The Causes and Aims of World War One

The Causes and Aims of World War One The traditional explanation for the start of World War 1 concerns a domino effect. Once one nation went to war, usually defined as Austria-Hungary’s decision to attack Serbia, a network of alliances which tied the great European powers into two halves dragged each nation unwillingly into a war which spiraled ever larger. This notion, taught to schoolchildren for decades, has now been largely rejected. In The Origins of the First World War, p. 79, James Joll concludes: The Balkan crisis demonstrated that even apparently firm, formal alliances did not guarantee support and co-operation in all circumstances.† This doesn’t mean that the formation of Europe into two sides, achieved by treaty in the late nineteenth / early twentieth centuries, isn’t important, just that the nations were not trapped by them. Indeed, while they divided Europe’s major powers into two halves - The ‘Central Alliance’ of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy, and the Triple Entente of France, Britain and Germany - Italy actually changed sides. In addition, the war was not caused, as some socialists and anti-militarists have suggested, by capitalists, industrialists or arms manufacturers looking to profit from conflict. Most industrialists stood to suffer in a war as their foreign markets were reduced. Studies have shown that industrialists did not pressure governments into declaring war, and governments did not declare war with one eye on the arms industry. Equally, governments did not declare war simply to try and cover up domestic tensions, like the independence of Ireland or the rise of socialists. Context: The Dichotomy of Europe in 1914 Historians recognize that all the major nations involved in the war, on both sides, had large proportions of their population who were not only in favor of going to war, but were agitating for it to happen as a good and necessary thing. In one very important sense, this has to be true: as much as politicians and the military might have wanted the war, they could only fight it with the approval – greatly varying, maybe begrudging, but present - of the millions of soldiers who went off to fight. In the decades before Europe went to war in 1914, the culture of the main powers was split in two. On the one hand, there was a body of thought – the one most often remembered now - that war had been effectively ended by progress, diplomacy, globalization, and economic and scientific development. To these people, who included politicians, large-scale European war had not just been banished, it was impossible. No sane person would risk war and ruin the economic interdependence of the globalizing world. At the same time, each nation’s culture was shot through with strong currents pushing for war: armaments races, belligerent rivalries and a struggle for resources. These arms races were massive and expensive affairs  and were nowhere clearer than the naval struggle between Britain and Germany, where each tried to produce ever more and larger ships. Millions of men went through the military via conscription, producing a substantial portion of the population who had experienced military indoctrination. Nationalism, elitism, racism and other belligerent thoughts were widespread, thanks to greater access to education than before, but an education that was fiercely biased. Violence for political ends was common  and had spread from Russian socialists to British women’s rights campaigners. Before war even began in 1914, the structures of Europe were breaking down and changing. Violence for your country was increasingly justified, artists rebelled and sought new modes of expression, new urban cultures were challenging the existing social order. For many, war was seen as a test, a proving ground, a way to define yourself which promised a masculine identity and an escape from the ‘boredom’ of peace. Europe was essentially primed for people in 1914 to welcome war as a way to recreate their world through destruction. Europe in 1913 was essentially a tense, warmongering place where, despite a current of peace and obliviousness, many felt war was desirable. The Flashpoint for War: the Balkans In the early twentieth century, the Ottoman Empire was collapsing, and a combination of established European powers and new nationalist movements were competing to seize parts of the Empire. In 1908 Austria-Hungary took advantage of an uprising in Turkey to seize full control of Bosnia-Herzegovina, a region they had been running but which was officially Turkish. Serbia was livid at this, as they wished to control the region, and Russia was also angry. However, with Russia unable to act militarily against Austria – they simply hadn’t recovered enough from the disastrous Russo-Japanese war – they sent a diplomatic mission to the Balkans to unite the new nations against Austria. Italy was next to take advantage and they fought Turkey in 1912, with Italy gaining North African colonies. Turkey had to fight again that year with four small Balkan countries over land there – a direct result of Italy making Turkey look weak and Russia’s diplomacy - and when Europe’s other major powers intervened no one finished satisfied. A further Balkan war erupted in 1913, as Balkan states and Turkey warred over territory again to try and make a better settlement. This ended once more with all partners unhappy, although Serbia had doubled in size. However, the patchwork of new, strongly nationalistic Balkan nations largely considered themselves to be Slavic, and looked to Russia as a protector against nearby empires like Austro-Hungary and Turkey; in turn, some in Russia looked at the Balkans as a natural place for a Russian-dominated Slavic group. The great rival in the region, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, was afraid this Balkan nationalism would accelerate the breakdown of its own Empire  and was afraid Russia was going to extend control over the region instead of it. Both were looking for a reason to extend their power in the region, and in 1914 an assassination would give that reason. The Trigger: Assassination In 1914, Europe had been on the brink of war for several years. The trigger was provided on June 28th, 1914, when  Archduke Franz Ferdinand  of Austria-Hungary was visiting Sarajevo in Bosnia on a trip designed to irritate Serbia. A loose supporter of the ‘ Black Hand’, a Serbian nationalist group, was able to assassinate the Archduke after a comedy of errors. Ferdinand wasn’t popular in Austria – he had ‘only’ married a noble, not a royal - but they decided it was the perfect excuse to threaten Serbia. They planned to use an extremely  one-sided  set of demands to provoke a war – Serbia was never meant to actually agree to the demands – and fight to end Serbian independence, thus strengthening the Austrian position in the Balkans. Austria expected the war with Serbia, but in case of war with Russia, they checked with Germany beforehand if it would support them. Germany replied yes, giving Austria a ‘blank check’. The Kaiser and other civilian leaders believed swift action by Austria would seem like the result of emotion and the other Great Powers would stay out, but Austria prevaricated, eventually sending their note too late for it to look like anger. Serbia accepted all but a few clauses of the ultimatum, but not all, and Russia was willing to go to war to defend them. Austria-Hungary had not deterred Russia by involving Germany, and Russia had not deterred Austria-Hungary by risking the Germans: bluffs on both sides were called. Now the balance of power in Germany shifted to the military leaders, who finally had what they had been coveting for several years: Austria-Hungary, which had seemed loathe to support Germany in a war, was about to embark on a war in which Germany could take the initiat ive and turn into the much greater war it desired, while crucially retaining Austrian aid, vital for the  Schlieffen Plan. What followed was the five major nations of Europe – Germany and Austria-Hungary on one side, France, Russian and Britain on the other – all pointing to their treaties and alliances in order to enter into the war many in each nation had wanted. The diplomats increasingly found themselves sidelined and unable to stop events as the military took over. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia to see if they could win a war before Russia arrived, and Russia, who pondered just attacking Austria-Hungary,  mobilized  against both them and Germany, knowing this meant Germany would attack France. This let Germany claim victim status and mobilize, but because their plans called for a quick war to knock Russia’s ally France out before Russian troops arrived, they declared war on France, who declared war in response. Britain hesitated and then joined, using Germany’s invasion of Belgium to mobilize the support of the doubters in Britain. Italy, who had an agreement with Germany, refused to do anything. Many of these decisions  were  increasingly taken by the military, who gained ever more control of events, even from national leaders who sometimes got left behind: it took a while for the Tsar to be talked round by pro-war military, and the Kaiser wavered as the military carried on. At one point the Kaiser instructed Austria to cease trying to attack Serbia, but people in Germany’s military and government first ignored him, and then convinced him it was too late for anything but peace. Military ‘advice’ dominated over diplomatic. Many felt helpless, others elated. There were people who tried to prevent the war at this late stage, but many others were infected with jingoism and pushed on. Britain, who had the least explicit obligations, felt a moral duty to defend France, wished to put down German imperialism, and technically had a treaty guaranteeing Belgium’s safety. Thanks to the empires of these key belligerents, and thanks to other nations entering the conflict, the war soon involved much of the globe. Few expected the conflict to last more than a few months, and the public was generally excited. It would last until 1918, and kill millions. Some of those who expected a long war were Moltke, the head of the German army, and Kitchener, a key figure in the British establishment. War Aims: Why each Nation went to War Each nation’s government had slightly different reasons for going, and these are explained below: Germany: A Place in the Sun and Inevitability Many members of the German military and government were convinced that a war with Russia was inevitable given their competing interests in the land between them and the Balkans. But they had also concluded, not without justification, that Russia was militarily much weaker now than it would be should it continue to industrialize and modernize its army. France was also increasing its military capacity – a law making conscription last three years was passed against opposition – and Germany had managed to get stuck in a  naval race  with Britain. To many influential Germans, their nation was surrounded and stuck in an arms race it would lose if allowed to continue. The conclusion was that this inevitable war must be fought sooner, when it could be won, than later. War would also enable Germany to dominate more of Europe and expand the core of the German Empire east and west. But Germany wanted more. The German Empire was relatively young and lacked a key element that the other major empires – Britain, France, Russia – had: colonial land. Britain owned large parts of the world, France owned a lot too, and Russia had expanded deep into Asia. Other less powerful powers owned colonial land, and Germany coveted these extra resources and power. This craving for colonial land became known as them wanting ‘A Place in the Sun’. The German government thought that a victory would allow them to gain some of their rivals’ land. Germany was also determined to keep Austria-Hungary alive as a viable ally to their south  and support them in a war if necessary. Russia: Slavic Land and Government Survival Russia believed that the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires were collapsing  and that there would be a reckoning over who would occupy their territory. To many Russia, this reckoning would be largely in the Balkans between a pan-Slavic alliance, ideally dominated by (if not entirely controlled by) Russia, against a pan-German Empire. Many in the Russian court, in the ranks of the military officer class, in the central government, in the press and even among the educated, felt Russia should enter and win this clash. Indeed, Russia was afraid that if they didn’t act in decisive support of the Slavs, as they had failed to do in the Balkan Wars, that Serbia would take the Slavic initiative and destabilize Russia. In addition, Russia had lusted over Constantinople and the Dardanelles for centuries, as half of Russia’s foreign trade traveled through this narrow region controlled by the Ottomans. War and victory would bring greater trade security. Tsar Nicholas II was cautious, and a faction at court advised him against war, believing the nation would implode and revolution would follow. But equally, the Tsar was being advised by people who believed that if Russia didn’t go to war in 1914, it would be a sign of weakness which would lead to a fatal undermining of the imperial government, leading to revolution or invasion. France: Revenge and Re-conquest France felt it had been humiliated in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 – 71, in which Paris had been besieged and the French Emperor had been forced to personally surrender  with  his army. France was burning to restore its reputation and, crucially, gain back the rich industrial land of Alsace and Lorraine which Germany had won off her. Indeed, the French plan for war with Germany, Plan XVII, focused on gaining this land above everything else. Britain: Global Leadership Of all the European powers, Britain was arguably the least tied into the treaties which divided Europe into two sides. Indeed, for several years in the late nineteenth century, Britain had consciously kept out of European affairs, preferring to focus on its global empire while keeping one eye on the balance of power on the continent. But Germany had challenged this  because it too wanted a global empire, and it too wanted a dominant navy. Germany and Britain thus began a naval arms race in which politicians, spurred on by the press, competed to build ever stronger navies. The tone was one of violence, and many felt that Germany’s upstart aspirations would have to be forcibly slapped down. Britain was also worried that a Europe dominated by an enlarged Germany, as victory in a major war would bring, would upset the balance of power in the region. Britain also felt a moral obligation to aid France and Russia because, although the treaties they’d all signed didn’t require Britain to fight, it had basically agreed to, and if Britain remained out either her former allies would finish victorious but extremely bitter, or beaten and unable to support Britain. Equally playing on their mind was a belief that they had to be involved to maintain great power status. As soon as war began, Britain also had designs on German colonies. Austria-Hungary:  Long-Coveted  Territory Austria-Hungary was desperate to project more of its crumbling power into the Balkans, where a power vacuum created by the decline of the Ottoman Empire had allowed nationalist movements to agitate and fight. Austria was particularly angry at Serbia, in which a Pan-Slavic nationalism was growing which Austria feared would lead to either Russian domination in the Balkans, or the total ousting of Austro-Hungarian power. The destruction of Serbia was deemed vital in keeping Austria-Hungary together, as there were near twice as many Serbs within the empire as were in Serbia (over seven million, versus over three million). Revenging the death of  Franz Ferdinand  was low on the list of causes. Turkey: Holy War for Conquered Land Turkey entered into secret negotiations with Germany and declared war on the Entente in October 1914. They wanted to regain land which had been lost in both the Caucuses and Balkans, and dreamed of gaining Egypt and Cyprus from Britain. They claimed to be fighting a holy war to justify this. War Guilt / Who was to Blame? In 1919, in the Treaty of Versailles between the victorious allies and Germany, the latter had to accept a ‘war guilt’ clause which explicitly stated that the war was Germany’s fault. This issue – who was responsible for the war – has been debated by historians and politicians ever since. Over the years trends have come and gone, but the issues seem to have polarised like this: on one side, that Germany with their blank cheque to Austria-Hungary and rapid, two front mobilization was chiefly to blame, while on the other was the presence of a war mentality and colonial hunger among nations who rushed to into to extend their empires, the same mentality which had already caused repeated problems before war finally broke out. The debate has not broken down ethnic lines: Fischer blamed his German ancestors in the sixties, and his thesis has largely become the mainstream view. The Germans were certainly convinced war was needed soon, and the Austro-Hungarians were convinced they had to crush Serbia to survive; both were prepared to start this war. France and Russia were slightly different, in that they weren’t prepared to start the war, but went to lengths to make sure they profited when it occurred, as they thought it would. All five Great Powers were thus prepared to fight a war, all fearing the loss of their Great Power status if they backed down. None of the Great Powers was invaded without a chance to step back. Some historians go further: David Fromkin’s ‘Europe’s Last Summer’ makes a powerful case that the world war can be pinned on Moltke, head of the German General  Staff, a man who knew it would be a terrible, world changing war, but thought it inevitable and started it anyway. But  Joll  makes an interesting point: â€Å"What is more important than the immediate responsibility for the actual outbreak of war is the state of mind that was shared by all belligerents, a state of mind that envisaged the probable imminence of war and its absolute necessity in certain circumstances.† (Joll  and Martel, The Origins of the First World War, p. 131.) The Dates and Order of the Declarations of War

Performance Management Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2250 words

Performance Management - Essay Example 1. Focus on Performing Best to Achieve Organizational Objectives Link between Individuals, Team and Organizational Objectives Every organization hires and employs individuals who possess different sets of skills and are expert in their respective fields. These individuals are provided training to understand and learn what is required from them to put in their respective jobs, so that the organizational goals and objectives can be achieved. The objectives of an individual are to put their best efforts in their work so that they can earn good and move up in organizational hierarchy. Team’s objectives are to work as a unit to achieve organization’s objectives whereas the organization’s objective is to maximize the stakeholder’s wealth by performing well. The objectives of an individual are linked to the objectives of team, as when the individual being a member of the team, performs well, it will put positive impact on the moral of the team. When each individu al in a team performs well, it will be easier to achieve the objectives of the team and consequently, the working relationship of individuals within a team will help the organization to achieve its objectives. Being a potential manager or a leader of team, I would focus on working with each individual in my team separately. In my opinion, it is essential for me to discuss work related issues and solutions with every individual of my team so that the team members can get motivated and work towards achieving the organizational objectives. Selection of Individual and Team Objectives Individual objectives are selected after the analysis of each individual’s personal competencies and skills, whereas the team objectives are selected after considering the nature of work that is required to be performed by the team. There are numerous reasons for setting different objectives for a team and individual to achieve. Bering on a managerial position, I would set different objectives for my team and the individuals who are member of my team. Considering the fact that organizational objectives becomes difficult to achieve due to the knowledge, skills and abilities that are required from a single person. Provided that I would select a team of diversified individual, it will provide me a chance to fill the gaps left by one individual, by utilizing the skills of other individual who have skill to fill that gap. Areas of Individual and Team Responsibility To achieve organization’s objectives, a manger must create a distinctive line between the responsibilities of team and the individuals within that team. If I were the manager, I would have based my leadership style prescribed by John Adair (Adair 2012). As proposed by Adair, an action centered leader will identify aims and vision of a group, gather resources, create a plan, allot responsibilities, set standards and control the flow of activities. Being a manager of a team, I would be responsible for establishing ob jectives and reaching to a point where my team members agree with my work method and than work towards achieving the objectives. On the other hand, being a manger for individuals in my team, I would assess personal skill, problems, highs and lows of every individual and than assort individual responsibilities accordingly. Need to Trust and Support An environment where every individual of a team have a right to speak and share ideas, develops self-confidence and intrinsic motivation among the individuals. As being a manager, I would pay especial consideration towards winning trust of my team and individua

The negative effects on children whose parents push them in sports Term Paper

The negative effects on children whose parents push them in sports - Term Paper Example 397). However, a child’s perception of parental support can greatly influence how or if the child obtains the benefits associated with sport (Lerner, Lerner and Finkelstein 2001, 706). Observable negative effects of parental pressure on children in sport include low self-esteem, increase fear of failing, an increase in physical complaints/illness/injury, feeling inadequate, feeling guilty, anxious and general discontent with sport participation (Lerner, Lerner and Finkelstein 2001, 706). In order to demonstrate the negative effects of parental pressure on children’s participation in sport an exploration and analysis of the literature on the importance of parental pressure and support in the child’s sport participation is conducted. A survey was distributed among 6th grade students at a local elementary school and their parents to compare their different perspectives on sports. The findings in both the literature review and the empirical research study are discussed with general suggestions for parents relative to how they approach parenting in terms of supporting their children’s participation in sports. This research study examines the negative effects of parents pushing their children’s participation in sport. As a lead into this study, it is important to underline the different perspectives parents and children have of sport participation. Studies suggest that children engage in sport for a variety of reasons. For some studies children sport participation is aligned with acceptance by peers (Horn 2008, 279). Other studies suggest that children engage in sport activities for the sheer excitement of winning and competing or to simply improve their social and physical skills (Grolnick 2003, 135). For younger children sport is merely a method for playing and having fun (Laker 2000, 29). Inevitably, studies agree for the most part that how

The morality of hunting Essay Example for Free

The morality of hunting Essay Do animals have feelings? We may never know for sure, but for those of us who think they do, there are animal rights groups. For those of us who dont think so, or just dont care, theres indifference and theres hunting. The morality of sport and commercial hunting has been in question for centuries. I could open a economy size can of worms about fox hunting in England, whale hunting in Japan, and tiger hunting in Africa. I think its safe to say that most of us are supportive of protecting endangered species, but what about the plentiful fauna of Missouri? Chock full of birds, fish, deer, and rodents, should they be protected as well? In November of 1997, singer Fiona Apple teamed up with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), to speak out against Butterball and their How To Cook A Turkey Hotline. Please join me in calling Butterball, implored Apple, to tell them there is no proper way to kill and cook these beautiful birds. Okay, so maybe you love animals but youre not a vegetarian. The next question is about the affects of one killed or injured animal on many. Take deer for example. Many hunters claim that any deer that escapes from a hunt later returns to the herd without suffering any ill effects. Even if they dont get away, there is no damage done to the population and the hunters have done nothing but their part in keeping populations to a healthy low. Apparently, according to the League Against Cruel Sports, this is entirely untrue. The babies that eventually die of starvation are lost along with their mothers. They also same that by the end of a long day of running for their life, the deer may have lost so much body heat that they succumb to hypothermia and pneumonia. Another cause of deer fatalities during hunting season is myopathy, which is due to the stress and over-exertion of a long pursuit. The lactic acid builds up, which causes extreme pain, it breaks down muscle tissue. Death finally comes, usually as a result of kidney failure. The organizations website also lists a pack of lies. They are quotes which many have believed to be true but by scientific evidence and statistics, really arent. Farmers currently tolerate deer on their farms and suffer consequent crop losses because the deer provide them with ? sport as a compensation. Without this incentive, farmers would not tolerate deer on their land and would shoot the deer lawfully by day and unlawfully at night. The League disproves this by a poll taken in February 1985 which found that 58% of farmers either opposed or had no view on hunting Of course there are may others who would argue this. One of them being C. M. Dixon whose website is entitled The Banning Of Hunting Is An Affront To Freedom. Here Dixon states that, The concept of personal freedom means the ability to choose ones lifestyle activities and pursue those activities without hindrance from other individuals or the state? While I can quite understand that a number of people find the concept of hunting objectionable, in order for such a ban to have merit in a free and democratic society, the proponents must go one step further and demonstrate why the continued pursuit of hunting is contrary to the public interest or that those members of our society that indulge in hunting are impinging on the freedom of others. This they cannot do. While he is commenting on a proposed ban on fox hunting in England, his views are relevant here. Dont agree with his opinion? Heres a fact. Without hunting, wildlife populations will grow to an unhealthy size and the same number of animals that would have been killed during hunting season, if not more, will die slow deaths of disease and starvation. They will invade farmland and cross roads to get there. Although one of these probably affects you indirectly, and the other one affects you as directly as a set of antlers through your windshield.

John Steinbecks Experience and Writing Essay -- Authors

At the age of thirteen, most children are still naà ¯ve to their future self-professions. However, in 1915, a boy at the mere age of thirteen was encouraged by his English teacher to become a writer (French 1). Unbeknownst to the teacher, the boy would arguably become a writer on equal terms to D.H. Lawrence, John Keats, or William Faulkner. The boy in question is John Steinbeck. Though Steinbeck’s era was a time of isolation and sorrow, between the economy and global conflicts the desperate times allowed many opportunities for Steinbeck. For example, he would intentionally immerse himself in unfavorable conditions that others experienced without a choice. In particular, the experiences with the Great Depression and World War II allowed John Steinbeck to change the world with a pen and paper. Perhaps the biggest influence in Steinbeck’s writing can be seen from his experiences of the Great Depression while he lived in California. Before Steinbeck made his living as a writer, he would experience the world from various points of views as he worked jobs such as a surveyor, bricklayer, ranch hand, and a store clerk (John Steinbeck). Seeing the world from the perspective of a hard laborer allowed Steinbeck to form his initial views that would become the basis for his early stories. The crisis that grasped California during 1930-1936 was the Dust Bowl, which according to a website dedicated to the great depression states â€Å"a million acres of farmland across the Plains became worthless due to severe drought and overfarming† (Causes of). Because of the despairing situation, Steinbeck was able to experience the severity first hand on many occasions. In fact, in 1935, Steinbeck was allowed to spend a week in Weedpatch where a camp wa... ... to realize before it is too late. Works Cited Bloom, Harold. John Steinbeck. New York: Bloom's Literary Criticism, 2008. Print. "Causes Of The Great Depression | The Great Depression | Causes, Effects, Timelines." Causes Of The Great Depression | The Great Depression | Causes, Effects, Timelines. Croft Communications. Web. 09 May 2012. French, Warren G. John Steinbeck's Nonfiction Revisited. New York: Twayne, 1996. Print. John (Ernst) Steinbeck." Contemporary Literary Criticism Select. Detroit: Gale, 2008. Literature Resource Center. Web. 7 May 2012. Noble, Donald R. The Steinbeck Question: New Essays in Criticism. Troy, NY: Whitston Pub., 1993. Print. Tedlock, E. W., and C. V. Wicker. Steinbeck and His Critics. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico, 1957. Print. Swisher, Clarice. Readings on John Steinbeck. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven, 1996. Print.

Nutrition concepts and controversies

Mammals, like humans, have a unique way of bearing an offspring. They carry this offspring in their womb for several days or months until their offspring are ready to face the world. This process is called pregnancy. In scientific terms, pregnancy is the phase from conception until birth wherein a fertilized develops into a fetus inside a mother’s womb. Pregnancy is a delicate situation, and needs utmost care and attention. During pregnancy, a mother is exposed to a lot of risks, so risky practices should be avoided. One practice that should be avoided is doing strenuous sports, particularly sports with risks of falling. A fall would cause an impact, and this impact may initiate the separation of placenta from the uterus, a condition known as placenta abruptio. This might cause an excessive loss of blood to the mother. Death to the unborn child would be the other risk. Another habit that should be avoided is smoking. This increases the risk of miscarriage for the mother, and possible health problems and lower birth weight for the offspring. This might also trigger an event known as sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).   Another practice that should be avoided is drinking alcohol. A drunken mother is more prone to accidental fall which may trigger a miscarriage, and therefore excessive loss of blood or death of the unborn child. The child might also have some health problems after birth like a heart problem. Drinking great amounts of caffeine are also strictly prohibited for pregnant mothers. Caffeine affects the nervous system, making you more nervous, irritable and unable to sleep. Too much caffeine in a pregnant mother’s body might increase the likelihood of a miscarriage. This would either lead to excessive bleeding and loss of blood to the mother, and death to the offspring. Lastly, a pregnant mom should also avoid hot bath tubs and sauna baths/steams. These practices increase the core body temperature of the mother. This would increase heart rate to increase the blood flow on the body. It makes the heart work even harder and therefore might result to fainting. The increased heat in the environment of the fetus might also have a significant impact on the health of the child after birth. Reference: Children and Youth Health. (2007). Pregnancy – risks. Retrieved May 1, 2008 from http://www.cyh.com/HealthTopics/HealthTopicDetails.aspx?p=114&np=304&id=1964   

The Powerful Praetor Roman Magistrate

A praetor was one of the greater Roman magistrates with imperium or legal power. They led armies, presided in law courts, and administered the law. Judging matters between citizens was the job of one specific magistrate, the praetor urbanus (city praetor). Since he was in charge of the city, he was only allowed to leave the city for a period of up to 10 days. For matters outside Rome, the praetor peregrinus settled cases among foreigners. Over the years, they added additional praetors to handle matters in the provinces, but originally, there were two praetors. Two more were added in 227 B.C. when Rome annexed Sicily and Sardinia; then, two more were added for Hispania (Spain) in 197 B.C. Later, Sulla and Julius Caesar added even more praetors. Responsibilities A costly responsibility for the praetor was the production of the public games. Running for praetor was part of the cursus honorum. The rank of praetor was second only to the position of consul. Like the consuls, praetors were entitled to sit on the honored sella curulis, the folding curule chair, traditionally made of ivory. Like the other magistracies, a praetor was a member of the senate. Just as there were proconsuls for the period after their year as consuls, so there were also propraetors. Propraetors and proconsuls served as governors of provinces after their terms in office. Roman Magistrates With Imperium Examples: Let the praetor be judge of the law in private actions, with power of passing sentence-he is the proper guardian of civil jurisprudence. Let him have as many colleagues, of equal power, as the senate think necessary, and the commons allow him.Let two magistrates be invested with sovereign authority, and be entitled praetors, judges, or consuls, in respect of presiding, judging, or counselling, according to the nature of the case. Let them have absolute authority over the army, for the safety of the people is the supreme law. This magistracy should not be determined in less than ten years-regulating the duration by the annual law.Cicero De Leg.III Before Sulla added functions, the praetor presided in cases of quaestiones perpetuae, the cases of: repetundaeambitus, majestaspeculatus Sulla added falsum, de sicariis et veneficis, and de parricidis. About half of the candidates for praetor during the last generation of the Republic came from consular families, according to Erich S. Gruen, in The Last Generation of the Roman Republic. The praetor Urbanus P. Licinius Varus fixed the date of the Ludi Apollinaris.