text:
THE BATTLE OF LINCOLN
Before we examine the details of the only major battle in this civil war, we need to place it in context. We have already considered the development of warfare in general, with a brief look at such matters as arms and armour and siege techniques. But we need to look a little more closely at why battles were fought, and how. We shall then see the significance of Lincoln more clearly. As pointed out above, battles were rare, because of the risks involved; because of the danger of what might happen if defeated. Battle was bound to be chancy, even if one began with all the advantages. There could still be a surprise move, a panic on one's own side, the sudden death of one's leader, the unexpected arrival of reinforcements for the enemy. Any one of a thousand things could undermine even a commander confident of victory. So that although the benefits of victory could be very great, battle was a very high risk gamble, and few commanders in the twelfth century were prepared to take it. Consider the reputation of, say, Richard the Lionheart, always keen for a fight, never afraid of personal risk, yet on several occasions even he turned aside from a possible battle, and the only major battle in which he was involved, at Arsuf, was initiated by the enemy, and engaged at first by his own side against his orders.
Commanders knew that they could gain their ends by other and more reliable means, in particular by siege warfare, winning territory step by step. The occasional setback in this kind of war was to be expected, but it would not cut off one's hopes at a blow. It was highly likely to be successful if you had more wealth and more men, and therefore appealed in particular to kings and superior authorities. But all twelfth-century war was a kind of challenge, and a successful commander could not avoid all challenges and all conflict. In the end he might have to risk battle or even engage in it to overbear his opponent. Therefore, battles most commonly occurred, oddly enough, at sieges. The first challenge was a lesser one: to gain authority over a single place, but if the opponent wanted to dispute that authority he must try to save the place. If the significance of the issue was great enough, this might in the end involve a defending army and an attacking army, and the issue might have to be resolved by battle.
Because of the riskiness of battle, it was also normal to place emphasis upon defensive tactics; it was more important not to lose than it was to win. Battle, like sieges, developed according to changes in technology, and changes in thinking about war. The most important battle-winning force which had emerged in the period just prior to Lincoln, was that of the cavalry charge.
Cavalry of course was not new, but its strength and method of use was. Typically in the past the point of cavalry had been its speed, and so it had been most useful for sudden manoeuvres such as flank attacks, and for pursuit (or escape). The more lightly cavalry was armed, the greater would be its speed. But this also left it vulnerable to attack of all sorts, and horses, however well trained, would find the noise and blood of warfare a great strain, so they might bolt. The most important factor in the changes which had occurred was the social status of the rider. We do not need to pursue in detail the development of what in modern times is usually called feudalism, though it is a relatively modern term and not a medieval one. The change we are interested in has caused some dispute over its timing, but there is no question that it happened. The socially superior class, by the eleventh century, acted as cavalry when at war, and by about this time were beginning to see themselves as knights, with the social and moral code that implies. Once this had happened, the other changes were almost inevitable. This class wanted to be best armed and protected, and could afford to be. They trained their horses and they trained themselves. The armour they wore as it increased in effectiveness, gradually also increased in cost and in weight. As a military group, therefore, this cavalry became more and more exclusive. Special horses were bred and trained for war, needing to be fast enough to move well – so not like cart horses – but heavy enough to play their part in battle, and also to carry the armour with which they, as well as their riders, were provided.
No sensible rider wanted his horse always to be weighed down with armour, but it became common practice to arm the horse as well as the man when fighting was likely, including, of course, for a pitched battle. We begin to see what is known as the barded, or armoured horse, as the common type of cavalry mount in battle. This horse would not move especially fast, but it would have reasonable protection and it would have weight. It could now be useful if speeded up and headed against men; it could trample infantry; it could break through their ranks. Thus developed, gradually, the idea of groups of cavalry charging across the field in battle. So effective was this method against forces not accustomed to it, that it helped to win some dramatic victories, as during the First Crusade, or at Hastings. Anna Comnena, the Byzantine chronicler, described its impact upon the Byzantines, who themselves used cavalry and armour, but not in quite the same way. She wrote that 'the first charge of Celtic [Frankish] cavalry was irresistible'; 'a mounted Celt is irresistible; he would pierce his way through the walls of Babylon'.1
What made the western cavalry so especially effective was the way they were trained to act as a group. To begin with, this seems to have occurred in small numbers, perhaps ten or twelve together. It was honed by the development of a newly popular sport, the tournament. At first this was mock group warfare rather than individual jousts. Knights from the western world flocked to advertised tournaments in Flanders or France or wherever. They could get rich through them, since one practice was to capture enemy knights and then ransom them. At the peak of the popularity of tournaments, they were occurring somewhere or other at almost weekly intervals. The point about the tournament for us, is that it also provided the opportunity to practise group cavalry moves. At some time between Hastings and Lincoln, it became the custom to use a large number of cavalry for a charge, in unison, what elsewhere I have referred to as the concerted charge.2 This is to distinguish it from the small group charge. Now a commander could send in a wave of cavalry: a line right across the field, or a mass attack from one or both wings. At first it was almost like a secret weapon.
As always with new battle-winning tactics, it is not long before someone seeks and finds a response; so it was with the concerted charge. It was powerful, but it had flaws. Once delivered, it was difficult to repeat, since it meant gathering the horses together again in the midst of the turmoil of battle, and finding another chance to give them a clear run. So that if the charge did not decide the battle at once, the opposition was then in a good position to counter. Another flaw was that, although this was an excellent offensive tactic for battle, the cavalry force was not very useful in defence, so that the commander was more or less committed to seeking early means of attack. Another weakness was that, however well armoured, horses could still be wounded, for example in the leg. By aiming at horses, defensive troops, especially if they possessed archers, could halt or weaken the charge before it was even delivered. And horses, after all, are animals, and likely to do unexpected things if hurt or frightened, however well trained; sometimes they bolted, very often they reared, and riders were constantly thrown in the middle of a fight.
One rather unpleasant solution to the problem of how to stop the cavalry charge, was to place objects in the path of the horses, such as caltrops – metal spheres with spikes. This is a tactic mentioned by Anna Comnena, but not so far as we know, used in the West at this time. Another answer attempted in the East was to push forward wagons in the path of the horses.3 One common answer in the West was increasingly to employ infantry with bows or spears, though this often failed to halt the charge altogether, and such troops tended to be poorly armed and vulnerable to the charge if it reached them.
By 1139, the armies of the Anglo-Norman world had developed their own tactic to cope with the charge. It had been honed through use at several battles from Tinchebrai in 1106, through Alençon, Brémule, Bourg-Théroulde, and as we have seen already at Northallerton in 1138.4 The Anglo-Norman answer was to use a method practised occasionally in the past for other reasons, of dismounting troops trained as cavalry, to fight on foot. Various examples can be quoted of this use in the past, from the Battle of the Dyle in 891, through Conquereuil, to Pontlevoy. It would shortly also be employed by the Franks themselves on the Second Crusade. But no one used it as frequently and consistently as the Anglo-Normans in the first half of the twelfth century; it was theiranswer to the charge.
On the face of it, there seems to be some illogicality about training and arming troops to fight on horse, and then on the battlefield using them as infantry. Some historians have thought that the Anglo-Normans borrowed the tactic from the Anglo-Saxons, who rode to battle and fought on foot. But this is not the same thing. The troops we are talking about were trained as cavalry, which the Saxons were not. And the evidence shows that the men who practised the tactic for the Anglo-Normans were almost exclusively men of Norman, not Saxon, origin. Economically, in the long run, it did not make sense to pursue this method, but it was an empirical answer to a question which required an urgent response. How do we cope with the mounted charge in battle? What this answer entailed, was to use your best troops to do the dirty work. Archers and missile throwers could obstruct charges, but would not be good at holding their position. The idea of dismounting knights was to use the best armed troops, the best trained troops, the troops with the best morale, and to stand fast against the charge and hold it. Because commanders had soon realized that although the impact of the charge was great, it could be faced and held by determined infantry. Knights were not keen to fight in this way, and protested, for example, to the commander who ordered them to dismount at Bourg-Théroulde. But it was effective and so until a better solution presented itself, virtually every good commander used it.
There were probably some experiments, and at the Standard the archers and dismounted knights were mixed together at the front of the line. But again it had worked. The one disadvantage of this tactic, was that it immobilized mobile troops. It made a good defensive formation, but victory in battle generally required something beyond soaking up enemy offensives. Therefore, most Anglo-Norman commanders only dismounted a proportion of their knights; others were kept on horseback in separate formations, sometimes on the wing, sometimes as a tactical reserve.
This then was the world of war at the time of the Battle of Lincoln. The major new offensive tactic was the concerted charge by heavy cavalry; the main defence against it was to use archers and dismount some of your knights as infantry. But beyond that it still mattered enormously what troops you could raise, from feudal levies to mercenaries, what novel ideas you could introduce, and how good was the morale of your troops. Battle, as always, was a matter of tried and trusted tactics and principles, plus intelligent use of the forces and weapons at your disposal. As medieval commanders knew, it would always remain a risk.
Stephen had made William of Albini, Earl of Lincoln. This was the same William who then married Henry I's widow, Adeliza, and was thus Lord of Arundel at the time of Matilda's landing. But if his wife's allegiance was doubtful, and she either invited or allowed Matilda to enter England through Arundel, her second husband remained loyal to Stephen.
Cronne has suggested that this grant, of Lincoln to William of Albini, enraged both Ranulf of Chester and his half brother, William de Roumare, who believed they had a claim on Lincoln Castle and saw the grant as 'an affront'. Round believed that Ranulf was also motivated by hostility to Henry of Scots after Stephen's Scottish settlement. This was partly over the loss of Carlisle, but also because of a personal antagonism to Prince Henry which had shown itself while the prince was in England at Stephen's court. He had probably been involved in some attempt to ambush the prince, which was one of the reasons King David ordered his son to return home.5
If Davis is right, Stephen juggled his earldoms in 1140, transferring William of Albini to Sussex and making William de Roumare, Earl of Lincoln.6 William de Roumare was half brother to Ranulf, Earl of Chester, both sons of Lucy, who is thought to be the daughter of Thorold, sheriff and castellan of Lincoln Castle. William was the son of Lucy's second husband, Roger fitz Gerold, and Ranulf, the son of her third husband, Ranulf le Meschin, Earl of Chester.7 Through Lucy, therefore, both had some claim to Lincoln, and William's was the best.
The following sequence of events is uncertain, since there are some discrepancies in the chronicle accounts, and because Stephen visited Lincoln several times, and there is the possibility that the writers mixed up the dates, confused the visits, or repeated events. In 1140 the half-brothers took Lincoln Castle by a ruse. They visited when the best part of the garrison was in the town. They came under the pretext of a social visit to the castellan, sending their wives in advance, to talk and joke with his wife. Ranulf then himself arrived, without a cloak and unarmed, but the men with him carried hidden arms. Once inside, they overwhelmed the guard and took control of the castle. Then they let in William de Roumare, waiting with troops outside.
Stephen came to visit the half brothers in the city, and seems to have accepted their case, moving William of Albini to the Sussex earldom as a result. This was a very special favour to William de Roumare, and makes the subsequent events even more puzzling. The explanation seems to be that William's strong attachment to his half-brother Ranulf, Earl of Chester, overcame any gratitude to the king.
Ranulf, rather illogically, had been enraged by the recognition of the Scots' right to Carlisle, though it was a good claim, recognized previously by Henry I, and though he had played no part in the Battle of the Standard to defend the north against the Scots. Ranulf seems to have been a choleric and difficult man, and William de Roumare, though older, seems to have been dominated by him.
It would seem that the king had taken the castle into his own hands before these events, and that the half-brothers had, therefore, taken it from him. It is not certain what Stephen had gained from the agreement made with them, but William of Malmesbury verifies that a peace had been made.9
The citizens of Lincoln soon felt that the half-brothers had exceeded the bounds of the peace, and were treating them harshly, so they sent to the king to come and assist them. They found him in London, where he had intended to spend Christmas. Stephen now decided to besiege the castle, which must mean either that it should have remained in his hands and the brothers had retaken it, or that he demanded they render it to him and they refused. From the uncertain evidence, the former seems to be more likely. Certainly, the taking over of the castle infuriated the king. Orderic wrote that he 'was very angry at the news, and astounded that his close friends, on whom he had heaped lands and honours, should have committed such a crime'.10
Stephen came to besiege Lincoln Castle, although it was the Christmas season, and found only a small garrison there which gave him hopes of success. The citizens welcomed the king and let him into the city, so the castle was isolated. They captured seventeen knights who were relaxing in the town. Ranulf had gone, but had left his wife and his half brother William in the castle.11 No doubt Ranulf had left behind his wife, the daughter of Robert of Gloucester, as a deliberate ploy to encourage Earl Robert to come to the rescue.
Stephen set up throwing engines and began to batter the garrison. Without aid it was unlikely they could survive long. But now Ranulf of Chester decided to throw in his lot with the Angevins, and went for help to Robert of Gloucester, his father-in-law. From the Angevin point of view it was a godsend. Matilda accepted Ranulf's offer of fealty. Ranulf and William together would be powerful new allies, and war in Lincolnshire as well as in the west would greatly improve their chances of success. Robert, therefore, responded positively and raised as large a force as he could, calling up Welsh troops in the process, probably from his own lands and those of his allies.
On the night before the battle, there was a dreadful storm, with hail, rain, thunder and lightning. Then on the day itself, Sunday 2 February, Stephen attended a service, presumably in the cathedral, and was celebrating mass at dawn. According to the ritual, it was the king's role to carry a lighted candle in his hand, but the flame suddenly went out and the candle broke. The chronicler says it was then mended and relit, and with the obvious benefit of hindsight adds: 'which was a sign of course that he would lose the dignity of the kingdom for his sin and at length, when penance had been rendered, by God's favour wondrously and gloriously get it back again'. But Orderic probably voiced most people's thoughts, seeing it as 'a clear omen of misfortune'. According to Henry of Huntingdon, there was yet another evil omen, when during the service, the pyx containing Christ's body broke its fastening, and fell upon the altar; 'a sign of the king's fall from power'. It would not appear that Stephen had much chance of victory!12
Like many other battles in the twelfth century, Lincoln arose out of a siege. Stephen had only a small force with him, sufficient to besiege the small garrison within Lincoln Castle. Robert of Gloucester led a larger army, intended to relieve Lincoln and not afraid to face Stephen's small force in battle. Stephen was informed of their approach. He was advised to retreat and gather a larger army. The king here made a serious error, probably by allowing feelings to dominate sense. Most commanders would have heeded the advice and avoided battle. But there were special personal reasons why Stephen chose to stay and fight. Of course, he was not keen to abandon the siege; his anger against the half-brothers had not decreased, and one of them was in the approaching army. He was also promised aid from the citizens of Lincoln, which would bolster his army's size. In addition, he may have been influenced by the thought that at last he could get at the heart of the enemy. Through the war to this date, he had always possessed the greater force in the field and the Angevins had assiduously avoided battle. Now before him was the backbone of the enemy military power: the Earls of Gloucester and Chester, along with Miles of Gloucester. Victory for the king would put an end to Matilda's hopes. But quite likely the motive which dominated was fear; fear of looking a coward; fear of being tarred with the same brush as his father. The Gesta Stephani says 'he refused to sully his fame by the disgrace of flight … but went boldly to meet them outside the town'. Orderic says that 'the wilful prince turned a deaf ear to the advice of prudent men, and judged it dishonourable to put off battle for any reason'.13
Robert of Gloucester made a diagonal approach to Lincoln from the west, in order to get his army across the River Witham. The course of this river has altered since the Middle Ages, but only a little. The water still meanders across the flat lands to the south and west of the city. Lincoln is one of those cities whose medieval condition is easy to imagine. One can still enter the city formally near the Brayford Pool, from the bustling modern shopping centre, where one faces a medieval stone arch. Ahead and above, silhouetted against the skyline stand the two buildings which dominated the city then and still do, to the west the square bulk of the castle, to the east the soaring towers of the cathedral. They stand at the top of a very steep hill, which made the castle particularly difficult to approach and capture. The city occupied the hill on which the buildings stand. The west wall of the city was the western defence of the castle. At the foot of the western slope is a flat plain, across which wanders the River Witham after its journey through the Fosse Dyke westwards from the Brayford Pool.
The lookout of the royal force in the town, would easily have been able to see the army as it crossed the river by a ford, probably a mile or so to the west of the city, and made its way through marshy ground by the river to the firmer ground of the plain. William of Malmesbury says that the river was swollen by rains so they had to swim across, which would account for the marshy state of the ground around.14 The writer in the Victoria County History, with a close knowledge of the area, thought the battle was fought to the north of the city, on the grounds that it was the best direction from which to attack. But given the evidence of the fording, the more likely site is immediately to the west of the walls.15
It was Sunday 2 February when Stephen was informed of the approach. He called a council to debate what should be done. The advice was to leave a force to defend the city, but himself to go for reinforcements. As we have seen, he refused to budge. According to Orderic, clerics present advised the king that battle should be avoided because it was Sunday, and that peace negotiations should be initiated, and a truce agreed. Stephen refused to heed the advice.16
The king led his forces to stand before the west walls of the city, while the Angevin forces deployed as they arrived to the north of the ford. There was some attempt by the royalists to obstruct the crossing, but it failed. The Gesta Stephani gives the impression that the battle followed immediately after the ford crossing was made, but this does not match other accounts, and is probably simply a telescoping of events.17 Stephen did not make his own battle speech. The scene is beautifully depicted in the pages of the chronicle of Henry of Huntingdon by a line drawing in pen and ink. Stephen, wearing his crown, is shown standing to one side, while the speech was made for him by Baldwin fitz Gilbert, whose brother had been killed in the fighting in Wales at the beginning of the reign. The chronicler says this was because the king was not good at making speeches, lacking a witty tongue.18 Baldwin, 'a man of the highest rank and a brave soldier', stood upon a hill to make the speech.19 He began by attracting the attention of all, allowing a telling pause. This suggests that Stephen may have deliberately asked Baldwin to make the speech because he knew him to be an accomplished speaker.20 According to the chronicler the speech consisted of insulting the enemy leaders, though one suspects the chronicler is having fun at the expense of the nobility through invention rather than repetition. He retailed speeches made on both sides, though he cannot have heard both, and probably heard neither. Baldwin accused Robert of Gloucester of having the heart of a hare. But Baldwin also reminded his own side of the justice of their cause, their numbers and their courage.
For the Angevins, speeches were made by both of the earls; Ranulf first and then Robert. Robert reminded his audience that he was the old king's son, and that Stephen had usurped the crown which should be his sister's. He accused Stephen of bad government, and blamed him for the disorder in the land. On that side insults were also issued: that Earl Alan was guilty of every evil, that Count Waleran was boastful, slow to advance but quick to retreat, that Earl Hugh Bigod was a perjurer, that William of Aumale, Earl of York, had been deserted by his wife because of his intolerably filthy behaviour, and that the adulterer who had carried off the said lady had the gall to be standing alongside the earl in the royalist forces, let alone William of Ypres with his treasons and 'impurities'.21When Robert had finished speaking, his army raised a great shout, lifted their arms to heaven and advanced.22
As the besieging army facing a relief force, the royalists were in a naturally defensive situation. They had to guard against a sortie from the castle at their rear. Oman thinks the royalists had more infantry, following the words put into the mouth of Baldwin fitz Gilbert by Henry of Huntingdon: 'we are not inferior in cavalry, and stronger in infantry', but both these statements seem wrong. Since the speech goes on to praise the loyalty and bravery of the earls, who all fled, one wonders if the speech as presented by Henry is meant to be ironic. Orderic says that the reverse is true; and all other evidence suggests that the royalists had fewer cavalry. It does seem probable, however, that the royal infantry was better quality.23 We do not know how good the city militia from Lincoln was, but it was unlikely to be worse than the poorly armed Welsh, 'unskilled and unpractised in the art of war' (at any rate in this kind of war), not generally equipped for fighting in battles.24 The difference almost certainly was in the Angevin superiority in cavalry; they had come prepared for a battle. Stephen had only his siege army, and had previously had no reason to expect to face a large force. Orderic also says that some of the magnates who were with the king had treacherously sent troops to join the rebels.25
The royal force dismounted some knights in the one main division, the king in its midst, himself on foot. He drew these knights in close order around him. The horses were led away to a distance.26 He meant to lead by example. His own household men protected the royal standard. His left was commanded by William of Aumale, in company with his chief military adviser, William of Ypres. His right was probably led by Hugh Bigod, but contained a whole handful of earls: those of Warenne, Northampton and Worcester (Waleran), as well as Alan of Penthièvre, Earl of Richmond, an experienced captain, no doubt to balance William of Ypres on the left. Both left and right seem to have been cavalry forces, and few in number. Many of the magnates were at Lincoln with only a small proportion of their feudal followings. The royal cavalry formed in two lines 'but this part of his force was small'.27 It is possible, from Henry of Huntingdon's account, that the cavalry made a line right across the front of the royal force, and were then broken into three sections by the enemy attack.28
The Angevin army was probably commanded by Robert of Gloucester. Orderic says he was 'the greatest in the army', and John of Hexham calls him the 'general and organizer of the battle', though Ranulf may not have seen himself as inferior, and had made the first of their battle speeches.29 It is not possible to reconcile the various chroniclers' accounts entirely. Some describe both armies in line abreast, some as if in divisions, one behind the other. The most coherent account is that by Henry of Huntingdon. He was also nearest of the main chroniclers to the scene of the battle. We have, therefore, chosen to prefer his account, and where possible to incorporate other information. This suggests that the disinherited formed the left wing of the Angevin force, and faced those earls alongside Alan of Brittany. No leader is mentioned for this division, but Miles of Gloucester, though not an earl, would seem to be the likely name to pencil in. Henry of Huntingdon refers to Welsh on the right flank of the Angevin army, and then speaks of Ranulf's intervention on this wing. This is not the usual decision of historians, but following Henry of Huntingdon, we therefore place Ranulf in command of the Angevin right wing. Since three divisions are clearly mentioned by several writers, this would leave Robert of Gloucester commanding the centre, which would seem to be the natural position. Like the royalists, the Angevins too dismounted some of their knights to fight on foot. Ranulf had also brought with him infantry from Cheshire, most probably archers. It would be wrong to pretend we are certain about the positions in this battle, particularly with regard to the Angevin formation. It is quite possible that the description of ordering, one division behind the other, was the order of march, which as often happened in medieval campaigns, resolved into divisions abreast for battle, van on one wing, rear on the opposite wing. This might explain at least some of the discrepancies in the sources. From the chronicles it is uncertain if the three Angevin divisions were in line abreast or one behind the other. Given the royalist formation, we have preferred line abreast.30
The Battle of Lincoln, 2 February 1141.
One still has to find a position in the van for the Welsh. They were certainly in the van of the Angevin army, and the first to be mentioned as the engagement got under way. Again, following Henry of Huntingdon, we have placed them on the right flank, probably slightly in advance of the main divisions. It is possible from other accounts that a similar Welsh group was placed in the same position on the left flank. Three main Angevin divisions in line abreast seems the most probable formation in order to face the three divisions of the royalists, and we place the Welsh infantry on both flanks, thrown slightly forward. Orderic says the Bretons and Flemings under Alan and William of Ypres faced the Welsh, which implies that they were on the wings. Henry of Huntingdon reports the Welsh advancing from the side, which also clearly places them on at least one flank, presumably the right. Robert of Torigny supports this point, suggesting a Welsh advance from the flank. There does not seem to be agreement among our chroniclers about the formation, so we should remain suitably unsure that we have interpreted correctly. Orderic at least seems to suggest that the Welsh and the royalist cavalry were in the van on either side, and this does match other accounts, and is the one we have chosen to follow. He also tells us that the Welsh were led by Maredudd and Cadwaladr. These are identifiable Welsh princes, brother and brother-in-law of Owain the Great. Cadwaladr married the daughter of Richard fitz Gilbert of Clare, so these men were probably fighting as allies or mercenaries for the Angevins.31 We conclude that the Angevins had three main divisions in line, with Welsh in advance of both wings.32 These Welsh levies were infantry forces and poorly armed.
The advancing troops raised their voices in shouts, while trumpets blared, and trampling horses shook the earth.33 The first action of the battle saw the destruction of the Welsh infantry when they were attacked by William of Ypres and the Earl of York on one side, and Alan of Brittany on the other. This first clash was of brief duration, and the Welsh fled from the field. But the cavalry forces behind them stayed put and now entered the fray. The Angevin left wing, probably under Miles, attacked the royalist forces which included Alan of Brittany. The Angevin cavalry on the right, under Ranulf, must have attacked at the same time, since we are told that their royal opponents were the first to be forced from the field. One account says that Waleran and William of Ypres fled 'before coming to close quarters', which is highly suggestive of an archery attack by the Angevin forces.34 The royalist cavalry had presumably lost its order in the destruction of the Welsh, and were now themselves an easy target for the Angevin cavalry wings, which broke through and routed them.35 This was the decisive point of the battle. William of Ypres we know to have been a brave and loyal captain. The fact that he now left the field suggests the hopelessness of Stephen's position. Henry of Huntingdon says that 'as an experienced general he perceived the impossibility of supporting the king'.36 In fact, according to William of Malmesbury, all six of Stephen's earls fled from the field. Orderic says that William of Ypres and Alan were the first to take flight, and that Waleran, William Warenne and Gilbert of Clare then followed suit.37 Wise soldiers knew that the king should never have fought the battle; his cavalry numbers were clearly not up to coping with the enemy, and William of Ypres and the others considered that the only option was to flee in order to fight another day. When William left, he obviously considered defeat inevitable. His assessment was not incorrect.
The formation of the two armies, especially that of the Angevins, is uncertain, and so, therefore, must be the exact sequence of events of the cavalry battle, but the final stage is quite clear. Stephen, with his one central division on foot, was now faced by three divisions, 'on all sides', which closed in on him.38 The situation was graphically described by one writer as being like an attack all round a castle.39 Some lords had stayed by his side and fought on, including Baldwin of Clare, Richard fitz Urse, Engelran de Saye, and Ilbert de Lacy.40 Helmets and swords flashed in the air. Shouts and cries echoed all around. The king fought with his sword, men recoiling from his 'terrible arm'.41 Eventually the weapon broke, and a citizen of Lincoln passed him a weapon more familiar to the Anglo-Saxons than to modern Anglo-Norman armies – a battle axe. Orderic indeed calls it a 'Norse axe', which suggests that the Lincoln militia were not armed in the most modern manner, but in a by now rather antiquated way as infantry forces.42 Stephen fought on 'like a lion, grinding his teeth and foaming at the mouth like a boar'.43 At least he did not leave an impression of cowardice, but made a 'strong and most resolute resistance'.44 The battle axe was also broken in the conflict. At last he was put out of his misery, when one of the opposing army hit him over the head with a rock, which hardly sounds like a knightly action. Stephen was taken prisoner, either by Robert of Gloucester, or by William of Cahagnes. When he came round he kept on complaining that this was not the treatment to give a king, and that his enemies were breaking their faith, to the point where some of them actually burst into tears.45 The ordinary citizens of Lincoln, however, could expect no mercy. Many were cut down, by 'the just anger of the victors'. As many as 500 drowned trying to escape across the river, more than were killed in the battle. They leaped into any boat they could find until the boats were too full and capsized.46 The town itself also suffered, with houses and churches set on fire by the victors.
William of Malmesbury says that Robert of Gloucester treated the king well, ordering that he should be kept alive and unharmed, not even insulted.47 He was taken before the empress at Gloucester, and then on to Bristol, where he was imprisoned. According to William of Malmesbury, because others wanted him closer confined, and because Stephen was found from time to time at night having wandered outside his place of confinement, he was put in iron chains.48 It sounds like the apologist trying to explain away the fact that his hero, Earl Robert, was keeping in irons the anointed king. But battle was seen as divine decision, and Stephen had lost. One writer, who gave only a couple of lines to the battle, concluded that Stephen had been captured 'by the just judgement of God'.49
1. Comnena, The Alexiad, pp. 163, 416.
2. Bradbury, 'Battles', pp. 1–12.
3. Comnena, The Alexiad, p. 165; Bradbury, 'Battles', pp. 1–12, p. 12.
5. H.A. Cronne, 'Ranulf de Gernons, Earl of Chester, 1129–1153', TRHS, 4th ser., xx, 1937, pp. 103–34, p. 113; J.H. Round, 'King Stephen and the Earl of Chester', EHR, x, 1895, pp. 87–91, p. 87.
6. Davis, Stephen, p. 134.
7. F. Hill, Medieval Lincoln, Cambridge, 1948; Cronne, 'Ranulf', pp. 103–34.
8. Gesta Stephani, pp. 110–11.
9. William of Malmesbury, p. 46: 'pacifice abscesserat'.
10. Orderic, vi, pp. 540–1.
11. The Gesta Stephani says he had gone, but Orderic says he only escaped after the king arrived; Gesta Stephani, pp. 110–11; Orderic, vi, pp. 540–1.
12. Gesta Stephani, pp. 110–13; Orderic, vi, pp. 544–5; Henry of Huntingdon, ed. Forester, pp. 276–7; Henry of Huntingdon, ed. Arnold, p. 271.
13. Gesta Stephani, pp. 112–13; Orderic, vi, pp. 540–3.
14. William of Malmesbury, p. 48, says that they had to swim across, which is possible, but also that the river was the Trent, which seems impossible.
15. C.H. Vellacott, 'Political History', in VCH, Lincolnshire, ii, ed. W. Page, p. 252.
17. Gesta Stephani, pp. 112–13.
18. Henry of Huntingdon, ed. Arnold, p. 271: 'quia rex Stephanus festiva carebat voce'; BL Arundel MS 48, f. 168v.
19. Henry of Huntingdon, ed. Arnold, p. 271: 'Loco stans excelso'.
20. Henry of Huntingdon, ed. Forester, p. 277; Henry of Huntingdon, ed. Arnold, p. 271: 'ubi attentionem eorum modesta taciturnitate stimulavit'.
21. Henry of Huntingdon, ed. Forester, pp. 275–6; Henry of Huntingdon, ed. Arnold, speeches by Angevins, pp. 268–71, for royalists, pp. 271–3.
22. Henry of Huntingdon, ed. Forester, p. 276; Henry of Huntingdon, ed. Arnold, p. 271: 'terribili clamore'.
23. Henry of Huntingdon, ed. Forester, p. 277; Henry of Huntingdon, ed. Arnold, p. 272: 'in equitibus non inferior, in peditibus confertior'; Orderic, vi, pp. 542–43.
24. Henry of Huntingdon, ed. Forester, p. 278; Henry of Huntingdon, ed. Arnold, p. 273; 'inermem bello praeferunt temeritatem, et arte et usu belli carentes'.
26. Henry of Huntingdon, ed. Forester, p. 277; Henry of Huntingdon, ed. Arnold, p. 271: 'equis abductis'; Robert of Torigny. RS, p. 140: 'Ipse pedes omnem circa se multitudinem loricatorum, equis abductis'.
27. Henry of Huntingdon, ed. Forester, p. 277; Henry of Huntingdon, ed. Arnold, p. 271; Robert of Torigny, in Stevenson, p. 53, repeats this; Torigny, in Howlett, p. 140.
28. Henry of Huntingdon, ed. Arnold, p. 273; and Robert of Torigny, RS, p. 140: 'et divisio eorum in tria deserit'.
29. Orderic, pp. 542–3; John of Hexham, p. 134; 'dux et dispositor praelio'.
30. In The Medieval Archer, p. 55, I took the one behind the other formation, but on consideration, have decided that the alternative is just to be preferred. From the chronicles, either could be correct.
31. Orderic, vi, pp. 542–3, and n. 2; Robert of Torigny, in Stevenson, p. 53; Robert of Torigny, RS, p. 146: 'Walenses qui a latere procedebant'. Henry of Huntingdon, ed. Arnold, p. 268: 'a latere'; and the Angevin Chronicle, based on Henry of Huntingdon, p. 302: 'a latere vero erat turma Wallensium'.
32. Henry of Huntingdon, ed. Forester, p. 279, says that William of Ypres' force routed them; Henry of Huntingdon, ed. Arnold, p. 273: 'percussit Walenses … et in fugam coegit'.
33. Henry of Huntingdon, ed. Forester, p. 279; Henry of Huntingdon, ed. Arnold, p. 273; see n. 24 above.
34. Gesta Stephani, p. 112: 'antequam manus consererent'.
35. William of Malmesbury, p. 49.
36. Henry of Huntingdon, ed. Forester, p. 279; Henry of Huntingdon, ed. Arnold, p. 274: 'videns impossibilitatem auxiliandi regi'.
37. William of Malmesbury, p. 49; Orderic, vi, pp. 542–3.
39. Henry of Huntingdon, ed. Forester, p. 279; Henry of Huntingdon, ed. Arnold, p. 274.
40. Orderic, pp. 542–5.
42. Orderic, vi, pp. 544–5: 'securi norica'; and John of Hexham, p. 135: 'securem Danicam'; Henry of Huntingdon, ed. Forester, p. 279 has the axe broken first and then the sword, which seems a less likely order; Henry of Huntingdon, ed. Arnold, p. 274.
43. Robert of Torigny, RS, pp. 140–1; in Stevenson, p. 53.
45. Ibid., pp. 112–15; Henry of Huntingdon, ed. Forester, p. 279, is the only source to say that William of Cahagnes captured Stephen, but may still be correct; Henry of Huntingdon, ed. Arnold, p. 274: 'miles valdissimus'.
49. Worcester, in Stevenson, p. 368; Worcester, ed. Thorpe, p. 129: 'justo Dei judicio'.


text:
The Accounting Cycle and Financial Bubbles: On the Current Indifference on Accounting Methods
In 2007, value investor David Einhorn wrote a fascinating book titled "Fooling Some of the People All of the Time: A Long, Short Story", which is about how companies over the course of the business cycle begin using accounting tricks and the indifference of stock investors as long as stock prices are rising. This "accounting cycle" is intimately connected to the business cycle. In boom times, businesses can easily get away with creative (though, in many cases, perfectly legal) accounting methods, only to be corrected by markets when a recession sets in. I argue that the current cycle is nothing different. And I will share a few cases which prove my point.
Netflix: Accounting for Content
Any content spending, in the case of Netflix, is recorded on the asset side of its balance sheet (initially as a non-current content asset). Then, content assets are gradually amortized over time. According to a recently released document by Netflix, which explains how content spending is accounted for, Netflix writes off 90% of the value of a content asset within four years. Netflix does not disclose exactly at what rate, on average, so we have to second-guess how Netflix is really amortizing individual series, seasons or movies.
No disclosures are made on what happens when a movie or series is a complete disaster; is the asset written off completely? Most likely it isn't. Let's take Marco Polo, which was the most expensive Netflix original at the time. According to some estimates, the production of Marco Polo cost close to $200 million dollars. The first seasons flopped and Netflix decided to cancel Marco Polo all together. Writing down the entire $200 million dollar, shareholders would take a $0.46 hit on earnings.
However, if Netflix gradually writes down over four years, it would spread the loss over four years or longer. Investors are currently expecting $0.32 of earnings per share over the current quarter. Put differently, writing off Marco Polo would lead to negative instead of positive earnings.
But that is not the key takeaway: Netflix's content spending resembles more operational than capital expenditures. And as it records content assets with a lifespan of multiple years while subscribers are binge watching their favorite content in days and not years, Netflix is inflating its bottom line. This is the reason why Netflix is showing a profit while it is burning through cash. But as Netflix embarked upon its very own binge, binge content spending, it is not taking into account that subscriber growth and churn will rapidly worsen as soon as it cuts its content spending. In other words, Netflix is unprofitable and its cash flow statement is a clear proof.
So how does Netflix get away with this?
The answer is sad: during a boom, investors tend to look away from anything that could end a rally. As long as returns are positive and high, nobody worries about where earnings are coming from (that is, earnings quality). The narrative is clear: Netflix is growing, and all that matters are the number of new subscriptions signing up and steadily growing earnings.
Tesla: The Gross Margin Charade
Tesla is a tremendous cash burner and due to its significant cash outflows, it depends on outside financing. Outside financing depends on the willingness of capital allocators on financial markets to provide that capital. However, most capital allocators (investors) seem to be fooled by Elon Musk's hypnotizing focus on two variables: deliveries and gross margins.
And it's all about gross margins, right? Wrong.
Supposedly, Tesla maintains far higher gross margins on its cars than any other car manufacturer (28% compared to General Motors' 18% and Ford's 10%). But there are few (accounting) reasons why Elon Musk's narrative is completely false and achieved with diverging accounting standards:
Most car manufacturers include R&D in gross margin
Producers have to innovate constantly to remain competitive in a technology-driven industry as the automotive industry. Therefore, most producers invest a lot in R&D and include it in their gross margin calculations. However, Tesla does not, overstating its gross margins compared to other car manufacturers comparing apples to pears. Vincent Wolters showed that when you account for R&D, Tesla's gross margins are roughly equal to its competitors and have not gotten better over time (despite alleged economic of scale).
Accounting for distribution
Unlike other car manufacturers (who sell their cars at a 10% discount to independent dealerships), Tesla distributes cars through its own Sales Centers. However, Tesla does not include these centers in its cost of revenues. Therefore, its gross margin is overstated next to its direct competitors.
Free supercharging not accounted for
Tesla, as part of its initial sales package, offers life-long super charging across its proprietary super charging network (Tesla quit offering free super charging on new models). This means that every Tesla-sale came along with significant future costs. Tesla accounts for these future outlays by deferring revenue. The deferred revenue should be able to cover the outlays to make a whole on its free charging promise. However, it doesn´t. Alberto Zaragoza did a great job in showing that Tesla only accounts for less than 40% of the real cost of its supercharging obligations. That implies a large future write off. Curiously, the only way out of this costly promise is to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
Tesla´s gross margins are inflated.
Alphabet, Procter & Gamble & Microsoft: The Non-GAAP Earnings Inflation
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (or GAAP) is the accounting standard adopted by the SEC. Publicly-listed companies in the US are obliged to follow GAAP standards when filing their financial statements.
However, companies sometimes deviate from these standards in their reporting. While there might be legitimate reason to deviate from GAAP, US corporations are obliged to disclose whether they are referring to GAAP or non-GAAP numbers. And whenever they report a non-GAAP measure (for instance, earnings) then they are in many cases also obliged to report the corresponding GAAP figure. Curiously enough, companies are allowed to issue press releases while only referring to non-GAAP figures. These press releases are used by the press to write their headlines.
Deviating from GAAP is, however, often a way to artificially inflate the bottom line by accounting away some inconvenient truths to a business. Take a look at how GAAP earnings per share differ from non-GAAP earnings among major US companies:
Source: Thomas A. King in Strategic Finance
Notice that in all cases, non-GAAP earnings are higher than GAAP earnings, in some cases even turning losses into profits.
A coincidence? Not so much.
Over the course of a business cycle investors become complacent. Companies follow non-GAAP earnings to impress investors, and make possible a gradual, upward growth trend in earnings. In other words, deviating from GAAP allows companies to show better figures than they really are, something Thomas A. King explained in greater detail here.
This is clearly proven by the fact that there is absolutely no consistency as to what the deviation consists of: stock-based compensation, intangibles, takeovers, insurance, pensions, derivatives, etc. Boards seem remarkably skilled in cherry-picking accounting methods to artificially inflate the bottom line.
This tendency of inflating profits becomes greater and greater during an economic boom, only to be corrected during a recession. And right now, more and more companies are diverging from GAAP to report non-GAAP earnings and other performance indicators. Courtesy of Zero Hedge, you can observe in the following chart how in the past few years the use of non-GAAP accounting has proliferated:
What does this imply for investors right now?
Many companies are inflating profits in the short-term at the expense of the longer term.
Stocks are in reality far more expensive than non-GAAP price/earnings (P/E) ratios would suggest
Stocks which show a greater divergence between GAAP and non-GAAP measures might fall harder in profits and in price in the future
The accounting cycle goes hand in hand with the business cycle. And this time around things will not be any different.
Tagged With: United States
Receive a free chapter of my book The Contrarian Investor upon release and stay up-to-date with my writings:
Tweets by @OlavDirkmaat

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Phil Frustagli, Della Terra Soil Management Solutions owner and president.
It's no secret that construction companies in the Lower Mainland are facing a major challenge in finding facilities that will accept a wide range of soils. Opened only last year, service provider Della Terra Soil Management Solutions is a locally owned and operated facility in Chilliwack that accepts a wide range of soils from clean fill to non-hazardous end-of-life soils.
Owner and president Phil Frustagli has been in the soil management business for 30 years. He incorporated Della Terra a little more than two years ago to take advantage of a rare opportunity in the region.
Frustagli was first contacted by members of Skway First Nation several years ago to consider the possibility of operating a soil disposal and remediation site on a property that had been heavily excavated as a gravel and aggregate supply facility. Frustagli says he liked the location, a little more than an hour's drive east of Vancouver. He was also impressed by the fact that the drive to the site incorporated primarily paved roads.
Della Terra's facility features one biocell for soil remediation used to treat contaminated soils, which can be reused in select applications following in situ treatment. The other cell is a fully engineered landfill cell designed to securely contain any end-of-life soils. It incorporates a closed loop leachate collection system with a polishing wetland. Once leachate is treated to local bylaw standards, it's pumped to the local sanitary sewer.
The Della Terra facility opened in spring 2018 and the company quickly established a soil transfer station on Mitchell Island, south of Vancouver, not far from Richmond. The site has provided an ideal service for local contractors who operate smaller trucks that can't economically make a long drive, or have only smaller loads of soil to dispose of.
Della Terra is planning to boost its value proposition to contractors in the near future by offering to supply a wide variety of soils and aggregates so that trucks visiting its facility won't have to leave empty.
Della Terra is also establishing a trucking service to pick up any loads of soil identified by contractors at project sites and delivering them to the Chilliwack facility.
Frustagli notes that Della Terra is already delivering on its agreement with Skway First Nation.
This content is sponsored by Della Terra Soil Management Solutions in collaboration with ConstructConnect® Media. To learn more about Della Terra, visit www.dellaterrasolutions.com.


Nicholas Van Dyke was the son of the other famous Dutch American, Nicholas Van Dyke [1738-1789]. The father served as the President [Governor] of Delaware from 1783 to 1786. The father is therefore referred to as Governor Van Dyke, and the son, who became a U. S. Senator is referred to as Senator Van Dyke. Since both men were also practicing attorneys in New Castle, Delaware, the use of the governor and senator titles avoided a lot of confusion.
Senator Nicholas Van Dyke was born in New Castle, Delaware on December 8, 1770. His mother's maiden name was Charlotte Stanley. Nicholas was probably educated by tutors, and he was admitted to the University of New Jersey, now Princeton University, from where he graduated in 1788. He then studied law with his brother-in-law Kensey Johns, and was admitted to the bar in 1792. He then began to practice law in New Castle, Delaware, where his father had also practiced law.
Van Dyke entered politics as a Federalist, by becoming a member of the Delaware House of Representatives in 1799. In 1807, he was elected as a Federalist to the Tenth U. S. Congress, and was re-elected in 1809 to the Eleventh Congress. He did not run for re-election in 1811, and returned home to Delaware to serve as the State's attorney general. He subsequently served in the Delaware State Senate from 1815 to 1816. In 1817, he was elected as a Federalist to become a U. S. Senator representing the State of Delaware. He was re-elected in 1823, and served in the U. S. Senate until his death in 1826. During his U. S. Senate years he served on the Committee on Pensions.
Senator Van Dyke married Ann Leuveneigh in 1792. The couple had six children. One of their daughters, Dorcas Van Dyke married Charles I. Dupont. The wedding was held at the Immanuel Episcopal Church in New Castle, Delaware, and was celebrated at the historic Amstel House in New Castle. One of the guests at the wedding was the Marquis de Lafayette.
Senator Van Dyke passed away at a rather young age of 56 years, in 1826. His father, who had also died early, had only reached the age of 51 years. Senator Van Dyke was buried in the Immanuel Episcopal Church Cemetery in New Castle, Delaware.


text:
Construction sites told: prepare to close
Construction sites in Jersey are being instructed to close from 6pm on Friday, 3 April, until further notice.
The instruction follows advice from the Medical Officer for Health, as part of Government efforts to prevent the spread of Covid-19.
The Deputy Chief Minister and Minister for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture, Senator Lyndon Farnham, said: "Our priority is to stop the spread of coronavirus, and the construction industry has its part to play. The payroll co-funding scheme has been extended to cover the industry so that we can support jobs in the sector throughout the crisis."
The instruction to close applies not only to construction sites, but to all activity across the construction sector as it is defined in the Health and Safety Construction (Jersey) Regulations 2016 *.
A Government permit scheme, which will be launched next week, will enable work to restart, once a business has demonstrated it has the strict procedures in place needed to prevent the spread of coronavirus.
Sites will be categorised, and the granting of permits will be prioritised A, B and C:
Category A: sites which provide critical national infrastructure and services which keep the Island's residents and environment safe and secure. These sites and working areas include:
critical maintenance of sewerage, sea defence, roads, telecommunications, gas, water, harbours and airport, electricity generation and supply;
emergency maintenance of the public estate including health, education and all publicly-owned assets;
emergency maintenance of all the parish estates; and
emergency maintenance of public and private assets that support the Island.
Category B: sites and services which provide services to the public which can operate safely in accordance with the site operating procedures. They include Les Quennevais School and the Sewage Treatment Works.
Category C: all other sites and services which are currently operating and can operate safely in accordance with the site operating procedures.
A small number of Category A sites, which are carrying out work vital to Jersey's infrastructure, are expected to receive permits immediately. They include the refurbishment of Rozel Ward at the Hospital; the repair of the sea wall at St Ouen, which has to be completed before the next spring tide; and the reconstruction of Jersey's Energy Recovery Facility boiler.
Senator Farnham said: "Medical advice is that only sites providing critical national infrastructure and services which keep the Island's residents and environment safe and secure should continue, provided that they meet the standards expected.
"It's accepted that it can be difficult to apply social distancing on building sites, and I would expect the experience derived from these Category A sites to be used to determine the quality and control practices needed for other sites to receive a permit to reopen."
* Construction as defined in Health and Safety Regulations
Under the Health and Safety Construction (Jersey) Regulations 2016, construction work means any work of construction, alteration, conversion, fitting out, commissioning, renovation, repair, maintenance, de-commissioning, demolition or dismantling of any structure, and includes:
the demolition or dismantling of a structure and the removal from the relevant construction site of any product or waste resulting from the demolition or dismantling
the assembly of prefabricated elements to form a structure or the disassembly of prefabricated elements which, immediately before such disassembly, formed a structure
the installation, commissioning, maintenance, repair or removal of mechanical, electrical, gas, compressed air, hydraulic, telecommunications, computer or similar services that are normally fixed to a structure; and
any work of excavation, landscaping, preparatory work, or site preparation carried out for the purpose of any work or activity referred to in this definition (otherwise than in this sub-paragraph)
The definition does not include the exploration for or extraction of mineral resources or preparatory work relating to the extraction carried out at a place where such exploration or extraction is carried out.
Service means a gas, water, sewerage, communication, or electrical, service or other service, such as a chemical, fuel or refrigerant line.
Structure means any building, steel or reinforced concrete construction, crane, ramp, dock, ship, harbour, tunnel, shaft, bridge, viaduct, waterworks, reservoir, pipe or pipeline (Jersey) Regulations 2016 Construction (whatever it contains or is intended to contain), structural cable, aqueduct, sewer, sewerage works, gasholder, road, airfield, sea defence works, drainage works, earthworks, constructed lagoon, dam, wall, mast, tower, pylon, underground tank, earth-retaining construction, fixed plant, construction designed to preserve or alter any natural feature, and any other similar construction; or any formwork, falsework, scaffold or other construction designed or used to provide support or access during construction work.
Construction site means any place where construction work is being carried out, including areas used for the storage of plant and/or materials.
Speech by the Minister for Economic Development, Senator Lyndon Farnham
Speech by the Health Minister, Deputy Richard Renouf
Speech by the Chief Minister, Senator John Le Fondré
Operations & Transport at Infrastructure, Housing and Environment
E dfi@gov.je
Monday - Thursday 8.45am - 5.15pm, Friday 8.45am - 4.45pm (transferred to emergency number after 4.45pm Monday to Friday)
Operations and Transport
Beresford House
Bellozanne Road
JE4 8UY
Health and Safety Guidance - Construction (Jersey) Regulations 2016
Coronavirus Government Co-Funded Payroll Scheme: Phase 2


Shipping supplies are always in great demand and it is absolutely necessary that one chooses over products that are of high quality to get the best kind of results in this regard. There are no hard or fast rules with regard to packaging and there are plenty of new techniques and methods that are being used in this regard. One needs to understand that there is nothing more adorable and interesting than having a perfect kind of packaging supplies that actually provides for the best kind of outcome. There is no dearth for packaging personalized shipping supplies providers out there but only a few of them turns out to be reliable and trustworthy of the lot. It becomes necessary for one to put in time and effort to find the best and most viable personalized shipping materials and supplies provider in this regard.
Refine Packaging comes across as one of the best and most trusted packaging service provider in the region that is known to have very good insight as to the exact requirements of the users. It provides for a comprehensive range of shipping supplies for one and all at various price range. It is able to offer for high quality shipping materials and supplies at a considerably reasonable price at one go which is why it has been able to stay at the top for quite a longer period of time. It has a dedicated website providing details about various shipping supplies at one go with absolute ease.
What Are The Benefits Of Using Digital Photo Frame?


text:
Hands Off the Free Travel Scheme!
By John O' Connor. Published on Tuesday, July 8th, 2014 at 11:00 am
The years have taught me to be very suspicious when kites are being flown in the media about entitlements that cost the government money.
It usually means they are testing the water to see what might be acceptable to the public and what might not.
For weeks now, little news items have been appearing about the Free Travel Scheme and we are told a government working group is currently reviewing the future of the €77 million-a-year scheme, which benefits more than 780,000 people every year.
At the same time, transport companies involved in the scheme say the money they receive for their participation is not covering their costs and they might have to opt out.
They point out that funding for free travel has been frozen at the same level for the past four years while the number of pass-holders has increased over the same period of time.
However, government sources say it is unlikely additional money for the scheme will be available for next year. Some sources say State transport providers, such as Bus Éireann and Iarnród Éireann, have privately sought the reintroduction of peak-hour travel restrictions which, they argue, would allow them to raise additional revenue.
These restrictions were introduced in the 1960s and limited free travel on certain routes during morning and evening rush-hours.
The last of those restrictions were removed in 2006 amid charges that OAPs were being treated like second-class citizens.
A spokesperson for the Department of Social Protection said the Free Travel Review had not been finalised and that the Minister for Social Protection, Joan Burton, appreciated the value the scheme provided to the mainly older people who used it.
Hmmmm and Hmmmm again, 'sez' you. It looks to me that the Government wants to tamper with the scheme to save money and they are testing the water.
Age Action Ireland says any changes to the scheme will be "vehemently opposed" by older people.
Too bloody right they will and proper order too. Thousands of retired people have lost all or part of their pensions that they paid into all their working lives and many have lost their hard earned savings into the bargain, all because of government and bank bungling.
Incidentally, Free Travel is not really free at all because those now using it have already paid for it in advance through a lifetime of taxes.
This Government has made many mistakes and, following the Local and European Election results, they would hardly make another whopper Would they?
Other articles in 'Opinion'
Election candidates edge to starting line
Striding Ahead in the Anne Valley
North gets Assembly again
A majestic voice is silenced
Remembering The Missing Postman
Minister Bruton launches Climate Action Fund
Vibrant local communities
Infamous hoax revisited
Express View 2019 in review
General Richard Mulcahy – the Waterford connection


text:
Soaring Demand, Soaring Costs, Soaring Competition: New Life Sciences Labs Reach For The Sky
National Life Sciences View count:
National Life Sciences
April 5, 2022 Patrick Sisson, Bisnow National
When tenants begin working on the upper floors of 10 World Trade in Boston's Seaport District — a forthcoming 17-story high-rise that just broke ground earlier this month — they'll look out over the city through the tinted glass that reacts and dims based on the position of the sun and the time of day.
It's not just a high-tech amenity. For many of the scientists and researchers who will be conducting tests in the upper reaches of the new tower, the sun shading is essential to protecting experiments from getting spoiled by excess sunlight.
For architect Victor Vizgaitis of Sasaki Associates, the firm that designed the building for developer BGI, creating lab space more than 100 feet in the air carried a host of technical and regulatory challenges. But in a market where demand for space shows little sign of slowing, and most importantly, sought-after talent prefers urban locations, the push to go vertical is undeniable.
"Scientists and researchers and lab workers are also humans, and the ability to be in the middle of everything, and part of the action, is just as important to them as any office worker," he said.
Courtesy of Sasaki Associates
A rendering of 10 World Trade, a forthcoming high-rise in Boston's Seaport District with upper-level lab space.
High-rise labs aren't brand-new, especially in Boston. But in recent weeks, 10 World Trade, set to include 555K SF of lab space, has been joined by a number of announcements of new tower projects that include significant lab space, such as a £500M ($656M) lab-led tower block in London and an 11-story, $400M lab project in Philadelphia between Drexel University and Gattuso Development Partners, the largest dedicated lab space in the city.
"Clients are seeing the value, and know the costs, and want to be where the talent is," said architect Russ Drinker, director of West Coast science and technology for Flad Architects, a firm that's done a series of lab high-rises in South San Francisco for clients like BioMed Realty.
"If they could build a single-story building in the middle of Oklahoma and all the talent showed up, that's what they'd do."
Drinker sees the vertical push as part and parcel of the recent explosion in biosciences, with technologies like mRNA and Crispr creating an explosion not just in science and learning, but in new startups that require space.
His firm is currently working on "millions of square feet" of such high-rise lab space in the San Francisco and San Diego markets.
That explosion in science means that the way labs are built has to change as well, said Jay Longo, principal at SCB, whose firm has high-rise lab projects in Boston and Chicago, like 400 North Elizabeth in Chicago's Fulton Market. The previous, multiyear arc of discovery lent itself to custom-built lab spaces of just a few stories in suburban locations.
Now, the flood of firms and startup cash means companies don't have the luxury of time and customization, and urban high-rise towers that can fit multiple tenants offer the scale and speed needed.
As land becomes more scarce, and the drive to locate new startups near the nexus of innovation centers and key markets like Boston and San Diego continues, it only makes sense developers would attempt increasingly denser, taller buildings, with a nod toward a more urban, collaborative work environment.
Newmark Research Director Liz Berthelette is seeing a lot of taller buildings in the Boston market earmarked for conversions, and more ground-up structures planned for markets like Fenway and the Seaport.
"I think from an economics perspective, you'll see more attempts at high-rise labs," said Perkins&Will's New York-based Science and Technology principal Matthew Malone.
Repositioning and renovations will provide plenty of opportunities for developers and designers.
None of the architects could deliver a clear cost estimate as to the premium that comes with building a high-rise lab space versus a more traditional one- or two-story structure. Part of the challenge in providing a clear estimate is the technical and regulatory difficulties, and quirks, of creating different high-rises in different jurisdictions.
"Like hospitals, labs used to be a few stories, and the idea of taking a patient up an elevator was considered dangerous," SCB principal Longo said. "The fire code challenge of putting labs above the eighth floor is very similar to putting an oncology space above the 19th floor."
Courtesy of SCB
The SCB-designed 400 North Elizabeth lab project in Chicago's Fulton Market.
By definition of the International Building Code, high-rises are 75 feet or taller, roughly five floors. Lab space gets tricky the higher one goes due to a number of factors, including the need to vent and circulate exhaust via complicated HVAC systems, the need to provide power and physical support to an array of heavy lab equipment, and the taller ceiling heights needed to fit said gear along with fume hoods and exhaust pipes.
But when it comes to multistory structures and increasingly higher lab floors, chemicals, and the rules around safety access for firefighters and safety personnel to get to those chemicals in case of an accident, become a driving factor.
"What's making a difference today in terms of design is the ability to better analyze and validate designs," Newmark Head of Workplace Strategy for Life Sciences Mike Lee said. "We're also seeing increased pressure for labs to be more sustainable in terms of the amount of energy being consumed."
Labs on the first three floors are typically governed by what the IBC defines as B occupancy, what many would expect a typical lab space to look like. After that, labs are defined by what's called H, or hazardous occupancy, where any space using chemicals is very restricted and reinforced to protect the surrounding floor and building from spills and accidents.
The higher it goes, the more expensive such arrangements become.
Malone said that it typically gets prohibitive to add labs after the sixth floor, since code limits for chemicals make it harder to justify the trouble of adding lab space. To further complicate matters, cities like New York and Chicago have their own codes or don't follow recent IBC codes, and states like California have their own types of lab designations.
In fact, the University of California San Francisco successfully lobbied the state legislature in 2008 to pass a regulation allowing academic institutions to put labs on higher floors.
The design of 10 World Trade followed this regulatory and technical road map, Vizgaitis said. Initially a standard office tower, the designers cut a floor to allow higher ceiling heights for lab work and redid all the mechanical systems to make all the floors at least lab-ready, so they could convert anything that wasn't already a lab space if tenant demand made it feasible.
Currently, the blueprints call for lab space up to the 11th floor, though there could be space up to the 16th. The top floor is set to include a fitness center and jogging track, an amenity touted by the developer as a significant selling point.
When analyzing the feasibility of such high-rise lab projects, Vizgaitis notes that it is important to understand that there isn't one kind of lab and that the definition of such spaces is evolving. Increasing digital research, and even virtual lab environments, mean that labs without all the chemicals that complicate construction are increasingly in high demand, and fit well on the upper floors of such developments.
The sky is technically the limit; the higher lab space goes, the fewer chemicals that can be stored, and the more complicated mechanical systems and exhaust become. Technically, architects could add a mechanical floor in the middle of occupiable floors just to handle exhaust.
But the higher research space gets, the more it adds to the structural costs of the overall building, with more and more equipment eating away at floor space and earning potential. And unlike office space, labs on higher floors don't automatically command a cost premium from tenants.
Drinker sees the market evolving. In the Bay Area where his firm focuses, it is a competitive market with lots of square footage coming online in the next few years, so tenants will have plenty of options between towers and more typical low-slung, suburban lab spaces.
There's also a bit of a pandemic reordering of work, Malone said, which will push more labs to less urban, more remote locations in suburbs and surrounding areas, perhaps dampening the enthusiasm for more towers.
"For biotech firms that desire to be close to each other, there's a pretty good reason to put life science in the sky if it facilitates innovation," Newmark's Lee said.
Contact Patrick Sisson at patrick.sisson@bisnow.com
Related Topics: Perkins + Will, high-rise, Sasaki Associates, BGI, BioMed Realty Trust Inc, Newmark, Flad Architects
Also subscribe to Bisnow's Life Sciences Newsletter
Also subscribe to Bisnow's National Newsletter


Tools, cords, equipment. Let's face it, you carry around a lot of stuff. It hauls everything. This 23" Gear Bag is your best friend. The duffel features Realtree Xtra camouflage. Rugged top and side-haul handles for carrying. Rain Defender durable water-repellent finish. Interior zippered-pocket to store quick access items. Adjustable shoulder strap with pad.


text:
La saison 1974-1975 de l'USM Alger est la  du club en première division, alors appelé National I.

Championnat d'Algérie

Rencontres de Championnat

Classement final
Le classement est établi sur le barème de points suivant : une victoire vaut 3 points, un match nul 2 points et une défaite 1 point.

Coupe d'Algérie

Rencontres de Coupe d'Algérie

Notes et références

Notes

Références

1974-1975
Alger USM
1974 en Algérie
1975 en Algérie

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Tag Archives: Kohen Gadol
Ascending the Temple Mount
In this week's parasha, Re'eh, we are told that a time would come when God would choose to rest His Divine Presence in one particular city in the Holy Land (Deuteronomy 12:5). This city is, of course, Jerusalem. The Torah says that it is only there that sacrifices could be brought, and this is the place to which Jews should pilgrimage thrice a year on the holidays. The pilgrimage mitzvah is referred to as re'iyah (רְאִיָּיה), "appearing" or "being seen" before God in Jerusalem. This name has a deep connection, and shares a linguistic root, with the name of this week's parasha.
The re'iyah is the subject of the first Mishnah in the tractate Chagigah. It begins by stating that all Jews are obligated to appear in Jerusalem on the festivals, with twelve exceptions. One of these exceptions is a minor. The Mishnah then asks who is considered a "minor"? Beit Shammai held that a minor is any child who is unable to make the trip riding on his father's shoulders as he ascends up to the Temple Mount. Beit Hillel held a more lenient opinion that a minor is any child who cannot make the trip up to the Temple Mount while holding his father's hand. Beit Hillel reason that since the pilgrimage holidays are called regalim, literally "legs", a person must be able to use their own legs to ascend to the Temple Mount.
Today, we have yet to rebuild the Temple, but we do have the Temple Mount, and many Jews wish to ascend it. This has generated much controversy in recent decades, with many rabbis in opposition, and others strongly in favour of Jews making their presence felt on the Temple Mount. It is worth carefully exploring the issues at hand and come to a clear conclusion regarding whether or not ascending the Temple Mount is permissible and advisable.
Where Was the Temple?
In ancient times, entering the Temple itself required one to be on the highest level of spiritual purity. Among other things, anyone who had come in contact with a corpse had to first be purified using the special mixture that contains the ashes of the red heifer. However, a person did not have to be pure to enter the Temple Mount, only the Temple proper. The Rambam rules clearly in his Mishneh Torah that "a corpse may be brought into the Temple Mount, and one who has contracted ritual impurity from a corpse may definitely enter there." (Sefer Avodah, Hilkhot Beit haBechirah 7:15)
For the past two millennia, we have not had the red heifer mixture, so everyone is considered to carry the impurity of death by default. This means that while we cannot enter the Temple, we are still allowed to enter the Temple Mount. Now, since we do not have a Temple, there shouldn't be any issue here at all. Nonetheless, many rabbis affirm that even though there is no Temple, a person who is impure cannot walk where the Temple once stood, since the Divine Presence has not left the area. A few big questions emerge here: Where exactly was the Temple located? And is the Divine Presence still in that area?
The Dome of the Rock overlooking the Western Wall plaza
The majority of opinions hold that the Temple stood directly where the Dome of the Rock stands today, though a minority holds otherwise. We know that the Temple was built over the Even haShetiya, the "Foundation Stone", and our Sages state that in the Second Temple, the kohen gadol would rest the incense in the Holy of Holies atop this large rock, which protruded out of the ground (Yoma 53b). There is only one such large stone on the Temple Mount, and it currently lies beneath the Dome of the Rock.
The Muslims built the Dome of the Rock in the 7th century specifically over the site of what they believed to be Solomon's Temple. In fact, an ancient Midrash prophesied that this would happen. Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer (dating back to the 1st century Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, teacher of Rabbi Akiva) predicted that the Ishmaelites would one day conquer the Holy Land, and would do 15 major things there. One of these things is building a shrine atop the site of the Temple (see ch. 30). This is further supported by Nistarot d'Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai (an ancient text we explored in depth here), which clearly states that Ishmael "will build for himself there a place for prayer upon the site of the Foundation Stone, as Scripture says: 'And set your nest on the rock…'" (Numbers 24:21) All of this makes it pretty much certain that the Beit HaMikdash really did sit where the Dome of the Rock is today, and not elsewhere on the Temple Mount.
Based on this, the argument of some poskim that we should not ascend the entire Temple Mount since we do not know where exactly the Temple stood doesn't hold much water. Even if it did, we have to answer the other big question: does the Divine Presence remain where the Temple once stood? Such a position would strongly contradict a fundamental Midrash, and much more.
It is taught that when the Temple was destroyed, the Shekhinah moved on and took rest in the Kotel, the Western Wall. The Midrash prophesies that, therefore, the Western Wall would never be destroyed (see Eichah Rabbah 1:31, as well as Shemot Rabbah 2:2). This is another incredible prophecy that has come true: Jerusalem has been conquered and reconquered more than any other city in the world over the past two thousand years, and despite all the wars and changing regimes, the Western Wall remains. In fact, this is why Jews are so attached to the Western Wall, since this is where the Shekhinah currently lies, awaiting the return of the Temple.
As such, the Shekhinah probably does not remain where the Temple once stood. This is further supported by the fact that few would dare argue that the Shekhinah lies within the Dome of the Rock, a Muslim shrine. While there is no doubt that the ground retains its sanctity, it is safe to say there is no greater spiritual presence within the Dome of the Rock area—certainly no more than around the Western Wall, for which we have a clear source saying the Shekhinah rests there! Therefore, one can strongly argue that not only should Jews be allowed to enter the Temple Mount, we should even be allowed to enter the Dome of the Rock. It is worth mentioning here the position of the Raavad (Rabbi Avraham ben David, c. 1125-1198) who held that there is no longer any karet prohibition to go anywhere on the Temple Mount. Which brings us to the last big question:
Why have many gedolim today ruled against ascending the Temple Mount when the sources are quite clear that it should be permissible?
The Solution to Fear and Politics
In 1967, the Israeli army liberated Jerusalem during the Six-Day War. The commander of the Golani Brigade, Motta Gur, is the person who led the way. Gur believed that it was his life's purpose and mission to liberate Jerusalem. In fact, he predicted he would do so all the way back in 1961, in a conversation with Rabbi Shlomo Goren. Gur thought that the reason God put him on this planet was to return the Temple Mount to the Jewish people. His vision was realized in 1967, and it was Gur who loudly declared "Har HaBayit beYadeinu!" The recording of his voice was broadcast to jubilant Jews around the world. And that's not all.
Rabbi Shlomo Goren blows the shofar by the Western Wall during the 1967 liberation of Jerusalem.
When the Temple Mount was secured, Gur immediately ordered one of his soldiers to put an Israeli flag atop the Dome of the Rock. He wanted to make clear that Jews have regained complete sovereignty over their holiest site. Unfortunately, as soon as General Moshe Dayan saw the Israeli flag atop the Dome with his binoculars, he ordered it removed immediately. "Do you want to set the Middle East on fire?!" Dayan shouted into his radio. Dayan, like most of the Israeli government at the time, feared taking control of the Temple Mount. The fear was both of the Muslim reaction, as well as of the religious Jewish reaction. Rabbi Shlomo Goren, IDF chief rabbi, was also on-hand during the capture, and immediately began working on establishing a synagogue on the Temple Mount. (In fact, we know from historical sources that there used to be synagogues on the Temple Mount at various times during the Arab and Ottoman periods.) In response to this, Dayan instituted a ban on Jews establishing synagogues, or even just praying, on the Temple Mount.
Nonetheless, with the Temple Mount in our hands, countless Jews would undoubtedly want to ascend. Not only that, but religious Jews may want to start fulfilling other major laws. For instance, the korban pesach can be fulfilled on the Temple Mount, and does not require a Temple (and is permitted to be done even with tumat met, under certain conditions). On that note, it is vital to point out that the korban pesach is one of two positive mitzvot that results in karet if not fulfilled (the other is circumcision, see Keritot 1:3). So, while many rabbis are quick to point out that ascending the Temple Mount may result in a karet due to impurity, few mention that we are already in a de-facto state of karet since we cannot bring a korban pesach!
In short, the Israeli authorities feared what would happen if Jews were in charge of the Temple Mount: Packed synagogues? Numerous public mikvehs like in ancient times? Sheep sacrifices? Rebuilding the Temple? The ultra-secular government would never allow such a thing. They also didn't want to stand up to the Muslim threats nor deal with any possible Muslim violence, though there really was no way of knowing how the Muslim world would actually respond. So, the government quickly gave up sovereignty back to the Muslim Waqf.
The 'Mikveh Trail' of the Jerusalem Archaeological Park. Over 50 different mikvehs have been uncovered around the Temple Mount, including this one most recently. (Photo Credit: Shmuel Bar-Am)
Unfortunately, many of the rabbinic authorities at the time agreed with the secular Israeli authorities, and wished to maintain the status quo. I imagine some of them thought it best to just leave it to Mashiach to deal with, whenever he would arrive. Soon, the Chief Rabbinate put up a sign warning Jews not to ascend the Temple Mount. It seems the ban had more to do with fear and politics than it did with genuine halakhah. The result was that the Muslims then (and now) took it as a sign that the Jews do not truly want this holy place, and it only bolstered the Muslim claim to the site. In reality, the Muslims have no legitimate claim to the site whatsoever, and even Muslim scholars agree that Mohammad's "al-Quds" was nowhere near Jerusalem, and the Dome of the Rock holds no actual sanctity for Muslims. (Here's one, for example.)
A map of the Temple Mount, and the rough position of the original Temple Mount area ("Har HaBayis"). The Temple would have stood inside of the "Raised Platform", which pre-dates the Dome of the Rock. Credit: Gedalia Meyer and Henoch Messner. Read their excellent in-depth analysis of the Temple Mount issue here.
As such, Jews have to come together and make it clear that this is our holy site, and no one else's. We have to take back complete sovereignty; we have to show that this site matters to us, and that we will make use of it to its full extent. Jews have to ascend the Temple Mount as much as possible, and do as many mitzvot there as we can. If you are concerned about Temple sanctity and issues of purity, then ascend and stay on the periphery—but do ascend! (The Mishnah, Middot 2:1, tells us that the original Temple Mount was 500 by 500 amot, which is less than half the size of the current Temple Mount area, so there is little chance of accidentally stepping on holy ground if you stay on the periphery, for those who are concerned.)
If we continue to avoid the Temple Mount, we will never live to see the restoration of the Temple—which we all pray for daily. The words of our prayers are empty without action. Recall that God did not split the Sea until Nachshon dove into it. The people prayed and prayed to no avail. "Then God said to Moses: 'Why do you cry out to Me? Tell the Israelites to go forward!'" (Exodus 14:15) It is time to boldly go forward.
Our Sages had a principle, based on Psalms 119:26, et la'asot la'Hashem, heferu Toratecha! "It is a time to act for God, for they have violated your Torah!" The simple meaning of this verse is that since the Torah has been violated, it is a time to act. Our Sages interpreted this verse another way: at certain critical times, a revolutionary action is needed—one that might even violate the Torah! Rashi gives examples in his commentary on this verse. For instance, we see how Eliyahu brought a sacrifice on Mt. Carmel—which is forbidden based on the law given in this week's parasha that sacrifices could only be brought at the Temple in Jerusalem. He did so because it was a critical time to act, and so a small violation was necessary for the greater good of Israel.
Now is another such time to act. Everyone agrees, including all gedolim, that we are in the Ikvot haMashiach. Everyone also agrees that the world is spiritually at a tremendous low point, and Israel isn't doing so well either. We are at a moment that is very much like that of Eliyahu's time, and like that of the Exodus. It is an unmistakable et la'asot la'Hashem, a time to act for God.
This entry was posted in Archaeology & History, Jewish Law & Life Cycle, Mashiach & End of Days, Prophecy and tagged Chagigah (Tractate), Even Shetiya, Foundation Stone, Hillel and Shammai, Jerusalem, Jerusalem Temple, Karet, Keritot, Kohen Gadol, Korban Pesach, Middot (Tractate), Midrash Rabbah, Mikveh, Mishneh Torah, Moshe Dayan, Motta Gur, Nachshon, Nistarot d'Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, Pilgrimage, Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Shlomo Goren, Rambam, Re'eh, Shalosh Regalim, Shekhinah, Six-Day War, Temple Mount, Third Temple on August 25, 2022 by Efraim Palvanov.
Yosef haTzadik and Shimon haTzadik—What's the Connection?
This week we read Miketz, which continues to narrate the rise of Joseph. Of all the Biblical figures, Joseph alone carries the unique title haTzadik, "the righteous one". We refer to the patriarchs with the title Avinu, "our father"; to Moses as Rabbeinu, "our teacher", and to his successors as haNavi, "the prophet". Joseph stands apart as being Yosef HaTzadik. Certainly, all of the great Biblical figures were righteous, yet only Joseph carries the title.
At the same time, of all the Rabbinic figures, one is typically referred to as HaTzadik, and that would be Shimon HaTzadik, "the last of the Men of the Great Assembly" (Avot 1:2). Shimon might be considered the first or earliest Talmudic sage. The era of Zugot, "pairs" begins with him (and his student, Antigonus of Socho). His generation represented the transition from the era of Prophets to the era of Sages. So, we have two figures called "HaTzadik", one Biblical and one Rabbinical. We know that in Judaism there are no coincidences. So, what's the connection? Continue reading →
This entry was posted in Archaeology & History, Holidays and tagged Chanukah, Circumcision, Dinah, Hannah (Maccabees), Hashmoneans, Joseph, Knesset HaGedolah, Kohen Gadol, Megillat Ta'anit, Midrash, Midrash Ma'ase Chanukah, Modi'in, Nasi, Reincarnation, Seleucids, Shechem, Shimon (Simon), Shimon HaTzadik, Simon Maccabeus, Simon Thassi, Strategos, Syrian Greeks, Tikkun on December 1, 2021 by Efraim Palvanov.
Pinchas is Eliyahu—and So Much More
'Elijah Taken Up to Heaven'
The Midrash famously comments on the eponymous subject of this week's parasha that "Pinchas is Eliyahu" (Yalkut Shimoni I, 771). This statement is echoed throughout rabbinic texts and, with minor exceptions, all agree that Pinchas and Eliyahu were one and the same person. There are many reasons for this. With Pinchas, we read that God gave him a blessing of peace and "eternal priesthood", suggesting that Pinchas would forever be a kohen. We go on to read how Pinchas was the kohen gadol for centuries, throughout the period of Judges, and the Tanakh never records his death. Meanwhile, Eliyahu appears in the Tanakh quite suddenly without any background information, genealogy, or patronymic. He goes on to avoid death and be taken up to Heaven in a fiery chariot.
Most tellingly, we find a unique Scriptural statement used in relation to these two figures, and no one else. Pinchas is described as having stood up zealously for God (בקנאו את קנאתי, Numbers 25:11), and Eliyahu uses the same words when speaking to God, saying he was zealous for God (קנא קנאתי, I Kings 19:10). The Sages conclude that they must be one and the same zealot! If that's the case, why and how did Pinchas become Eliyahu? Continue reading →
This entry was posted in Kabbalah & Mysticism, Midrash and tagged 24000 Students, Abba Sikkara, Ahab and Jezebel, Angels, Bar Kochva Revolt, Book of Kings, Cozbi, Dinah, Elijah/Eliyahu, End of Days, Great Revolt, Joseph, Josephus, Kanaim, Kohen Gadol, Metatron, Philo, Pinchas, Pinchas (Parasha), Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Menachem Azariah de Fano, Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai, Rahab, Reincarnation, Rome, Samson, Sanhedrin, Sefer Gilgulei Neshamot, Seven Shepherds, Shechem, Shimon (Simon), Sicarii, Targum Yonatan, Turnus Rufus, Yalkut Shimoni, Yiftach, Zealots, Zimri on July 1, 2021 by Efraim Palvanov.


In plain language this would include history books focused on women, biographies of women, memoirs by women, essays by women and cultural books focused on women (body image, motherhood, etc.), and fiction that examines the place of women in society. I read a lot of books about women, their struggles and triumphs, so this is a perfect way to share, discover and read more books... Hey, I'm a Chick... I get it!
not call myself a feminist per say, but if being a feminist means "the belief of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes" guess I would be a feminist because I do believe we as women should enjoy the same opportunities as men without favoritism... on either side.
*Philogynist: read at least two books, including at least one nonfiction.
*Bluestocking: read at least five books, including at least two nonfiction.
*Suffragette: read at least eight books, including at least three nonfiction.
I would love to be a Suffragette! But I'm going to start slow here and be a Philogynist! So, I'll be reading at least two books, including a least one nonfiction book.
Alice I Have Been by Melanie Benjamin... Few works of literature are as universally beloved as Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. Now, in this spellbinding historical novel, we meet the young girl whose bright spirit sent her on an unforgettable trip down the rabbit hole–and the grown woman whose story is no less enthralling.
Women Unbound Blog you'll find lots of great book recommendations, so follow the link to check it all out! And a special thanks to the girls who are hosting this, Aarti of Booklust Blog, Care of Care's Online Book Club, and Eva of A Striped Armchair.
:) Great answers! Glad to see another person joining the challenge!
I just took a peek at your list for the challenge! Love it! I may have to pick up Abigail & John - I remember reading some great buzz about that book! I actually picked up Persepolis last night to read for the challenge and read straight thru til I was done... It was sitting on my shelf for almost a year- the receipt was still in it! :D It was so good, I can't believe it took me a year to get to it! That's what's great about these reading challenges- they motivate you to read the books on your shelves!
Yes, I immediately thought Persepolis would fit right in and the challenge just gave me the incentive to crack the spine. I'm glad because it was a great read. When memoirs are done well as a graphic novel they are so good and Marjane Satrapi did it well! The other graphic memoir I just loved was The Impostor's Daughter!
I look forward to seeing all your choices!
I like the idea of a graphic memoir and sounds like a great book. Good luck with the challenge, I have been tempted to sign up but I worry I won't find enough time. If I did do it I think I would try a few more Persephone titles, I just ordered one which is an early feminist novel called Consequences. Have fun with the challenge.
These challenges certainly are a big temptation aren't they! I haven't started my Persephone titles yet- I ordered 3, but may have to consider them for the challenge now that you just reminded me!
Giveaway: Dear John by Nicholas Sparks Audiobook!
Best Books of 2009... The Lists are out!
Giveaway: The Gate House by Nelson DeMille!


text:
Контрафорсът е архитектурна конструкция, изградена срещу или стърчаща от стена, служеща за поддържане или укрепване на стената. Контрафорсите са доста често срещани при по-старите сгради като средство за осигуряване на опора за противодействие на страничните сили, произтичащи от Покривните конструкции, които нямат адекватно укрепване.

Терминът "контрафорс" може да бъде синоним на подпора и често се използва, когато се отнася за язовири, подпорни стени и други структури, задържащи земята.

Ранни примери за контрафорси са открити в храма Eanna (в древен Урук), датиращи още от 4-то хилядолетие пр.н.е.

Терминология
В допълнение към аркбутаните и обикновените подпори, тухлените и зиданите контрафорси, които поддържат ъглите на стените, могат да бъдат класифицирани според техния план. Захващащият или затегнат контрафорс има L-образен план, заобикалящ ъгъла; ъгловият контрафорс има два контрафорса, които се срещат под ъгъл; контрафорсът за отклонение е подобен на ъгловия, но контрафорсите са отдалечени от ъгъла; диагоналният (или "френски") контрафорс е на 135° спрямо стените (45° от мястото, където би бил обикновеният контрафорс).

Галерията по-долу показва погледа отгоре надолу към различните видове контрафорси (тъмносиви), поддържащи ъгловата стена на конструкцията (светлосива).

Галерия

Вижте също

 Аркбутан
 Пиластър
 Кронщайн

Източници

Архитектурни елементи
Елементи на фортификации


FILE: Former Taliban members surrender their weapons during a ceremony marking their reconciliation with the government in Herat on November 15.
A group of 10 Afghan militants claiming to be trained by neighboring Iran to attack groundbreaking ceremonies for a major transnational gas pipeline in western Afghanistan have surrendered to the government.
Afghan officials paraded the militants before journalists in the western Afghan province of Herat, where they were mostly active in the rural district of Guzara near the provincial capital, also called Herat.
Muhammad Ayub Alizai, leader of the gang, said they were trained, equipped, and directed to sabotage events related to the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) gas pipeline. Amid elaborate security arrangements, leaders of the four countries are scheduled to inaugurate the Afghan part of the project in Herat on February 23.
Repeated calls by Radio Free Afghanistan to the Iranian Embassy in the Afghan capital, Kabul, seeking comments about the claims were not returned.
While senior Iranian officials have reiterated support for the Afghan government and denied supporting insurgents, Afghan officials in western and southern provinces bordering Iran have blamed Tehran for bankrolling the Taliban and other insurgent factions in the region.
Herat Governor Mohammad Asif Rahimi says the insurgents changed their minds at the last minute.
Deputy Afghan Interior Minister Murad Ali Murad says the Afghan intelligence service needs to investigate the claims made by the surrendering insurgents.
In July, a senior Afghan official accused Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) of supporting the Afghan Taliban.
The main Taliban organization in Afghanistan, however, has declared its support for TAPI and dubbed it an "important project" for the country.


In this thread you will find our monthly schedule for AJSA Xbox One Game Nights. Plan ahead and check out what we have games we're planning to feature this month. To view detailed descriptions, host information, and summaries of what games we're doing each week, please check out our Weekly Game Night Schedule.
All Xbox Game Nights are planned a month in advance.
Please be aware that Game Nights titles and times are subject to change.