star cluster parameters}
	\begin{table}
		\begin{tabular}{|l|l|}
			\hline \textbf{Quantity} & \textbf{Value} \\
			\hline \hline \textbf{Particle number} & $1.1\times 10^5$ \\
			\hline \textbf{Binary fraction} $f_{\text{b}}$ & $10.0\%$  \\
			\hline \textbf{Half mass radius} $r_{\text h}$ & $1.85$~pc  \\
			\hline \textbf{Tidal radius} $r_{\text{tid}}$ & $65.59$~pc   \\
			\hline \textbf{IMF} & \makecell{Kroupa IMF \citep{Kroupa2001} \\ ($0.08-150$)~$\text M_{\odot}$} \\
			\hline \textbf{Density model} & \makecell{King model \citep{King1962}\\ $W_0=6.0$} \\
			\hline \makecell{\textbf{Eccentricity} \\ \textbf{distribution} $f(e)$} & \makecell{Thermal ($f(e)\propto e^2$)} \\
			\hline \makecell{\textbf{Semi-major axis} \\ \textbf{distribution} $f(a)$} & \makecell{uniform in $\mathrm{log}(a)$ \\ between the sum of the radii \\ of the two binary stars and 100~AU } \\
			\hline \makecell{\textbf{mass ratio} \\ \textbf{distribution} $f(q)$} &  \makecell{uniform distribution of mass ratio \\ (0.1$<q<$1.0) for $m>5$~$\text{M}_{\odot}$ and \\random pairing for \\ the remaining binaries \\ \citep{Kiminkietal2012,SanaEvans2011} \\ \citep{Sanaetal2013a,Kobulnickyetal2014}.}\\
			\hline \hline
		\end{tabular}
		\caption{Initial parameters that are identical across all eight initial models for the \textsc{Nbody6++GPU} simulations.}
		\label{Initial_conditions}
	\end{table}

	\begin{table}
		\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|}
			\hline \textbf{Model ID} & \textbf{Stellar evolution?} & $\omega_0$ \\
			\hline \hline \texttt{SEV}$\omega_00.0$ & yes & $0.0$ \\
			\texttt{SEV}$\omega_00.6$ & yes & $0.6$ \\
			\texttt{SEV}$\omega_01.2$ & yes & $1.2$ \\
			\texttt{SEV}$\omega_01.8$ & yes & $1.8$ \\
			\hline \hline \texttt{noSEV}$\omega_00.0$ & no & $0.0$ \\
			\texttt{noSEV}$\omega_00.6$ & no & $0.6$ \\
			\texttt{noSEV}$\omega_01.2$ & no & $1.2$ \\
			\texttt{noSEV}$\omega_01.8$ & no & $1.8$ \\
			\hline \hline
		\end{tabular}
		\caption{Model identifiers (Model ID) for the eight \textsc{Nbody6++GPU} simulations.}
		\label{Model_IDs}
	\end{table}

	The initial models from \textsc{McLuster} \citep{Kuepperetal2011a,Kamlahetal2021,Levequeetal2022} are constructed as smaller mock models of the Milky Way GC NGC3201 and are shown in Tab.\ref{Initial_conditions}. The initial number of objects is set to $10^5$ with a binary fraction of $0.1$. This yields a total number of stars of $1.1\times 10^5$. Our cluster has an initial cluster mass of $6.41\times 10^4$~$\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$. As sketched out above, we use a King density model with a King model parameter of $W_0 = 6.0$ \citep{King1962}. The model shows no initial mass segregation and is unfractal \citep{GoodwinWhitworth2004}. The model is initially in virial equilibrium. The half-mass radius is set to $r_{\rm h}$=1.85~pc. As described above, the initial model from \textsc{McLuster} is then restributed with a rotating King model, which are more compact than their non-rotating counterparts \citep{EinselSpurzem1999}. Therefore, the internal structural parameters such as the $r_{\rm h}$ and $r_{\rm c}$ change in this initialisation step from their original \textsc{McLuster} $N$-body distribution (see already Fig.\ref{Global_properties_newtidal}).\\
	We use a Kroupa IMF \citep{Kroupaetal2001} between 0.08~$\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$ and 150.0~$\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$. The binaries are paired in their mass ratios $q$ following \citep{Kiminkietal2012,SanaEvans2011,Sanaetal2013a,Kobulnickyetal2014}, meaning that we have a uniform distribution of mass ratios (0.1$<q<$1.0) for $m>5$~$\text{M}_{\odot}$ and random pairing for the remaining binaries. Their semi-major axes are distributed uniformly in log-scale between the sum of the radii of the two binary stars and 100~AU. The eccentricity distribution is thermal. \\
	The cluster absolute metallicity is set to $Z=0.00051$. We put our cluster initial models on a circular orbit around the galaxy of radius 13.3~kpc (according to \citep{Caietal2016} a circular orbit can be chosen such that the mass loss evolution of the cluster is similar compared to the eccentric orbit of NGC3201 (between 8.60 and 29.25~kpc, with eccentricity $e=$0.55 according to Gaia DR2 data \citep{Helmietal2020a})) around a point-mass MW of mass $1.78\times 10^{11}$~$\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$ (assuming a circular velocity $v_c = 240.0$~$\mathrm{kms}^{-1}$ at the Solar distance) \citep{Helmietal2020a,BobylevBajkova2020}. For our cluster models this yields an initial tidal radius of 65.59~pc. \\
	In the interest of clarity and to aid the discussion in some instances, we introduce model identifiers for our eight individual runs, see Tab.\ref{Model_IDs}. For example, the non-rotating model with stellar evolution switched off is named \texttt{noSEV}$\omega_00.0$, while the rotating model with $\omega_0=1.2$ and stellar evolution switched on is named \texttt{SEV}$\omega_01.2$. The details of the stellar evolution parameters are discussed below. Furthermore, we will refer to the group of models without stellar evolution as \texttt{noSEV} models and to the group of models with stellar evolution as \texttt{SEV} models from here on after.

	\subsection{Stellar evolution parameters}
	We follow the \texttt{Level-C} stellar evolution as presented in \citet{Kamlahetal2021}, which also describes the stellar evolution routines and parameters in detail. We use the metallicity-dependent winds following \citet{Vinketal2001,VinkdeKoter2002,VinkdeKoter2005,Belczynskietal2010} across the full mass range. For the compact object evolution, we use remnant mass prescriptions following \cite{Fryeretal2012} and here we choose the delayed supernova (SNe) mechanism as the slow extreme of the convection-enhanced neutrino-driven SNe paradigm. We use standard momentum conserving fallback-scaled kicks (drawn from a Maxwellian distribution with a dispersion of 265.0~$\mathrm{kms}^{-1}$ from \citet{Hobbsetal2005}) for the neutron stars (NSs) and black holes (BHs) \citep{Belczynskietal2008}, except for the NSs and BHs that are produced by the electron-capture SNe (ECSNe), accretion-induced collapse (AIC) and merger-induced collapse (MIC) \citep{Podsiadlowskietal2004b,Ivanovaetal2008,GessnerJanka2018,Leungetal2020a} and that are subject to low velocity kicks (drawn from a Maxwellian with a dispersion of 3.0~$\mathrm{kms}^{-1}$ from \citet{GessnerJanka2018}). The BHs receive natal spins following the \texttt{Geneva} models \citep{Banerjeeetal2020,Banerjee2021a}. The white dwarfs (WDs) receive natal kicks following \citet{Fellhaueretal2003} (drawn from a Maxwellian with a dispersion of 2.0~$\mathrm{kms}^{-1}$ but, which is capped at 6.0~$\mathrm{kms}^{-1}$). We switch on the (pulsational) pair instability SNe following \citet{Belczynskietal2016}.

	\section{Results}
	\label{Section:Results}
	\subsection{Global dynamical evolution}
	\subsubsection{Structural parameter evolution}
	\begin{figure}
		\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Global_properties_newtidal_portrait.jpg}
		\caption{Plot showing the tidal radius $r_{\mathrm{t}}$~(pc), the half mass radius $r_{\mathrm{h}}$~(pc) and the mass of the core $m_{\mathrm{c}}~(\mathrm{M}_{\odot})$ and the radius of the core $r_{\mathrm{c}}$~(pc) in the four panels for all eight simulations with and without stellar evolution for $\omega_{0}=0.0, 0.6, 1.2, 1.8$, respectively. The time axis is plotted logarithmically to show the details of the much more rapid early cluster evolution. The models with stellar evolution (\texttt{SEV} models) are plotted as solid lines and the models without stellar evolution (\texttt{noSEV}) runs are plotted as dash-dotted lines.}
		\label{Global_properties_newtidal}
	\end{figure}
	We run each of the four initial models ($\omega_{0}=0.0, 0.6, 1.2, 1.8)$ with \textsc{Nbody6++GPU} once with stellar evolution switched on (\texttt{SEV} models) and once without (\texttt{noSEV} models). Hence we have eight distinct simulations to compare and contrast. We discuss in the following Figs.~\ref{Global_properties_newtidal} to \ref{BH_bar}, to get an overview on the global evolution of the simulated star clusters.\\
	Fig.\ref{Global_properties_newtidal} shows the tidal radius $r_{\mathrm{t}}$~(pc), the half mass radius $r_{\mathrm{h}}$~(pc) and the mass of the core $m_{\mathrm{c}}~(\mathrm{M}_{\odot})$ and the radius of the core $r_{\mathrm{c}}$~(pc) in the four panels, respectively. We first note a clear difference between the \texttt{SEV} and \texttt{noSEV} models. While the tidal radius decreases significantly due to stellar evolution mass loss in the \texttt{SEV} models, the \texttt{noSEV} models can only suffer mass loss through escaping stars, either through strong dynamical encounters or series of weak encounters. In any case, it is unsurprising that in the presence of the additional mass loss mechanism through stellar evolution, the tidal radii of the respective models have a much faster decrease in tidal radius. However, we also observe that the \texttt{noSEV} appear to approach the \texttt{SEV} models in their tidal radius. We would need simulations longer than 1~Gyr to make a qualified statement on this. \\
	The half-mass radius $r_{\mathrm{h}}$~(pc), shows an interesting evolution. While the evolution over the first couple of hundred Myr is clearly similar, the \texttt{noSEV} clearly diverge from the \texttt{SEV} models. This means the \texttt{noSEV} expand faster and more violently than the \texttt{SEV} models. This is not mirrored by the core radius $r_{\mathrm{c}}$~(pc) evolution, which is similar in the longer term leading up to 1~Gyr. There is one striking difference though. All \texttt{noSEV} models collapse faster and exhibit a stronger core collapse than their counterparts with stellar evolution. However, the mass in the core evolves similarly meaning that the core mass $m_{\mathrm{c}}~(\mathrm{M}_{\odot})$ decreases faster and more strongly in all \texttt{noSEV} models. The evolution of the core radii and core masses are occur approximately synchronised, in all simulations. \\
	The Lagrangian radii, $r_{\mathrm{Lagr}}$~(pc), meaning the radii of mass shells containing a certain percentage of the \textit{current} total cluster mass (in this paper 1~\%, 5~\%, 10~\%, 30~\%, 50~\%, and 90~\% are shown) and the average stellar mass within these Lagrangian radii, $M_{\mathrm{av}}$~$(\mathrm{M}_{\odot})$, are shown in Fig.\ref{Lagrange} for the all eight simulations. Each of the four columns represents a rotational parameter ($\omega_{0}$=0.0, 0.6, 1.2, 1.8) and every second row shows the \texttt{noSEV} models on a light grey background. It appears that the core-collapse phase of the star cluster \texttt{noSEV} models is more extreme, while the overall collapse also happens earlier. This can be seen especially in the plots of $M_{\mathrm{av}}$ in the bottom two rows of Fig.\ref{Lagrange}. Moreover, the expansion of the outer-most Lagrange radii happens significantly faster in the \texttt{noSEV} than in the \texttt{SEV} models. This adds further evidence for a faster evolution of the \texttt{noSEV} models. \\
	The dicussion above can be related to the theorems described in \cite{Henon1975} (see also \cite{BreenHeggie2013}). The evolution of the cluster system as a whole is governed by the energy flow through the half-mass radius $r_{\mathrm{h}}$ and it is independent of internal energy sources. The energy flow is approximately equal to $(GM_{\mathrm{cl}}^2/ r_{\mathrm{h}}) / t_{r_{\mathrm{h}}}$, where $t_{r_{\mathrm{h}}}$ is the half-mass relaxation time-scale and $M_{\mathrm{cl}}$ is the cluster mass, and this is equal to the energy generated at the centre of the cluster. In general, stellar evolution causes mass loss and results in an increase of $r_{\mathrm{h}}$. Additionally, the loss of mass by interaction and relaxation for very massive stars (without evolution) causes an increase in $r_{\mathrm{h}}$. Because in the case of no evolution we have more massive stars than in the case of evolution, the core collapses deeper and earlier. Mass loss through evolution slows down the collapse that then continues further. To stop the core collapse (no evolution), it is necessary to eject out some of the most massive binary systems and the most massive stars (as can be seen in the following figures). Then equilibrium occurs and both systems evolve similarly at the centre, generating similar energy. So if the mass of the system without stellar evolution is greater, then $r_{\mathrm{h}}$ must also be greater than in the case with stellar evolution. \\
	Here, we also need to point out an important caveat: technically, as was also briefly outlined in Section \ref{Section:Methods}, it is not entirely accurate to use $r_{\mathrm{c}}$, $r_{\mathrm{h}}$ and $r_{\mathrm{Lagr}}$ as measures for the global structure evolution of the rotation star cluster models that deviate too far from spherical symmetry. Instead of using Lagrangian mass shells, it would be better to sort the particles in terms of binding energy. This would yield spheroids of equipotential surfaces. With these, we would then be able to calculate the respective radii along the principal axes of the spheroid. This is done below for the investigation of shape evolution of the star cluster models. \\
	As was previously outlined in Section \ref{Section:Introduction}, bulk rotation leaves an imprint on the shape of a star cluster. In general, the flattening of a rotating mass distribution can be calculated by transforming the principal axes of a the moment of inertia tensor relative to the density centre of the mass distribution using different numbers of particles which are sorted by their binding energy \citep{TheisSpurzem1999}. Fig.\ref{triaxility} shows the principal axis ratios of the intermediate to major axis ratio  $b/a$ and the minor to the major axis ratio $c/a$. Furthermore, following \citet{TheisSpurzem1999}, we define a triaxiality parameter of the system
	\begin{equation}
	\tau = \frac{b-a}{c-a},
	\end{equation}
	which is shown in the bottom two rows of Fig.\ref{triaxility} (in this paper 10~\%, 30~\%, 50~\%, and 90~\% are shown). As in Fig.\ref{Lagrange}, the \texttt{noSEV} models are plotted in a light-grey background. Overall, the impact of the stellar evolution in combination with tidal field mass loss from the cluster is significant. While the star clusters with stellar evolution switched on return from the maximal triaxiality at minimal $c/a$ and $b/a$ to axisymmetry, the star clusters without stellar evolution activated do not exhibit this evolution. In fact, all \texttt{noSEV} models show the initial maximum triaxiality earlier and more pronounced than the \texttt{SEV} models and while they then shortly after are attempting to return to axisymmetric configurations, they then show no, one or two consecutive triaxial "collapses" ($\tau$ in bottom row of Fig.\ref{triaxility}).
	\begin{figure*}
		\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Global_Lagrange_radii_newtidal.jpg}
		\caption{Plot showing the Lagrange radii $r_{\mathrm{Lagr}}$~(pc) and the average mass $M_{\mathrm{av}}$~$(\mathrm{M}_{\odot})$ within shells that contain 1\%, 5\%, 10\%, 30\%, 50\%, and 90\% of the total cluster mass at the current simulation time step for up to 1~Gyr. The time axis is plotted logarithmically to show the details of the much more rapid early cluster evolution. Each column represents one rotational parameter $\omega_{0}$ of the rotating King model in ascending order from left to right ($\omega_{0}$=0.0, 0.6, 1.2, 1.8). The results from the runs \textit{with} stellar evolution switched on (\texttt{SEV} models) are plotted on a white background, while the results from the simulations \textit{without} stellar evolution (\texttt{noSEV} models) are highlighted in light grey.}
		\label{Lagrange}
	\end{figure*}
	\begin{figure*}
		\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Global_triaxility_newtidal.jpg}
		\caption{Plot showing the ratios of the principal axis of the moment of inertia tensor, $b/a$ and $c/a$, as well as the triaxiality parameter $\tau = (b-c)/(a-c)$ within shells that contain 10\%, 30\%, 50\%, and 90\% of the total particle energy at the current simulation time step for up to 1~Gyr. The time axis is plotted logarithmically to show the details of the much more rapid early cluster evolution. Each column represents one rotational parameter $\omega_{0}$ in ascending order from left to right ($\omega_{0}$=0.0, 0.6, 1.2, 1.8). The results from the runs \textit{with} stellar evolution switched on (\texttt{SEV} models) are plotted on a white background, while the results from the simulations \textit{without} stellar evolution (\texttt{noSEV} models) are highlighted in light grey.}
		\label{triaxility}
	\end{figure*}
	Furthermore, it is noteworthy that all shells from $10~\%$ to $90~\%$ are much more similar in their structure evolution for the \texttt{noSEV} compared with their counterparts in the \texttt{SEV} models, where there is more divergence between individual spheroidal shells. This is possibly related to the tidal field mass loss, meaning that if the tidal radius was (much) larger, the \texttt{noSEV} would show a similar evolution compared with the \texttt{SEV} models. \\
	From Fig.\ref{triaxility} and Fig.\ref{Lagrange} we can deduce the following cluster evolution qualitatively. First, there is a strong collapse and a build-up phase to maximum triaxiality for all models. This is stronger for larger initial bulk rotation. Without stellar evolution, this collapse and maximum triaxiality occurs earlier and is stronger phenomenologically. Secondly, we find a phase of restoration of axisymmetry for the \texttt{SEV} models. The outermost shells exhibit oscillations in shape that are dampened over time. The \texttt{noSEV} models also attempt to return to axisymmetric configurations, but unsuccessfully so, potentially due to enhanced tidal mass loss and thus angular momentum removal. This is explored further in the next Section.

	\subsubsection{Angular momentum evolution}
	\label{Section:Angular momentum evolution}
	\begin{figure*}
		\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Angular_momentum_comparison.jpg}
		\caption{Plot showing the total mass of the four mass groups ($M_{\mathrm{vlm}},M_{\mathrm{lm}},M_{\mathrm{mm}},M_{\mathrm{hm}}$) in the top two rows and the square of the total angular momentum for these groups $L_{\mathrm{group}}^2$ at the current simulation time step for up to 1~Gyr. The time axis is plotted logarithmically to show the details of the much more rapid early cluster evolution. Each column represents one rotational parameter $\omega_{0}$ in ascending order from left to right ($\omega_{0}$=0.0, 0.6, 1.2, 1.8). The results from the runs \textit{with} stellar evolution switched on (\texttt{SEV} models) are plotted on a white background, while the results from the simulations \textit{without} stellar evolution (\texttt{noSEV} models) are highlighted in light grey.}
		\label{Angular_momentum_comparison}
	\end{figure*}
	We want to explore how the angular momentum is transported within the star cluster simulations and if and how this depends on the stellar evolution and initial bulk rotation strength. For this purpose, we divide the complete ZAMS particle set into four distinct mass groups (very low mass (vlm), low mass (lm), medium mass (mm) and high mass (hm)):
	\begin{align*}
	M_{\mathrm{vlm}} &:  0.08~\mathrm{M}_\odot \leq m_{\mathrm{ZAMS}} < 0.9~\mathrm{M}_\odot \\
	M_{\mathrm{lm}} &:  0.9~\mathrm{M}_\odot \leq m_{\mathrm{ZAMS}} < 6~\mathrm{M}_\odot \\
	M_{\mathrm{mm}} &:  6~\mathrm{M}_\odot \leq m_{\mathrm{ZAMS}} < 15~\mathrm{M}_\odot \\
	M_{\mathrm{hm}} &: 15~\mathrm{M}_\odot \leq m_{\mathrm{ZAMS}} < 150~\mathrm{M}_\odot,
	\end{align*}
	where $m_{\mathrm{ZAMS}}$ is the ZAMS stellar mass of a single star (this also means that a primordial binary star could have binary members that are in two different mass groups). The mass groups are chosen such that the stars from $M_{\mathrm{hm}}$ become BHs, the stars from $M_{\mathrm{mm}}$ become NSs, the stars from $M_{\mathrm{lm}}$ become WDs and the stars from $M_{\mathrm{vlm}}$ remain as MSs for the simulation time, approximately. We can then follow the particles that originate from these mass groups through the full cluster evolution and compute their angular momentum across the full evolution. As a result, we are in a position to plot the time evolution of, for example, the square of the total angular momentum $L^2$ for each of the four mass groups and compare them to follow the angular momentum transfer. In Cartesian coordinates, $L^2$ for an individual star is simply given as quadratic sum of three components
	\begin{align}
	L^2_{x} &= (yp_{\mathrm{z}}-zp_{\mathrm{y}})^2  ,\\
	L^2_{y} &= (zp_{\mathrm{x}}-xp_{\mathrm{z}})^2  ,\\
	L^2_{z} &= (xp_{\mathrm{y}}-yp_{\mathrm{x}})^2  ,
	\end{align}
	which can then be done for all stars in each individual mass group. The sum of $L^2$ of all individual stars then gives the $L_{\mathrm{group}}^2$, the total sum of the square of the angular momentum. \\
	This is shown in Fig.\ref{Angular_momentum_comparison} along with $M_{\mathrm{group}}$, which is the mass of all the stars (and compact objects) in the four groups as a function of time. First of all, we see that the total mass in each mass group evolves similar across the \texttt{SEV} and across the \texttt{noSEV} models. With increasing initial bulk rotation, the mass loss from the groups is enhanced, particularly in the mass group of very low mass stars, $M_{\mathrm{vlm}}$. Furthermore, keeping in mind that the only mass loss mechanism from the cluster in the \texttt{noSEV} models, is tidal field mass loss, we note that the \texttt{noSEV} models lose more mass by escaping stars than the \texttt{SEV} models. Due to stellar evolution, the \texttt{SEV} models lose mass in all mass groups much earlier during the simulation. This is especially striking in the medium mass $M_{\mathrm{mm}}$ and high mass $M_{\mathrm{hm}}$ groups, which predominantly produce NSs and BHs, respectively. \\
	We now show the evolution of the angular momentum of the mass groups, $L_{\mathrm{group}}^2$. The latter reveals an important result that is particularly clear for increasing initial bulk rotation. While the angular momentum in the high mass group $M_{\mathrm{hm}}$ decreases drastically in all runs with and without stellar evolution, the angular momentum of the lower mass groups increases more or less simultaneously. This means that the high mass stars and compact objects must transport their angular momenta to the lower mass stars and compact objects. This is direct evidence for the afore-mentioned gravogyro catastrophe from our direct $N$-body simulations. \\
	The spikes in the $L_{\mathrm{group}}^2$ curve are due to escaping stars or compact objects, which gain large amounts of angular momentum and then escape the cluster. It is important to keep in mind here that compact objects receive natal kicks in our simulations. Therefore, the number of these spikes is much higher in the \texttt{SEV} models, because in the \texttt{noSEV} models, the stars can only escape through dynamical interactions. We see that in the intermediate to long term of our simulations, the angular momentum loss from the \texttt{noSEV} is much larger than that from the \texttt{SEV} models. This is especially clear for the models with very large initial bulk rotation. While the \texttt{SEV} models have a roughly constant angular momentum evolution above 100~Myr for the $M_{\mathrm{vlm}}$, $M_{\mathrm{lm}}$ and $M_{\mathrm{mm}}$ mass groups, the \texttt{noSEV} models show a clear decrease of angular momentum in all four mass groups. This can only be achieved through angular momentum loss through escaping stars. Comparing these findings to the Figs.\ref{Lagrange} and \ref{triaxility}, it becomes clearer that the \texttt{noSEV} models are unstable in their global evolution for all four runs ($\omega_{0}$=0.0, 0.6, 1.2, 1.8). By increasing the initial tidal radius in future simulations, this might be a very different situation. \\
	Lastly, Fig.\ref{Angular_momentum_comparison} reveals another important result. In the following discussion we focus on the $M_{\mathrm{mm}}$ mass group in the \texttt{noSEV} models. We can see that this group consistently has an almost constant mass ($M_{\mathrm{group}}$; with very small fluctuations). It appears that stars from this mass group are not ejected from the cluster. Furthermore, we see from $L_{\mathrm{group}}^2$ for this mass group that its angular momentum effectively approaches zero after a couple of ~Myr. This can mean that the $M_{\mathrm{mm}}$ objects replace the depleting numbers of  $M_{\mathrm{hm}}$ objects in the cluster centre in the mid- to long-term cluster evolution (see \cite{Contentaetal2015} for the formation of a NS subsystem in the cluster centre). \\
	Here, we also need to add an important caveat: the angular momenta are computed relative to the cluster density centre. However, since with have a tidal field, the cluster experiences a (small) recoil every time a particle escapes by nature of conservation of momentum. Therefore, the cluster density centre might move relative to the cluster centre of mass. This would have a (small) effect on the computation of the angular momentum.

	\subsubsection{Bar and disk formation of heavy mass objects}
	\begin{figure*}
		\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{BH_bar.jpg}
		\caption{3-D scatter plot showing the spatial distribution of the $M_{\mathrm{hm}}$ mass group in all eight simulations at 0.0~Myr, 3.68~Myr, and 11.44~Myr from the top to bottom in three separate rows with two sub-rows each; the top sub-row are always the models \textit{with} stellar evolution (\texttt{SEV} models) and the bottom sub-row are always the models \textit{without} stellar evolution (\texttt{noSEV} models). There are four columns and each one represents a rotational parameter $\omega_0$ in ascending order of rotation from left to right. The stars and compact objects are color-coded by their mass between 0.0~$\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$ and 150.0~$\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$. The stars and BHs are also projected onto the three dimensional axes, which can be seen from the light-grey dots. We can clearly see the bar formation of the BHs and their progenitor stars in
			at t=3.68~Myr and the spatial reconfiguration of the $M_{\mathrm{hm}}$ objects to axisymmetric structures.}
		\label{BH_bar}
	\end{figure*}
	Here, we explore the spatial evolution of the high mass group $M_{\mathrm{hm}}$. We want to know what happens to the shape of the distribution of these objects and how it is affected by initial bulk rotation and stellar evolution. In the \texttt{SEV} models this corresponds to the shape of the distribution of the BHs and their progenitor stars. Fig.\ref{BH_bar} shows the 3-D spatial distribution of the stars and compact objects from $M_{\mathrm{hm}}$ at at 0.0~Myr, 3.68~Myr, and 11.44~Myr from top to bottom, respectively. This time is approximately the time of maximum triaxiality for the \texttt{SEV}$\omega_01.8$ model (meaning approximately the simulation snapshot that is closest to maximum triaxiality). The bar formation of the BHs and their progenitor stars is clear in the \texttt{SEV}$\omega_01.2$ and \texttt{SEV}$\omega_01.8$ models (see also \cite{Hongetal2013} for more on bar formation). Their \texttt{noSEV} model counterparts, \texttt{noSEV}$\omega_01.2$ and \texttt{noSEV}$\omega_01.8$, also show the formation of a bar. It seems to be similar in spatial distribution, however, we know already from Fig.\ref{triaxility} that the \texttt{noSEV} models do in fact yield slightly more maximally triaxial configurations. This overall process has also been referred to \textit{anisotropic mass segregation} in \citet{Szolgyenetal2021}. The \texttt{noSEV}$\omega_01.2$ and \texttt{noSEV}$\omega_01.8$ also attempt to return to axisymmetric configurations at 11.44~Myr. However, they seem to be slightly more concentrated than the \texttt{SEV} counterparts. We can infer on this from Fig.\ref{Lagrange}. This is also due stellar evolution mass loss, which is in turn related to the natal kicks that the BHs are subject to. Therefore, it is natural that you can see larger spatial scattering in the distributions regardless of $\omega_0$ compared to their simulation counterparts that have no stellar evolution switched on.  \\
	In summary, the initially rotating axisymmetric distribution of the $M_{\mathrm{hm}}$ objects becomes a bar  that rotates around the z-axis and evolves toward a disc configuration over time (at least for the \texttt{SEV} models, see also Fig.\ref{triaxility}). This is strictly not the case for $M_{\mathrm{hm}}$ objects in the non-rotating ($\omega_0=0.0$) models. Here, the \texttt{SEV} and \texttt{noSEV} models stay spherical at least for the first 11.44~Myr of the simulations. However, we know from Fig.\ref{triaxility} that also the \texttt{noSEV}$\omega_00.0$ and \texttt{noSEV}$\omega_00.6$ deviate from spherical symmetry over time. Young open clusters would be an ideal target for observations and further simulations to test this experimental result. In \citet{Pangetal2022}, elongated shapes of young clusters of \textit{filamentary-type} might still carry the signal of a bar structure induced by rotation. However, the dynamical bar structure may blend with the inherent filamentary structure. We need to differentiate them carefully via kinematic data.

	\subsection{Escaper stars}
	\begin{figure*}
		\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{escaper_properties_newtidal.jpg}
		\caption{Plot showing over 1~Gyr the number of escapers, $n_{\mathrm{esc}}$, the total mass evolution of the escapers, $M_{\mathrm{esc}}$~($\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$), the number of escaping MS stars, $n_{\mathrm{MSesc}}$, the number of escaping WDs, $n_{\mathrm{WDesc}}$, the number of escaping NSs, $n_{\mathrm{NSesc}}$, and the number of escaping BHs, $n_{\mathrm{BHesc}}$, respectively. The latter four are naturally only shown for the \texttt{SEV} models.}
		\label{escaper_properties}
	\end{figure*}
	The escapers from the simulations reveal more important information and are shown in Fig.\ref{escaper_properties}. In the following, we can study the temporal evolution of the number of escapers, $n_{\mathrm{esc}}$. The \texttt{SEV} models initially lose  more stars and compact objects than the \texttt{noSEV} models. This initial strong increase in the number of escapers is due to the large cluster mass reduction (potential) and increase of a number of stars called potential escapers. However, depending on the initial rotation, the \texttt{noSEV} models produce more escapers after a couple of Myr of simulation time. The runs with larger initial bulk rotation lose more stars. This is also the case initially for the \texttt{noSEV} models. Here, the number of escapers of the runs without any rotation surpass the most strongly rotating run at about 600~Myr. We see a constant and almost linear rise of escaper numbers for the \texttt{noSEV} compared with the much flatter increase in escapers for the \texttt{SEV} models. This adds more evidence to the previously statement, where the tidal mass loss is much stronger for the \texttt{noSEV} models switched on. This can also be inferred from the time evolution of the total mass of the escapers, $M_{\mathrm{esc}}$. The overall mass is larger and increases much faster in the \texttt{noSEV} than in the \texttt{SEV} models. This is, of course, helped due to the absence of stellar evolution mass loss in the models. \\
	Interestingly, while the escaper numbers for the \texttt{SEV} models are very similar, the total mass loss is much larger for the \texttt{SEV}$\omega_01.8$ models than for the \texttt{SEV} models that rotate less strongly initially. This can be attributed mostly to the much larger number of initially escaping MS stars, $n_{\mathrm{MSesc}}$, which is also shown in Fig.\ref{escaper_properties}. These  lower mass MS stars are driven onto large orbits around the density centre of the star cluster by having the angular momentum transported to them through the gravogyro catastrophe. This can also be seen from Fig.\ref{Angular_momentum_comparison}, which is discussed in Section \ref{Section:Angular momentum evolution}. Interestingly, the \texttt{SEV}$\omega_00.6$ retains many more MS stars than the texttt{SEV}$\omega_00.0$ model. This is also mirrored by the number of escaping WDs, $n_{\mathrm{WDesc}}$. For the other runs, \texttt{SEV}$\omega_01.2$ and \texttt{SEV}$\omega_01.8$, these are approximately similar over 1~Gyr. The number of escaping NS, $n_{\mathrm{NSesc}}$, are practically identical. This is because the NSs that escape suffer from very large natal kicks and only those that form via ECSNe, AIC or MIC are retained in the cluster. Since the IMF is the same for all models, it is unsurprising that similar numbers are retained. This is not the case for the BHs. The plot for $n_{\mathrm{BHesc}}$ reveals that the \texttt{SEV}$\omega_01.8$ models lose the largest number of BHs by a considerable margin. It might be suspected that $n_{\mathrm{BHesc}}$ should be similar for all models just like the evolution of $n_{\mathrm{NSesc}}$. However, the double-core collapse hump in combination with the fallback-dependent scaling of the natal kicks produces a larger diversity (see also \cite{Fryeretal2012,Kamlahetal2021}).

	\subsection{Binary stars}
	\label{Section:Binary stars}
	\begin{figure*}
		\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Binary_fractions.jpg}
		\caption{Plots showing the number of binary stars $n_{\mathrm{b}}$, the number of compact binary stars $n_{\mathrm{cb}}$, the number of binary black holes (BHBH) $n_{\mathrm{BHBH}}$, the number of binary white dwarfs (WDWD) $n_{\mathrm{WDWD}}$. For the plot of $n_{\mathrm{b}}$ both the \texttt{SEV} (solid lines) and the \texttt{noSEV} models (dash-dotted lines) are shown.}
		\label{Binary_abundances}
	\end{figure*}

	The temporal evolution of the number of binaries retained in the simulations can serve as a qualitative indicator for the number of dynamical interactions. Fig.\ref{Binary_abundances} shows this number of binary stars $n_{\mathrm{b}}$ for all eight simulations. We first concentrate on the \texttt{SEV} models switched on only. The \texttt{SEV}$\omega_01.8$ have a considerably lower numbers of binaries at 1~Gyr than the other models that can mostly be attributed to escaping or disrupted binaries (by stellar evolution or dynamical encounters) in the very early simulations. The other simulations show a similar evolution of $n_{\mathrm{b}}$ with the notable exception that $n_{\mathrm{b}}$ for \texttt{SEV}$\omega_00.6$ is larger than any of the other consistently over 1~Gyr. Now, comparing this with the evolution of $n_{\mathrm{b}}$ in the \texttt{noSEV} models, we find a different evolution. Here, the number of binaries show a lower scattering at 1~Gyr. Additionally, the \texttt{noSEV}$\omega_01.8$ appears to produce an intermediate number of retained binary stars and the run with \texttt{noSEV}$\omega_01.8$ produces the lowest numbers. To achieve greater clarity on this issue, we would need many simulations with different random realisations and look at the simulation ensemble average of the number of binaries for the different $\omega_0$ values. We would then be in a position if this is not a random effect or if there is some systematic evolution occurring. \\
	In the following, we naturally only consider the \texttt{SEV} models. The number of compact binaries, $n_{\mathrm{cb}}$, reveals that the \texttt{SEV}$\omega_01.8$ produce the lowest numbers of compact binaries retained in the cluster and the models with \texttt{SEV}$\omega_00.6$ retain the largest numbers of compact binaries, thereby mirroring the overall number of binaries retained in the cluster. $n_{\mathrm{cb}}$ consists practically only of BHBH and WDWD binaries in our simulations, which is also why only the number of BHBH binaries, $n_{\mathrm{BHBH}}$, and the number of WDWD binaries, $n_{\mathrm{WDWD}}$, are shown in Fig.\ref{Binary_abundances}. Interestingly, there is a clear increase in the evolution of $n_{\mathrm{BHBH}}$ for the \texttt{SEV}$\omega_01.2$ model. This is important because it could indicate that IMBH formation might be preferential at this initial bulk rotation (note that the maximum of this increase is already much later than the dissolution of the bar structure and occurs when the clusters are axisymmetric again). But it could also just be statistical fluctuation (compare this also to the smaller humps for the \texttt{SEV}$\omega_00.6$ and \texttt{SEV}$\omega_01.8$ models that occur later on). The number of BHs and BHBHs are both too low in our simulations to make a quantitative assessment on this though. At 1~Gyr all simulations appear to converge at 5 or 6 BHBH binaries retained in the simulations. The $n_{\mathrm{WDWD}}$ evolution mirrors that of $n_{\mathrm{cb}}$, where $n_{\mathrm{cb}}$ is offset from $n_{\mathrm{WDWD}}$ mostly by $n_{\mathrm{BHBH}}$. It is unsurprising that the $n_{\mathrm{cb}}$ is dominated by $n_{\mathrm{WDWD}}$ in the long-term and by $n_{\mathrm{BHBH}}$ in the beginning of simulation, because the massive stars evolve much faster than low mass stars and also our IMF contains many more low mass stars than high mass stars.

	\section{Summary, conclusion and perspective}
	\label{Section:Summary, conclusion and perspective}
	\subsection{Summary}
	For the first time we have studied the impact of initial bulk rotation, realistic stellar evolution mass loss models \citep{Kamlahetal2021} in combination with primordial binaries and stars drawn from a continuous IMF \citep{Kroupa2001} as well as a tidal field mass loss on the global dynamics of the star clusters and the development, evolution and coupling of the gravothermal and the gravogyro catastrophes using direct $N$-body methods. We have therefore expanded upon but also greatly surpassed any previous study on this phenomenon in astrophysical realism \citep{EinselSpurzem1999,Kimetal2002,Kimetal2004,Ernstetal2007,Kimetal2008,Fiestasetal2006,FiestasSpurzem2010,Hongetal2013,Szolgyenetal2018,Szolgyenetal2019,Szolgyenetal2021,Tiongcoetal2022,Livernoisetal2022}. \\
	In total, we have run eight simulations over 1~Gyr in total, four with enabled stellar evolution (\texttt{SEV} models) and four with disabled stellar evolution (\texttt{noSEV} models). In each group of the two aforementioned groups, any individual model is distributed with a different rotating King model from \citet{EinselSpurzem1999}. We use one non-rotating model ($\omega_0=0.0$) and three more models with increasing fractions of initial total star cluster energy being stored in initial bulk rotational energy ($\omega_0=0.6,1.2,1.8$).  We make the following key conclusions:
	\begin{itemize}
		\item We obtain the same four phases in the early star cluster evolution that were previously observed in low number $N$-body simulations by \citet{AkiyamaSugimoto1989}. We obtained them for both the runs with and without stellar evolution. Fig.\ref{Lagrange}, Fig.\ref{triaxility} and Fig.\ref{Angular_momentum_comparison} can be used in combination to deduce the following: we see a phase of violent relaxation that is followed by the gravogyro catastrophe of finite amplitude, where the amplitude depends on the degree of initial bulk rotation (see Fig.\ref{triaxility}). This gravogyro catastrophe then levels off and angular momentum is transported from the high mass stars (and compact objects) to the lower mass stars (and compact objects) (see Fig.\ref{Angular_momentum_comparison}). Simultaneously, the system becomes gravothermally unstable and then collapses (see Fig.\ref{Lagrange}). \textbf{This is direct evidence for the coupling of the gravogyro and the gravothermal catastrophes that was first discussed by \cite{Hachisu1979,Hachisu1982} and it is therefore appropriate to coin this process the gravothermal-gravogyro catastrophe.}. We also directly observe the predicted overall angular momentum loss from the cluster due to the tidal field in all models \citep{AkiyamaSugimoto1989}. \\
		\item In the intermediate to long-term evolution of the star clusters, the models \textit{with} stellar evolution dynamically evolve as follows: the outer halo stars (and compact objects) form a spherical configuration, while the stars (and compact objects) in the centre of the cluster form an axisymmetric structure that slowly becomes spherical over time. \textbf{The BHs and their progenitor stars form a central bar, which rotates, as they transport angular momentum to lower mass stars and compact objects that becomes an axisymmetric structure over time (see Fig.\ref{BH_bar})}. \\
		\item The presence of stellar evolution and the tidal field of the star cluster impacts the aforementioned processes in a way that can be deduced mainly from Fig.\ref{Lagrange}, Fig.\ref{triaxility} and Fig.\ref{Angular_momentum_comparison}. While the early dynamical evolution between the models with and without stellar evolution has a similar phenomenology, the gravothermal-gravogyro catastrophe is stronger and happens slightly faster in the \texttt{noSEV} models (see Fig.\ref{Global_properties_newtidal}). \textbf{Most notably, the systems without stellar evolution evolve to a similar configurations (spherical halo of lower mass stars and compact objects with an axisymmetric centre of higher mass stars and compact objects), but are prohibited by doing so due to strong tidal field mass and angular momentum loss (see Fig.\ref{Global_properties_newtidal}, Fig.\ref{Angular_momentum_comparison} and Fig.\ref{escaper_properties}).} Instead they exhibit a second and even a third gravogyro collapse and approach a maximally triaxial state in the limit of 1~Gyr. It is an open question that requires new simulations if this effect is dampened by larger initial tidal radius (see Fig.\ref{Global_properties_newtidal}). \\
		\item The models \textit{without} stellar evolution also form a bar of the high mass stars that is more concentrated and more triaxial than the bar that forms with stellar evolution due to the lack of stellar evolution mass loss and compact object natal kicks. This bar becomes axisymmetric over time as well, but is also compact than the counterparts in the \texttt{SEV} models (see Fig\ref{BH_bar}). \\
		\item The models \textit{without} stellar evolution reveal that the $M_{\mathrm{mm}}$ mass group (see Fig.\ref{Angular_momentum_comparison}) appear to replace the increasingly depleting numbers of $M_{\mathrm{hm}}$ objects in the cluster centre and form a subsystem there in the mid- to long-term cluster evolution. This means that mass segregation for these objects has effectively slowed down significantly at that point in simulation time. \\
		\item There is a significant increase in the number of BHBH binaries, $n_{\mathrm{BHBH}}$, present in the \texttt{SEV}$\omega_01.2$ model (see Fig.\ref{Binary_abundances}). There are also smaller increases in these numbers later on for the \texttt{SEV}$\omega_00.6$ and \texttt{SEV}$\omega_01.8$ models. However, it could also just be statistical fluctuation. This needs to be explored with further simulations and appropriate initial conditions that especially concern the IMF and the binary (orbital) parameters.
	\end{itemize}

	\subsection{Conclusion}
	The inclusion of initial bulk rotation in direct $N$-body simulations of star clusters is still unusual, although it has been known for over a century that star clusters even today show significant imprints of rotation, for example, in their shape \citep{PeaseShapley1917,ShapleySawyer1927,Shapley1930,KopalSlouka1936,King1961,FrenkFall1982,Harris1976,Harris1996,Kormendy1985,WhiteShawl1987,Luptonetal1987,ChenChen2010,Bianchinietal2013}. This work therefore provides a bridge between observations and theory of the gravothermal-gravogyro catastrophe and the angular momentum and heat transport within a star cluster to much greater detail than any of the previous studies (see large body of work listed in Section \ref{Section:Introduction}). However, this is just another milestone on the road to unravel the impact of initial bulk rotation on realistic star clusters because many important questions are yet to be answered. For example, is there a rotating King model distribution that precipitates the formation of an IMBH in a star cluster? This issue has only been briefly mentioned in Section \ref{Section:Binary stars} of this paper and demands more simulations.

	\subsection{Perspective on future simulations}
	Keeping in mind the discussion and conclusion above, there are several research objectives that require improvements on the simulations presented in this paper:
	\begin{itemize}
		\item Increasing the particle number will yield to better results on all sorts of statistics, but importantly in the context of this paper, the calculation of $b/a$, $c/a$ and $\tau$ would be significantly improved, especially in the innermost spheroids of the star cluster models. \\
		\item Accordingly, increasing the binary fraction will yield more robust results on compact binary fractions and would enable us to make better and less speculative assessments on how initial bulk rotation affects compact binary formation. \\
		\item Increasing the density of the initial star cluster models will enable us to make assessments on the initial stellar merger rates of BH progenitor stars and subsequently IMBH formation. \\
		\item Calculating the Lagrangian radii and related quantities in a similar manner to the quantities $b/a$, $c/a$ and $\tau$ will yield much more reliable results for systems that deviate significantly from spherical symmetry. \\
		\item Including a realistic 3-D tidal field to study in detail how much angular momentum is carried away by escapers will enable us to assess how tidal shocks through galactic disk passages affect the rotating star cluster. We could then also compare the simulation results to recent cluster observations (e.g. from \cite{Pangetal2021a,Pangetal2022}).
	\end{itemize}
	We are in the process of tackling some of these issues with direct $N$-body simulations and we expect many exciting results in the future. Among these, a recent work by \citet{FlamminiDottietal2022} is shedding light on the impact of the initial bulk rotation on the ejection properties of free-floating planets and stars in rotating star clusters.

	\section*{Acknowledgements}
	The authors gratefully acknowledge the Gauss Centre for Supercomputing e.V. for funding this project by providing computing time through the John von Neumann Institute for Computing (NIC) on the GCS Supercomputer JUWELS at Jülich Supercomputing Centre (JSC).  As computing resources we also acknowledge the Silk Road Project GPU systems and support by the computing and network department of NAOC. AWHK is a fellow of the International Max Planck Research School for Astronomy and Cosmic Physics at the University of Heidelberg (IMPRS-HD). AWHK extends his gratitude to Alice Zocchi for her insightful comments. This work was supported by the Volkswagen Foundation under the Trilateral Partnerships grants No. 90411 and 97778. MG and PB were partially supported by the Polish National Science
	Center (NCN) through the grant UMO-2016/23/B/ST9/02732. PB expresses his great thanks for the hospitality of the Nicolaus
	Copernicus Astronomical Centre of Polish Academy of Sciences where
	some part of the work was done. PB acknowledged supported from the Volkswagen Foundation under the special stipend No. 9B870 (2022), from the Science Committee of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of
	Kazakhstan (Grants No. AP08856184 and AP08856149), and from the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine under the Main Astronomical Observatory GPU
	computing cluster project No.~13.2021.MM. MAS acknowledges funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 101025436 (project GRACE-BH, PI Manuel Arca Sedda). FFD acknowledges support from the XJTLU postgraduate research scholarship and Research Development Fund (grant RDF-16-01-16). F.F.D. was also supported by the SPP 1992 exoplanet diversity program and Berlin Technical University. NN is grateful for funding by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) -- Project-ID 138713538 -- SFB 881 (``The Milky Way System'', subproject B08). XYP and SQ are grateful to the grant of National Natural Science Foundation of China, No: 12173029, and the financial support of the Research Development Fund of Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University (RDF-18--02--32). AT appreciates support by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (17H06360, 19K03907) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.

	\section*{Data Availability}
	The data from the runs of these simulations and their initial models will be made available upon reasonable request by the corresponding author. The \textsc{Nbody6++GPU} code version that contains also the \texttt{Level-C} stellar evolution \citep{Kamlahetal2021} is publicly available\footnote{Link to repositories: tarballs/git service at \\ {\scriptsize \url{ https://zenodo.org/record/6511341/files/Nbody6\%2B\%2BGPU-Jan2022.tgz} \\ \url{https://github.com/kaiwu-astro/Nbody6PPGPU-beijing}} }. The \textsc{McLuster} version that is used in this paper will be made publicly available. A similar version described in \citet{Levequeetal2022} is publicly available\footnote{{\scriptsize \url{https://github.com/agostinolev/mcluster.git}}}. The stellar evolution in that version differs from the implementation used for this paper. The movies of the full simulations, from which the Fig.\ref{BH_bar} was produced, will be made available upon reasonable request as well and will be uploaded publicly in the future.

	\bibliographystyle{mnras}