text:
Diplomacy/Alliances

Cadillac Alliances
These alliances are tried and true. They are seen so many times that they have been named by the Diplomacy community.

Anschluss (Austria + Germany)
Named after the Anschluss, the annexation of Austria into Nazi Germany in 1938. Probably the most natural alliance on the board, for Germany is the only power Austria can count on, this alliance varies in every game. Sometimes a full alliance against Russia, sometimes just a non-aggression pact, these two powers must stand back to back in the game. A stab in this alliance spells doom for both, for attacking the most natural ally in the game results in wasting of armies pulled from other fronts. The first target is to either have Germany work in the west while contributing a few armies against Russia or Italy. Once one power in the East has fallen, the alliance is free to continue against the other (usually Turkey comes after Russia, then Italy). Austria has only slightly more to gain in the alliance, for it cannot influence the west until it breaks through Italy or the Mediterranean, but generally, the two powers are on very equal terms. A stab from the other power is unlikely in this alliance, which helps build it in most situations. Some variations for Germany are: Bohemian Variant (A Ber-Kie, A Mun-Boh) Burgundy Variant (A Ber-Kie, A Mun-Bur) Ruhr Variant (A Ber-Mun, A Mun-Ruhr) Silesia Variant (A Ber-Kie, A Mun-Sil) Tyrolean Variant (A Ber-Kie, A Mun-Tyr)

The Sealion (France + Germany + Russia vs England)
The Sealion opening, a joint Franco-German-Russian opening against England, is named after 1940 Operation Sea Lion, Nazi Germany's plan for the invasion of Britain which was eventually called off after the Nazis lost the Battle for Britain. Just as in real life, the goal is to use forces in France and Germany to launch a sudden excursion into the waters around England in order to seize control of them, then land troops on the island to bring down England -- a power which is traditionally extremely difficult to eliminate -- in very short order. Russia provides support for the operation by blocking England from Norway and is typically awarded Norway as a prize for this support.

The negotiations are relatively easy; France negotiates a DMZ in the English Channel and France and Germany come to some agreement on Burgundy (sometimes a DMZ, other times allowing France to move to Burgundy as a feint). There are several pitfalls to consider.

 * 1)  Russia's involvement : Russia can profit nicely from acquiring Norway and Sweden, but if England falls too fast, Germany will be ready to hit Russia before Russia sees profits from the campaign in Southeastern Europe. Russia may decide to opt out of a Sealion altogether and certainly has no impetus to accelerate England's demise once it acquires Norway.
 * 2)  England's reactions : An experienced England may recognize what's going on and allow Russia to take Norway (in line with (A.)), using its units instead to bounce France or Germany out of a Lowland center while support holding the North Sea. There's little the Sealion coalition can do if England realizes the Sealion is developing; the trick is to make sure that France (in S01 diplomacy phase) and Germany (in A01 diplomacy phase) convey their peaceful intentions to England very clearly and convincingly so that England doesn't catch on.
 * 3)  The southeast : Both France and Russia could come into trouble in 1901 with such a commitment north. Italy moving to Piedmont in S01 can cause France some serious problems, especially if it leads to France guessing wrong in A01 on whether to bounce Italy from Marseilles or not. A one-build France will be particularly vulnerable to an Italian focusing west. Likewise, Russia has to pull one of its armies north; the result is, typically, that Russia seeks to demilitarize Galicia with Austria, so that it can send Warsaw to Ukraine to secure Rumania. Russia is therefore dependent on Austrian goodwill. (Turkey can also cause problems for Russia, but the result from Turkey's point of view is no different than the standard Russian opening, so the threat is no greater than usual.) If Austria or Italy decide to cause trouble or seem to be causing trouble during S01 negotiations, the Sealion is not an attractive option.

The Sealion is a powerful opening with relatively low-maintenance diplomacy requirements; aside from a successful Italian(-Russian) attack on Austria in 1901, it is likely the most rapid dismemberment of a power in the entire game, leaving a power with a single center after 1902 and possibly out of the game by 1903.

The Lepanto (Austria + Italy)
The Lepanto System, a joint Italian-Austrian opening system against Turkey, is named after the Battle of Lepanto in 1571, a naval clash between the Ottoman Empire and the Holy League (which at the time included the Spanish Empire, in Italy, and the Habsburg Empire, in Austria). The opening (which, for those curious, is not based on the actual events of the Battle of Lepanto) has Italy convoy an army to Tunisia via Ionian Sea in Autumn 1901, while Austria captures Serbia and Greece; then in 1902, Austria seizes Bulgaria while Italy builds a fleet and sets up a convoy line to Syria. If the opening succeeds, then Turkey is often eliminated by 1903 or 1904, a remarkable feat considering the defensive prowess of the Ottoman state. The bulk of the traditional opening system's moves are Italian, and so the opening can be attempted by Italy, without Austrian support; however, neither side of the equation can afford the opening without at least nonaggression from the other, and an outright alliance is preferred.

The Spring 1901 negotiations focus on a couple of key relationships: Austria's relationship with Russia and Italy's relationship with France. (Germany is practically a given not to interfere with Italy and Austria, but some focus on keeping up good relations with Germany is required.) Austria should keep Russia out of Galicia at all costs in 1901; as long as Austria doesn't have trouble from Russia in 1901, Turkey has little to no chance to resist the Austrian assault on Bulgaria in 1902. Italy's relationship with France is most vital: France can ruin the opening with an early Mediterranean excursion, but fortunately for Italy, simply offering nonaggression to France is often sufficient, because France usually has more pressing matters to attend with England and Germany. Austria and Italy also should coordinate to convince Russia that Turkey is going to the Black Sea, and vice versa; it often takes very little effort to get Russia and Turkey to bounce in the Black Sea in Spring 1901, but that bounce is vital because a Turkey which can get its fleet into the Aegean Sea by Winter 1901 can defeat the Lepanto without much trouble.

 * S01:
 * Austria: F Tri -> Alb, A Vie -> Gal (bounce), A Bud -> Ser
 * Italy: F Nap -> ION, A Rom -> Apu, A Ven H*
 * Turkey: F Ank -> BLA (bounce), A Con -> Bul, A Smy -> Con
 * Russia: F Sev -> BLA (bounce), A Mos -> Ukr, A War -> Gal (bounce)

The next step is pretty easy; the A01 moves practically write themselves. Aside from maintaining Franco-Italian peace, there's not much new to do in A01.

 * A01:
 * Austria: A Ser S F Alb -> Gre, A Vie -> Gal (bounce)
 * Italy: F ION C A Apu -> Tun, A Ven H*
 * Turkey: F Ank -> BLA, A Bul -> Gre (bounce), A Con -> Bul (bounce)
 * Russia: F Sev S A Ukr -> Rum, A War -> Gal (bounce)

Austria builds all armies, Italy builds a fleet in Naples. Turkey may build a fleet in Smyrna, which should be watched carefully for, because it can pose a very real danger to the success of the Lepanto; however, there is a good chance that Turkey will move that fleet to the Aegean Sea to contest Austrian control of Greece. Careful diplomacy between Austria and Turkey may induce Turkey to build an army in Smyrna to attack Russia; this is best because the Lepanto then has a high chance of success. And if Russia can be convinced to support the fleet to Rumania instead of the army, then Austria and Italy practically have a war stirred up already: Russia typically follows this with a fleet build in Sevastopol, and Turkey, knowing this, is forced to build a fleet in Ankara to defend the Black Sea.

S02 is the pivotal turn and it is absolutely vital that everything with France and Germany is squared away. France needs to be looking at England or Germany as an initial target, and Germany simply needs to be reassured of peace. Russia is fairly harmless at this point because Austria can still stall Russia out of Galicia.

 * S02:
 * Austria: F Gre S A Ser -> Bul, A Tri -> Ser, A Bud S A Vie -> Gal (bounce)
 * Italy: F Nap -> ION, F ION -> EMS, A Tun H, A Ven H*
 * Russia: A Rum S A War -> Gal (bounce), F Sev S A Rum, A Mos -> Ukr
 * Turkey: F Smy -> AES, A Bul -> Gre (fails, dislodged), A Con -> Bul (bounce), F BLA -> Con (bounce)

And in A02, Austria can typically force Rumania while preserving Galicia (if war with Russia is desired) and Bulgaria, or simply stick to the objectives, while Italy has an open convoy to Syria. Turkey collapses in about two more years with or without Russian help.

Typical partition of spoils sees Italy claim all three Turkish home centers, while Austria turns next to Russia. Austria is understood to accept a marginal share of the spoils from Turkey in exchange for enhanced security (by consolidating control of the Balkans) and peace to look toward Russia for more serious gains. Italy uses its builds to go west against France. Of course, both powers are in an excellent position to attack one another after the fall of Turkey; the Lepanto allows both countries to be flexible in post-Ottoman foreign policy.

There are many variations on the Lepanto, which is why it is referred to as the Lepanto System instead of the Lepanto Opening. Each one requires discussion of about this length to cover adequately and as such these variations have not been included.

 * Some pitfalls to consider:

 * (A.) Mutual security: Italy and Austria have the most complicated security issue in the game, with two home centers adjacent to one another. The idleness of the Italian army creates a difficult situation for the two powers to resolve. On the one hand, Austria is slightly uncomfortable with the notion of having to tie up all of its units defending against Russia while executing the Lepanto, while Italy has an army sitting next to one of the Austrian home centers capable of causing problems. (One common Italian stab is to set up a Lepanto, then walk into Trieste in 1901 anyway.) On the other hand, if Austria *isn't* tied up fending off Russia, then it can be ever-so-tempting for Austria to use its two army builds to take Venice from Italy in 1902. And if Italy tries to utilize its army elsewhere -- harassing France or Germany, or even moving to Bohemia to help Austria take Galicia in 1902 -- then the security gap is even wider. (The asterisk in the moves listed above indicate that Italy doesn't have to hold in Venice and that as long as both parties are comfortable with other movements, Italy is free to use the army elsewhere.)
 * (B.) Turkey: An experienced Turkey can pre-empt the Lepanto as early as the A01 movement phase, and build the appropriate fleet in Smyrna (in W01) and move to Eastern Mediterranean (in S02) to prevent the Lepanto convoy. One counter devised to this plan is to have Italy move to Aegean Sea with Austrian support; however, the A02 convoy to Syria becomes a convoy to Constantinople or Smyrna, much more difficult to pull off. (Sometimes Austria will help Italy convoy to Bulgaria from Tunisia in A02; however, the benefit of this is questionable to Austria, as Austria now gains no centers from Turkey's demise.) And if Turkey happened to negotiate a DMZ in the Black Sea with Russia in 1901 -- which wasn't broken by Russia right afterward -- then Turkey can get his fleet to the Aegean Sea by A01 and block both sea spaces from Italy. The Lepanto requires some serious misdirection in negotiations between Austria/Italy and Turkey.
 * (C.) The neighbors: While it's unlikely that France or Germany will cause problems for Italy or Austria (respectively) during the Lepanto, Russia could be a thorn in Austria's side. And Russia is likely not too welcome in the attack on Turkey: three powers trying to cut into four centers' worth of spoils is simply too difficult to divide without someone getting shafted, and Russian presence doesn't provide major help in bringing Turkey down. Austria has the heavy duty in Russian negotiations. Italy, meanwhile, needs to be talking to the western powers, even England, to ensure that France is busy until around 1905 or so, when Italy has the builds needed to attack France. An Anglo-German alliance works wonders for this, though it could cause Austria problems down the road when it comes time to KO Russia (on account of the fact that, again, three powers combining on one leads to someone being shafted out of the spoils).

The Juggernaut (Russia + Turkey)
An alliance between Russia and Turkey is often referred to as the "Juggernaut".

Easily the most feared alliance in the game is the Juggernaut, the alliance between Turkey and Russia, which can sweep across the board extremely rapidly. Only committed defense by Austria, Italy, Germany, and England will bring the alliance to a halt. Enlisting the aid of Italy in particular can be difficult, due to resentment for being unable to expand, being deliberately uncooperative by attacking Austria or seeing the alliance as an opportunity to side with Russia should he decide to stab Turkey. Without having to worry about safety in the south, Russia quickly punches through Scandinavia, Germany and the northern Balkans. Turkey clears through the southern Balkans and the Mediterranean. Turkey's other options for alliance (Austria and Italy) are difficult to sell, so the Juggernaut becomes one of Turkey's few choices.

An important point to consider is what to do with the Black Sea since whoever controls the Black Sea has plenty of opportunities to backstab their ally and take one of her homeland supply centers: Sevastopol in the case of Russia and Ankara or Constantinople in the case of Turkey, or possibly Bulgaria or Rumania. Continued stand-offs at the Black Sea with Turkey's starting fleet and Russia's southern fleet is a common way to solve this issue between the two powers.

The Entente Cordiale (England + France)
An alliance between England and France has been referred to as the "Entente Cordiale", named after the series of agreements between France and England of 1904.

France and England are nearly as dangerous to each other as Russia and Turkey. Both printed and conventional wisdom states that England and France are best off trying to claw each other's eyes out starting Spring 1901 (although France usually has the option of picking up Iberia first, then working against England). Together, the two can roll through Germany, then France will turn towards Italy, while England moves through Scandinavia and Russia. One of England's greatest dangers is its "backdoor", in the Irish Sea and North Atlantic Ocean. A French fleet can move from the relatively non-threatening position in the Mid-Atlantic Ocean to England's doorstep in one turn. France must also be wary of England, who can swing a fleet into the North Atlantic from the Norwegian Sea. Demilitarizing the English Channel is a good way to keep a good strong alliance between the two powers. If it can be negotiated, a French fleet in Brest can be a fabulous tool to prevent this backstab - the fleet can go nowhere that threatens England, but at the same time, France cannot build a fleet to support his attack.

The Anglo-Saxon (England + Germany)
England and Germany ally a little more frequently than England and France, because England and France are both naval powers, while Germany is traditionally a land-based power. However this alliance will have to be very patient, when fighting the French. A good French player will be able to last until approximately spring 1904. France has a strong defensive position, due to the impassable Swiss territory. While finishing, or while attacking France, England and Germany turn against Russia. Then England can continue against Italy, while Germany crosses the stalemate line and attacks Austria.

Franco-German Alliance (France + Germany)
A common alliance between France and Germany against England. Some claim that this is the natural alliance for both powers, as the main alternative is an alliance with England, which leaves the land-based powers of France, and especially Germany, vulnerable to English fleets. France uses his builds from Spain and Portugal to build fleets to attack England. A common route of attack is having France taking control of the English channel, and going around the back of England to Liverpool. Germany uses his power to deny supply centers to England and cut support from a probable English fleet in the North Sea. English supply centers are then split, and France and Germany can go their separate ways. The key to this method of attack is to try to prevent England from getting builds. If England can be limited to only Norway, and the alliance is formed early in the game, England cannot muster a good defense.

After England is split up, France typically attacks Italy, and Germany attacks Russia in Scandinavia. This alliance does well if it stays together, and is fairly stable, as the French-German border can be stalemated by placing only a few troops. However, later in the game, France, which usually has more fleets, can stab Germany by taking his English supply centers and use its naval power to crack the stalemate, and Germany can likewise use fleets to push France back. This common alliance is usually very effective, though it may lose effectiveness if England gets too many builds early in the game.

The Wintergreen or "Penne alla Vodka" (Italy + Russia)
Italy and Russia fit together well. The two can make short work of Austria, and continue into Turkey. Italy must work to get a fair split of the centers, but Italy has greater potential for quick growth working with Russia than with Austria.

The Austronaught/Peppermint (Austria + Russia)
Russia and Austria often work together against Turkey. Austria ends up surrounded by Russia on all sides, but can produce troops closer to Russia's conquests, and is thus more able to perform a good stab.

Central Triple, Triple Alliance, Central Powers, Axis (Austria + Germany + Italy)
Austria and Germany collaborate against Russia, Italy and Austria attack Turkey, and Germany attempts to deal with France and England with Italy's help. It is less definite, but has a clear geographical split of the supply centers.

Western Triple (England + France + Germany)
This is the famous England-France-Germany alliance. This eliminates the competition in the Western Triangle. Potential enemies are Italy and Russia.

Andrew England, who wrote about this triple alliance, says that each power can get two neutral supply centers.

 * Spring 1901
 * ENGLAND:  F EDI-NWG, F LON-NTHS, A LVP-EDI
 * FRANCE:   F BRE-MAO, A PAR-BUR, A MAR-SPA
 * GERMANY:  F KIE-DEN, A MUN-RUH, A BER-SIL

 * Fall 1901
 * ENGLAND:  A EDI-NWY, F NTH-BEL, F NWG C A EDI-NWY,
 * FRANCE:   A SPA-POR, F MAO-SPA(sc), A BUR HOLD (or to MAR)
 * GERMANY:  F DEN-SWE, A RUH-HOL, A SIL-WAR(?)

 * 1901 Winter build
 * ENGLAND: F EDI, A LON
 * FRANCE: F MAR, F BRE
 * GERMANY: A BER, A MUN

Richard Hucknall suggests different moves

 * Spring 1901
 * E: F(Edi)-NWG, F(Lon)-NTH, A(Lpl)-Edi
 * F: F(Bre)-MAO, A(Par)-Gas, A(Mar)-Pie
 * G: F(Kie)-Hol, A(Ber)-Kie, A(Mun)-Tyr

 * Autumn 1901
 * E: F(NWG)-Nwy, F(NTH) C A(Edi)-Den
 * F (If A(Mar)-Pie succeeded): F(MAO)-Por, A(Gas)-Spa, A(Pie)- Ven or Tus
 * F (Otherwise): F(MAO) C A( Gas)-Por, A(Mar)-Spa
 * G: F(Hol)-Bel, A(Kie)-Hol, A(Mun)-Tyr or A(Tyr)-Vie/Tri or assists the French to Ven.

This way, England gets Denmark instead of Germany, France goes for Italy, and Germany goes for Austria.

Simon Szykman suggests the "New Millennium Western Alliance"

 * Spring 1901
 * England: F Edi-Nwg, F Lon-Nth, A Lvp-Yor
 * France: F Bre-MAO, A Par-Gas, A Mar-Pie
 * Germany: F Kie-Den, A Ber-Pru, A Mun-Sil

 * Fall 1901
 * England: F NWG-BAR, F NTH C A Yor-Nwy, A Yor-NTH-Nwy
 * France: F MAO-WES, A Gas-Spa, A Pie-Tus (or Ven)
 * Germany (if Russia has two units adjacent to Warsaw): F Den-Swe, A Pru-Lvn, A Sil-Pru
 * Germany (otherwise): F Den-Swe, A Pru-War, A Sil S A Pru-War

 * Winter 1901
 * England: Build F Edi
 * France: Build F Mar (or A Mar, depending on what Italy and, to some extent, Austria have done)
 * Germany: Build A Mun

This way, they are in a more offensive position against Russia and Italy.

Keep in mind that as France or Germany, England has the chance to backstab either power, but if the alliance is maintained it proves to be a powerful force.

Austria/Turkey (Austria + Turkey)
Turkey/Austria has been called by numerous sources as the most impossible alliance in the game. Given that the normal eighteen center victories for Turkey and Austria run directly through each other's territory, and the near-impossibility of constructing a two-way draw between the two (although this has been done, with Turkey taking the coasts and Austria the territory in the center of the board). This alliance is rare and usually short, but both Turkey and Austria should consider cooperation, for a short time at least, if Russia grows powerful. Experience has shown that in stale-mated games where Russia has been reduced to three centers, it can be profitable for an Austria-Turkey partnership to continue in a similar manner to 'the Juggernaut'. It helps to send Turkey north and Austria through Central Europe.

Top-of-the-World Sweep (England + Russia)
This alliance is one of great ease and effectiveness if used correctly. With Russia and England both at the "top of the world", they can sweep downwards without stop, crushing Germany, Austria-Hungary, France and sometimes Italy and Turkey. Russia advancing into Germany, Austria-Hungary, and sometimes Turkey, it claims the Eastern world. England can make its way down the coast and into France, completely dominating if it can get its navies into the water fast enough. And once it has claimed France, Italy will be the next to easily go, since it will generally be attacked by Austria-Hungary and France at the beginning of the game. But here's where the hard part comes in. Russia and England both border Germany, which is a key spot in attacking both Austria-Hungary and France. Also, these are both big countries, and though they are supporting each other, it can get tricky and tensions can get high if Turkey decides to attack Russia. England can't do anything. And if France attacks England and is winning, Russia really can't help at all either since it would have to cross English territory and therefore make a seemingly aggressive attack on England. Overall, this is a great alliance if they can pull it off properly. If not, they will most likely fight each other to the death.

The Crunch (England + Turkey)
A tough alliance, but possible if Turkey makes temporary alliances with her neighbors and eliminates Austria quickly. Quick elimination of Russia is also sometimes necessary, and this alliance can be stopped by an Austria/Germany/Italy alliance. This alliance is most effective with two very aggressive players, and can demolish Russia very quickly (England invading Norway and St. Petersburg, while Turkey moves on Austria and Italy). This alliance must also be kept secret, and coordination is minimal. The alliance also bogs down around the German and Italian border, for Turkey is hard-pressed to crack the defense.

The Ultimate (France + Italy)
This alliance only works with complete trust between these two powers, and a DMZ in the Western Med. Italy must become a major player in the eastern theater of the war in this alliance. Also, their position is quite hard to outflank. However, they are able to sweep across the board after France has eliminated England. Italy's best move would be to invade Tyrolia, then help France attack Germany, while keeping an eye on Austria. However, the Italian player must be careful, because the Tyrrhenian Sea borders three natural Italian supply centers, while not having much of a threat to France. This alliance is also possible to overwhelm with a decent Russia/Turkey alliance.

Russian Nightmare (Germany + Turkey)
Germany/Turkey has been found to be a great alliance when started early. With trust and teamwork, they can quite quickly dispatch of Russia and each move west with Germany taking: Warsaw, Saint Petersburg, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Edinburgh, Liverpool, London, Brest, Paris, Marseilles with their own 3 Home Centers for 16 Unit. Turkey can take Sevastopol, Moscow, Rumania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, Budapest, Vienna, Trieste, Venezia, Roma, Napoli, Tunisia with their own 3 Home Centers for 16. Then leaving the last battle over Spain and Portugal for 18. Until Austria is taken completely there is no big chance for either to attack the other but allow support against Russia and Austria. A powerful opening for this alliance in Spring 01 is Germany-A Ber to Pru, A Mun to Sil, F Kiel to Den. Turkey-A Con. If Russia can be convinced to go north and get his armies to StP and Liv, then this is a sure shot to get both Sevastopol and Warsaw in Fall of 01.

The Triple Entente (Austria + Germany + Turkey)
Very hard to pull off but when done successfully can be profitable in the short term. This allows for a relatively simple takeover of Russia but any farther than that results in backstabbing and a lack of aid from Turkey against the French and English threat.

Garlic Thanksgiving (Italy + Turkey)
Not as impossible as Turkey/Austria, Turkey and Italy can make a profitable short-term alliance, by splitting Austria and the Balkans between them. One thing Turkey can do to make this alliance more tempting for Italy is to offer supporting Italy into Greece in the first fall, and at the same time deny Austria that supply center.

This alliance often falls apart, since Turkey and Italy's struggle for dominance in the Eastern Mediterranean parallels Turkey and Austria's usual struggle over the Balkans. Once Austria has fallen, Italy will be in the way of Turkish expansion, in a similar manner as Austria was before. To achieve a two-way draw, Turkey would have to conquer territory as far north as Denmark or Sweden, assuming Italy keeps TRI and BUD or VIE from Austria.

The Wall or Dagger (Austria + England + Germany)
England and Germany attack France, while all three can attack Russia.

This alliance is used to divide the other powers. France and Italy are on one side of this alliance, while Russia is on the other. However, more successful versions of these alliances include Turkey, so that the end is not open. This alliance's one great weakness is that if two great powers assault one empire in the center of this wall(usually Germany), then the alliance quickly falls apart. It requires some tricky diplomacy to keep this undiscovered, but it is devastating once one side of the wall has been defeated. Note-Germany has great ability to perform a stab on Austria, for Austria borders three potential hostiles.

The Scissors (Austria + France + Germany)
France and Germany attack England, Austria and Germany attack Russia, Austria and France attack Italy with German help through TYR. This alliance typically only forms when Turkey has already been defeated.

The AIRhead (Austria + Italy + Russia)
The key feature of this alliance is a rapid attack into Germany in the Spring of 1902, with Italy in TYR, Russia in SIL and PRU, and Austria in BOH.

This alliance allows Russia and Austria to remove Turkey, which benefits Italy since there will no longer be another threat to his Mediterranean dominance. It benefits Russia because he can focus on the north and it benefits Austria because he no longer has to worry about two of his four neighbors attacking him. Finally it gives Italy a good chance to fight France.

It takes a lot of trust for these three nations to work together. Gal must be DMZed and Austria and Italy must find a way to keep their borders safe. If there can be cooperation between all three powers it is even possible to attack Germany in Spring '01 and take Munich or Berlin.

The Mediterranean Axis (Austria + Italy + Turkey)
These three potentially have the power to crush the northern opposition, but bickering over advanced spots in the Mediterranean cause this alliance to be tough, if not impossible.

The Eastern Triple or the RAT Pact (Russia + Austria +Turkey)
The alliance is extremely geographically cluttered, and two of the members will usually turn on the third. In fact, this alliance will almost never happen since Turkey cannot expand because both of her neighbors are allies. Turkey's only possibility of expansion is to build fleets and try to expand into Italy.

The Sweep (England + France + Italy)
This alliance is hard to set up, and it is obvious that France would get the lion's share of the inland territories, but with good diplomacy, France can enlist their help and easily sweep through to the board. with France moving into Germany, England making naval landings against Russia, and Italy attacking Austria through TYR. Only a very good Russia/Turkey alliance can hope to repel this alliance.

Anglo-Franco-Turkish Alliance (England + France + Turkey)
A difficult alliance to establish; however, when well timed, it is a blitz across the map. Key early moves are: a faithful alliance between France/England/Germany, Turkey/Russia splitting the Balkans and Austria, and France taking Italy. Once those are done, Turkey can aid France into Austria, cementing the fail of Russia's southern Front. France then can aid England in claiming Germany/Scandinavia, then it is a swift move for England to Russia's northern providences.

The French Fear (England + Germany + Italy)
If achieved, this alliance can easily plow through France, But after France is destroyed, bickering over advanced inland spots can break this alliance up, usually by attacking Germany.

The Crusher, or Froggernaut (France + Russia + Turkey)
As long as these allies don't let each other get too powerful, it can quickly crush the Central powers of Germany, Austria, and Italy. However, in the end, it usually ends up with the Western powers of France in an alliance with England, attacking the Eastern powers of Russia and Turkey.

The RIGorous Powers (Germany + Italy + Russia)
Although harder to set up, this alliance can easily sweep through Turkey and Austria, and then turn west to France and England. However, if England/France/Germany is created, it can attack while Austria and Turkey are being invaded, and prove a major annoyance, if not threat to this alliance.

The TRIple Powers (Italy + Russia + Turkey)
A variation on the traditional Juggernaut, this alliance would be harder to establish, but would easily plow through Austria. However, one must not let Turkey get too powerful, as it can ruin the alliance. Also, Turkey must not let Italy and Russia get too powerful, as they can easily turn on Turkey and perform a great stab because of their surrounding nature to Turkey. Also, Germany/France/England can produce a serious barrier, with France invading Italy, England attacking Russia from the north, and Germany moving in on Austria.

The Swiss Star (Germany + France + Italy)
The Swiss Star was a name coined by a player known as "TheBB" on the web site www.playdiplomacy.com. According to another player known as "Minneapolitan" the alliance is described as such...

In a nutshell, France dismantles England with help from Germany, while Germany focuses on helping Italy dismantle Austria.

The more detailed plan of the Swiss Star is for France to allow Germany three builds in 1901 (Denmark and the Low Countries), while France takes Spain and Portugal. Italy makes a direct attack on Austria, though this doesn't need to happen right away. After Germany has doubled in size, it sends two armies into Bohemia and Silesia. Here in the heart of the Stalemate Line, Germany supports Italy into Vienna (and the rest of Austria) while Silesia holds Russia in its place.

While supporting Italy against Austria, Germany uses its strength to help France attack England head-on. After a few years when France has crushed England with Germany's help, France continues into the Far North to wage war on Russia, again with help from Germany. This war may take place in Scandinavia, but the ultimate goal is St. Petersburg. While this happens, Germany continues to push farther into Eastern Europe with Italy. Germany goes directly into the heart of Russia while its southern flank continues to support Italy against anything still left in the Balkans, including Austria and Turkey. If Italy should be met with strong opposition in the Mediterranean, France should have the resources to build fleets in Marseille and support Italy there as well.

Three Emperors Alliance (Austria + Germany + Russia)
Named after the League of the Three Emperors, the Three Emperors Alliance is extremely rare mostly because it's not clear what advantage, if any, accrues to Germany. Russia and Austria can make short work of Turkey while Russia and Germany can make moves against England. However, France will either join in the fun and take away Germany's winnings or ally with England and push against Germany. Even if successful, the alliance usually falls apart immediately after its first victories with Russia/Italy attacking Austria or Germany/Austria taking on Russia.

Unholy Alliance (Austria + England + Turkey)
An Austria/Turkey alliance, but with England. This alliance is typically forged to deal with a Russian threat or France/Italy alliance. It can also serve as a counter to The Sealion. Of course, it is likely to break up for the same reasons as an Austria/Turkey alliance. Another issue that England is largely separated from Austria & Turkey, making it largely impossible for England to receive support.

The Fir Tree Alliance (France + Italy + Russia)
This alliance is generally a long term one that develops in the mid game. However, this can be coordinated in the early turns, with each nation creating short term alliances. France will have to choose whether to side with England or Germany against the other while Russia helps, before France and Russia proceed to eliminate the other. Italy and Russia will also work together to pinch Austria or Turkey, before moving on to the other. The Russia addition to this alliance helps to secure a DMZ between French and Italian territories by way of a 'mutually assured destruction' deterrent. This alliance generally relies on the element of surprise, the secrecy of the alliance, and a strong trust between the players in order to succeed.

The Six Powers (Any six of the seven players)
Extremely rare, but deadly when used. Almost always ends in a stab. Generally used to stop a country from winning.

See the above alliances sorted by country.

title: Diplomacy/Alliances


text:
Diplomacy/Opening Principles

The opening is the time when a power chooses its tack towards its first few centers. During the first few turns, a wise player aims for neutral supply centers in order to bolster their forces for the coming wars.

Communication
The most skilful players of Diplomacy open lines of communication with all six other powers on the board, usually before the first moves have even been finalised. This is critical, as by making contact with every player, the commander is in a position to assess the relative strengths and weaknesses of his opponents.

Your initial messages to the other powers should be brief, precise and non-committal. A good tactic is to mention a common enemy (for example, France might mention the threat of England to Germany) and offer to share information on the state of relations between the remaining powers. In this way, you are able to gain an understanding of your opponents' negotiation skills and begin to work out if they are likely to be loyal allies. Offering alliances or cooperation in an initial message suggests a lack of skill and should be avoided.

Once you have built a picture of the diplomatic situation, it is important to commit yourself to a course of action without revealing too much of your intentions to the enemy. When making arrangements with your chosen allies, it is sensible to create concrete timeframes: for example, Italy might offer France a demilitarised zone in Piedmont and the Gulf of Lyon for the duration of 1901. Not only does this create an impression of reliability and certainty for your ally, it provides the opportunity to regularly renegotiate terms as the state of the board changes in the early moves.

Initial Targets
At the beginning of the game, each country has moderately consistent goals as to which neutral supply centers to target. Some supply centers are almost guaranteed to certain nations, others are based more on individual diplomacy and tactics.

England
If Russia is not hostile, England can easily take Norway before the first build. Besides that England will also target Holland and Belgium, either working with France or Germany to land their army on one or the other.

France
Spain is almost always captured by France. The taking of Portugal is sometimes delayed until after the first build due to troop requirements elsewhere. France, like England and Germany, also has a stake in taking Belgium.

Germany
Germany can take either Denmark or Holland, but is not guaranteed both unless Mun - Ruh is played. A hostile England can block Germany from a second supply center in the north. Germany also has the option of blocking Russia out of Sweden before the first build.

Russia
Despite being the largest starting power on the map, no supply centers are guaranteed to Russia before the first build. Moving to Rumania is difficult due to the need to protect the Black Sea, and while Sweden can usually be secured, a hostile Germany can bounce Russia out with the right opener.

Italy
Italy will usually make a grab for the safe Tunis, but a more aggressive or risk-loving Italian will gun for Greece with the support of Austria or Turkey. As it stands, it is almost impossible for Italy to grab 2 supply centers before the first build, short of brutally assaulting Trieste (if they hate Austria).

Austria
Austria is often concerned more for maintaining safety and stability than grabbing supply centers, but Serbia is often a given and conflicts between Trieste and Venice can sometimes lead to a supply center, or a lack of one, for Austria.

If you are to succeed in any way as Austria, it is imperative that you take the lead in negotiating with Italy, Russia and Turkey. Often – but not always – all three can be persuaded that it is not in their interests to attack Austria in the early moves. Furthermore, if these three powers are impressed by your negotiation skill, they can be more easily convinced to work with rather than against you.

Turkey
Bulgaria is a given for Turkey, and through good diplomacy and a fast rush, Sevastopol or Greece sometimes become available. Turkey may sneak into Serbia as well if Austria moves his army into Greece.

Safety
Safety is especially important for powers that can be eliminated or crippled early--Austria, Russia, Germany, and Italy. With Austria, Russia, and Turkey all sharing a stake in the Balkans, the mutual mistrust generated by the three countries' relative instability can turn into a three-way war in which the strongest tactician, or more often, the luckiest, can only hope to achieve moderate success.

England is in another situation entirely. They are quite safe in the beginning because both France and Germany need to first build up their fleets before they can consider invading England. However, the danger lies in a lack of expansion: if England cannot secure enough territories fast, they will simply be holed up on their island.

Turkey, despite being in an unstable area is rarely eliminated in the opening, simply because they have a strong defensive position. Italy usually will either move west towards France or surprise attack Austria, while Russia has too many fronts to focus on to really threaten Turkey. Turkey tends to lose due to their slow rate of expansion, the exception being if Austria and Italy really work together with everything they have to eliminate Turkey. If this occurs Turkey may end up being "stuffed."

The least safe of the starting countries are Germany and Austria because they are in the middle of the board and can be threatened from all angles. Both Austria and Germany must expand fast to make up for this disadvantage.

Growth
After considering safety, growth should be an important factor. How quickly are you expanding? Expanding too slowly will hurt when a strong power decides to hit you later on. Rapid growth is important to beef up your power's territory. However, building up too fast could mean an alliance between all other powers to bring you down before you overpower them; because of that, a player should try to always provide a bigger threat to their potential enemies. For instance, a strong England in the early stages of the game might want to point out to Germany that Russia is also very strong and if Germany attacks England, they will be weak on the eastern flank.

Movement to the Middle Game
After all neutral supply centers have been seized, the board moves officially into the middle game.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Diplomacy/Opening Principles


text:
Diplomacy/End Game Strategies

Tactics
In later stages of the game, tactics will become increasingly important, and diplomacy increasingly unimportant. In the early game, players often have to cooperate in order to get anywhere, but in the late game, one or more players will be so powerful that they can handle wars against their neighbours without any outside help.

Grand Alliance
The Grand Alliance is a coalition formed to stop a power from achieving a solo victory. This will occur once one power has around fourteen or fifteen supply centers. Minor powers, left with one or two supply centers, will bandwagon with whoever is the second strongest power to exterminate the strongest to survive and rank 3rd or 4th.

]

title: Diplomacy/End Game Strategies


text:
User talk:Chuyelchulo

Help work on Diplomacy!

title: User talk:Chuyelchulo


text:
User:Chuyelchulo

I created the Wikibook on Diplomacy (the game), and did some work on the wikibook for Organic Chemistry

title: User:Chuyelchulo


text:
User:Steak (Usurped)

 * Wikipedia
 * Wiktionary
 * Wikiquote

title: User:Steak (Usurped)


text:
Horticulture/Templates

New page templates

 * /Fruit template (herbaceous)/ -- Use for herbaceous fruits often called "vegetables", such as tomato, cucumber, etc.
 * /Fruit template (woody)/ -- Use for woody fruit-bearing plants such as blueberry, grape, apple

 * /Vegetable template (leaf)/ -- For leafy vegetables such as lettuce
 * /Vegetable template (flower)/ -- For flower vegetables such as broccoli
 * /Vegetable template (root)/ -- For root vegetables such as garlic

 * Template:Plantprof -- A general template for plant genera and species
 * Template:Pgenprof -- A specific template for genera (possibly unneeded)
 * Template:Weedprof -- For weeds
 * Template:Pestprof Designed for arthropod pests such as insects or mites, but can be used for other pests.

Infobox templates

 * Template:Weedbox - for weeds
 * Template:Gveggiebox - for leafy vegetables
 * Template:Hortibox -
 * Template:Treebox - for trees
 * Template:Phytopathbox - for plant diseases

Section templates

 * Template:Weedcontrol - template for weed control sections

Stub templates
Template:Horticulture/Stub - for template-related stubs

/Project

title: Horticulture/Templates


text:
Horticulture/Templates/Fruit template (herbaceous)

This page template is deprecated. Use instead and add the level three headlines as needed.


text:
Template:Gveggieprof

This page template is deprecated. Use instead and be sure to place a "y" in the "fruit or vegetable" line of the  template that is placed in the resulting page.

/Templates/Profiles

title: Template:Gveggieprof


text:
Horticulture/Planting Seasons for Vegetables

Vegetables can be planted at various times of year, depending on the type of plant and the intended methods of harvest and storage.

Mid-summer

 * ../Mustard Greens/
 * ../Asian Brassicas/
 * ../Carrots/
 * ../Malabar spinach/
 * ../Beets/ (roots and greens)
 * ../Endive/
 * ../Lettuce/
 * ../Scallions/
 * ../Oriental Bunch Onion/
 * ../Kohlrabi/
 * ../Summer Squash/

Late Summer

 * ../Turnip/

Fall

 * ../Kale/
 * ../Early Cabbage/
 * ../Peas/
 * ../Fava Beans/


text:
Horticulture/List of Sources

This is a list of sources that provide good information for gardening topics.

Print

 * Christopher Brickell et al. The American Horticultural Society Encyclopedia of Gardening, DK Publishing, inc., 1993. ISBN 1-56458-291-4

 *

 * Carla Emery, The Encyclopedia of Country Living (Ninth ed.), Sasquatch Books, 2003. ISBN 1-57061-377-X

Print

 * An Illustrated Flora of the Northern United States and Canada, Volume 1
 *

 * An Illustrated Flora of the Northern United States and Canada, Volume 2
 *

 * An Illustrated Flora of the Northern United States and Canada, Volume 3
 *

 * The Plants of Pennsylvania: An Illustrated Manual
 *

 * Flora of West Virginia
 *

 * The American Horticultural Society A-Z Encyclopedia of Garden Plants
 *

 * Hortus Third
 *

 * Manual of Woody Landscape Plants: Their Identification, Ornamental Characteristics, Culture, Propagation, and Uses
 * <tt>

</tt>

 * The New England Wildflower Society Guide to Growing and Propagating Wildflowers of the United States and Canada ISBN 0-395-96609-4
 * <tt> </tt>

Pest and Disease

 * Diseases & Pests of Ornamental Plants, P. P. Pirone
 * <tt> </tt>

 * Insects That Feed on Trees and Shrubs, second ed., W.T. Johnson & H.H. Lyon, et al.
 * <tt> </tt>

 * Garden Insects of North America: The Ultimate Guide to Backyard Bugs, Whitney Cranshaw
 * <tt> </tt>

 * Otis C. Maloy, Timothy D. Murray, et al. Encyclopedia of Plant Pathology, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2001. ISBN 0-471-29817-4
 * <tt>

</tt>

 * American Horticultural Society Pests & Diseases: The Complete Guide to Preventing, Identifying, and Treating Plant Problems
 * <tt> </tt>

 * <tt>

</tt>

Footnotes look like
/Project

title: Horticulture/List of Sources


text:
Novial/AIL Introduction

 An International Language (1928)

by Otto Jespersen, Ph.D., Litt.D., LL.D. (1869-1943)

=Introduction=

This book is to be a plea for an artificial international auxiliary language, and it will be well at the outset to see what is implied in these adjectives. Artificial, i.e. made consciously by one man or a group of men, in contradistinction to such natural languages as English, French, etc., which have been spoken for generations and whose development has chiefly taken place without the individuals being conscious of any changes. But the term "artificial" is apt to create a prejudice against the language we are to deal with, and it will be my business in this book to show how very "natural" such a language may be; I shall therefore prefer to speak of a "constructed" language, and instead of terming the existing languages natural I shall use the more appropriate term national languages.

The next adjective was international. That is to say that the language is meant to be used not by any one nation or in any one country, but by individuals who though belonging to different nationalities have something they wanted to communicate to one another.

Third: auxiliary. This implies that our international language is meant to be only a sort of substitute for national languages whenever these are not capable of serving as means of communication. It is not intended that a new language should supplant the existing languages: no one in his sober senses would think it possible to make all nations forget their own languages and agree on one single substitute for all purposes. But what a great many sensible men and women in many countries do think worth working for, is a state of things in which an educated Englishman when meeting an educated Spaniard or Dutchman or Bulgarian would be pretty certain to be understood if he addressed him in a constructed language adopted for that purpose - a state of thing also in which international conferences and congresses on political or scientific or commercial questions would be carried on freely without need of interpreters, and all official documents relating to more than one state would be circulated in a single language.

What then we interlinguists are thinking of, is not what Schleyer made the boasting motto of his Volapük, "Menade bal, püki bal" (To one human race, one language), but rather what another inventor of an artificial language, Bollack, took as his motto: The second language to everybody. The new interlanguage would not infringe the sacred rights of the mother-tongue, but be used only when two or more persons ignorant of one another's language had occasion to talk or to write to one another.¹

¹ In this book I often use the abbreviation I.A.L. for International Auxiliary Language, also sometimes I.L.

title: Novial/AIL Introduction


text:
Novial/AIL History

=History=

If I were writing the history of the Interlanguage movement,¹ I should first deal with the great theorists, who have espoused and advocated this idea as such - Descartes, Comenius, Leibniz, Schuchardt, Ostwald - and then with those who have made contributions to the practical solution of the question, among whom I should give prominence to Pirro, Schleyer, Zamenhof, Couturat, Rosenberger and de Wahl. But here I am more concerned with the future than with the past, and shall therefore content myself with the briefest mention of those facts from which I think a conclusion can be drawn that may assist us in paving the way for a future adoption of a rational interlanguage.

¹ The standard work is L. Couturat et L. Leau, Histoire de la langue universelle (Paris 1903) with its continuation, Les nouvelles langues internationales (Paris 1907). The history since 1907 has not yet been written; much is contained in the seven big volumes of Progreso, the periodical of the Idists. See also A. L. Guérard, A Short History of the International Language Movement (London 1922) and the very short abstract in E. Sylvia Pankhurst, Delphos, the Future of International Language (London 1927). The two latter works are not reliable in every minute particular, but give on the whole a readable presentation of the chief facts.

title: Novial/AIL History


text:
Novial/AIL Need

Need for an Interlanguage
An American may travel from Boston to San Francisco without hearing more than one language. But if he were to traverse the same distance on this side of the Atlantic, he would have a totally different story to tell. Suppose he started from Oslo and journeyed to the South or South-East: he would then hear perhaps Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, German, Czech and Slovak, Hungarian, Rumanian, Bulgarian, Turkish, Greek, and then in Egypt Arabic and a little English - twelve different languages, of which the majority would be utterly unintelligible to him. And yet he would not have heard half of the languages spoken in Europe. The curse of Babel is still with us. How many people have been in situations where they have felt the barriers of language a serious drawback, where they have been desirous to communicate freely with someone, ask questions, obtain or impart information, etc., which has been rendered impossible by their own and the other party's want of sufficient linguistic knowledge! It is not very pleasant to be engaged in a discussion that interests you, if you feel that while you have the best arguments the other man has the whip hand of you, because the conversation is in his native language, in which you are able to express only what you can, while he can say everything he wants to. In scientific congresses, as Professor Pfaundler says, "only very few can take part in the discussions, and many must be well content if they are able to understand the usually rapidly delivered papers. Many an important criticism is not made because one does not possess the ability to discuss a question in a foreign language, and does not wish to expose oneself to the chance of a rebuff, caused not so much by ignorance of the matter in hand as by want of facility in expression. Every member of a congress has noticed that whenever the language employed in the papers changes, a considerable number of the audience leave with more or less noise, in order to avoid being compelled to listen to a paper which they do not understand."

Sometimes in international discussions the three chief languages are allowed, and each separate speech has to be translated into the two others. I was present at such a congress in Copenhagen in 1910 and saw how intolerable this dragging repetition must necessarily be, not least to those who like myself understood English, French and German with perfect ease: anything like a real vivid discussion was excluded by the inevitable delays - not to mention the inadequacy of many of the extempore translations.

With regard to printed works matters are somewhat better, but not quite satisfactory. Most scientific men are nowadays able to read books and papers on their own special subject in the three chief languages, English, German and French; but that is no longer sufficient. One of the most important features of the last hundred years is the nationality-movement, in politics, in literature, in art, in everything. Even small nations want to assert themselves and fly their own colours on every occasion, by way of showing their independence of their mightier neighbours. The growing improvement in higher education everywhere has fortunately made it possible to print books on scientific matters even in languages spoken by comparatively small nations. But what is a benefit to these countries themselves, may in some cases be detrimental to the world at large, and even to authors, in so far as thoughts that deserved diffusion all over the globe are now made accessible only to a small fraction of those that should be interested in them. In my own field, I have had occasion to see the way in which excellent work written in Danish which might have exerted a deep influence on contemporary linguistic thought has remained practically unknown outside of Scandinavia. (See my book Language under Rask and Bredsdorff; I might have mentioned Westergaard and Thomsen as well.) The late secretary of the Berlin Academy, the eminent classical scholar H. Diels, says: "Incalculable are the intellectual losses incurred every year in consequence of the national hobby of small, but highly gifted scientifically active peoples who insist that scientific works (which cannot all of them be translated) should appear in their own, narrowly circumscribed languages." For my own part, though I have spent most of my life studying different languages, I have sometimes been obliged to lay aside as unread books and papers which I should have liked very much to study, but which happened to be written in a tongue with which I was not sufficiently familiar.

title: Novial/AIL Need


text:
Novial/AIL Ignorance

Ignorance of Foreign Languages
Kant was first made known to Edinburgh in 1803 not in the German original, but through a French translation. John Stuart Mill was able, though with difficulty, to read German, but preferred reading translations, and never learnt to shift for himself in a German railway station. When Carlyle met Louis Blanc, "it was the veriest fun to watch their conversation. Carlyle's French was a literal translation of his own untranslatable English, uttered too in his own broad Scotch. Louis Blanc could not at all understand him, but would listen attentively, and then answer very wide of the mark." (Car. Fox.) Faraday knew no German, and consequently Robert Mayer's and Helmholtz's investigations were a "sealed book" to him. "How different," said Dean Stanley, "might have been the case of the Church of England if Newman had been able to read German." When a German scholar sent an annotated edition of Macbeth to Dr. Furnivall, the director of the New Shakespeare Society, the Early English Text Society, etc., the latter wrote back to regret that he could not read the notes, but that he saw from the figures that the author had gone into metrical questions. When Zola fled from France during the Dreyfus troubles, he was utterly unable to make himself understood in English. And the same was the case with the Danish poet Herman Bang, who died miserably in America in 1912 unable to make his simplest wants understood by those about him.

Nor is a similar inability unknown among statesmen. It is said that it was injurious to Denmark in her difficult political situation in the middle of the last century, that Madvig (the great Latin scholar) and other ministers spoke French with difficulty and felt shy of talking bad French to the foreign ambassadors. Similar things are reported from the World War. Sir Edward Grey could not speak French, and the French ambassador, Cambon, spoke bad English. None of the French or English generals, with the exception of Lord Kitchener, spoke the other nations's language at all well, and at the Peace Conference Clemenceau gained an undue ascendancy because he was practically the only one who had complete command of both languages. It requires no unusual amount of wisdom to understand that confidential talks between mighty statesmen of different nationalities on topics of world-wide importance lose a great deal if they have to be carried on by means of interpreters: how much better if the mighty of this earth were able to meet on an equal footing linguistically speaking - but that could only be possible by means of a perfectly neutral language.

It is true that we have translators and interpreters, but good and efficient translators are neither plentiful nor very cheap. I take from Miss Pankhurst's book the bit of information that during 1926 the Geneva staff of the League of Nations included 29 translators and interpreters at salaries amounting to £19,800 - besides shorthand writers and typists. And then, the League is only a modest beginning of that vast political organization of the whole world which has to come in a not too distant future!

In these days of cheap travel, of commercial interchange between all parts of the world, of airplanes and broadcasting, of international science and of world-politics, it seems an urgent need for merchants, technical men, scientists, literary men, politicians, in fact for everybody, to have an easy means of getting into touch with foreigners and of learning more from them than is possible by visiting other countries as tongue-tied tourists. The word "international" was only invented by Jeremy Bentham in 1780 - nowadays we have come to the point of needing an international language.

Let me mention here also the recent invention of the speaking film, which is now being brought to a rare technical perfection. When Axel Petersen and Arnold Poulsen's "phono-film" was shown to a small audience in Copenhagen, my thought leapt out to the time when by this means it would be possible to have plays and speeches made visible and audible and comprehensible all over the world - the advantages of cinema and radio combined and made still more useful by means of an Interlanguage!

title: Novial/AIL Ignorance


text:
Novial/AIL Existing

An Existing Language?
A great many people will stop here and say: yes, we grant that it would be desirable to have one single language used everywhere, but would it not be best to select one of the existing languages and use that in all communications between two or more nations, even if no one of those concerned knew that language as his own mother-tongue? The answer is that a deliberate choice of any one language for such a purpose would meet with unsurmountable difficulties on account of international jealousies. Frenchmen and Germans alike would fight tooth and nail against a proposal to make English a universally recognised international language, Frenchmen and Englishmen against German, etc. - and quite naturally too, for such a choice would mean an enormous handicapping of all other nations. Nor would it be possible to make all nations agree on the selection of a language of a smaller nation: visionaries have, as a matter of fact, proposed Norwegian and Armenian! It would require a good deal of compulsion to make people all over the world take up the study of either of these languages, and to the nation thus put in the linguistically most-favoured position it would be a doubtful boon to see its beloved tongue mutilated and trampled under foot everywhere, as would inevitably be the result.

One day, when I was discussing these matters with a famous Belgian historian and complaining of the difficulty felt by men of science who happened to be born in a small country, he said: Instead of writing in an artificial language, it will be much better for you Danes to write in French; if the matter is good enough, we shall read it with pleasure, even if it be bad French. I replied that no one can help being to some extent irritated to read his own language disfigured by faults in grammar and phraseology, and that a Dane would find it much easier to learn to write Ido (or now Novial) perfectly than to learn to write even very faulty French; he would be spared that unpleasant feeling of inferiority which he must always have when trying to write a serious book or paper in a foreign national language.

title: Novial/AIL Existing


text:
Novial/AIL Latin

Latin?
Latin was for centuries the international tongue of the higher intellectual world, and it is still used extensively in the Roman Catholic Church: why not then revive it for all purposes? It would certainly have the advantage of being neutral and thus avoid the objections just mentioned. To those few scholars who dream of this rôle for Latin the reply is obvious: Latin has had that position, and has lost it irrevocably in consequence of the natural development of the last three centuries or more. Even classical scholars use Latin very little nowadays in their scientific papers. And outside their narrow circles very few people are now able to read, still less to speak or write, Latin in spite of the great number of hours devoted to that language in many schools. How many scientists would now be able to read Newton's or Tycho Brahe's works in the original? And how many are there who read even such excellent works as Erasmus's Encomium Moriæ or Holberg's Nicolaus Climius in Latin? When it comes to expressing the ideas of our own day, the deficiencies of classical Latin appear with ruthless clarity: telephones and motor-cars and wireless have no room in Ciceronian Latin, and it will be of little use to coin Neolatin words for these and other modern inventions, for the whole structure of the language with its intricate forms and complex syntax, which tempts the writer to twisted sentences, has become so utterly antiquated that we of the twentieth century wince at the idea of having to clothe our thoughts in that garb.

Recently G. de Reynold in two remarkable articles (in the Revue de Genève, May and June 1925) - after a scathing criticism of the barbarisms of Esperanto and after a condemnation of the idea of an artificial language, which in my view is exaggerated and unjust - brought forward the proposal to use as an international language not classical Latin, but the Latin of the Middle Ages, with its simplified sentence constructions (quod instead of infinite clauses, etc.) and even further modernizations: he thinks it will be easy for a conference of philologists and experts of all countries to agree on a system for adapting Latin forms and phraseology to contemporary uses. This is to my mind much more Utopian than such a scheme as that advocated below: for where is such a conference to begin, and where to end? Irregular verbs? I think most lovers of Latin will object to a simplification of sum, es, est, and where are we to draw the line in the use of the subjunctive and the ablative, etc. etc.? Further as to the meanings and uses of words: is bellum classium to mean naval warfare or war of the classes in the modern sense? Redactio, sociologia, eventualitas, fixatio, realismus, radicalismus, jurista, vegetarianus and similar coinages would, of course, have to be admitted in spite of the protests of classicists, but what is to be done with radium and radio, not as case forms of radius, but as independent words? Hundreds of similar questions would inevitably arise, and the conference would probably split up into small groups representing the most diverging standpoints - some advocating the Latin of the Vulgate, others that of Erasmus, while some would simplify inflexions in a few points and others in a great many more, even down to partisans of Peano's Latino sine flexione, which in the eyes of not a few scholars is a barbarous profanation of the Latin they love, and which is evidently very far from de Reynold's idea. Even after a repeated reading of his eloquent plea I cannot help looking on Latin as irretrievably dead, at any rate for our purposes, which should cover the interests not only of scholars, but also of merchants, technicians, politicians and other men of the practical world. It is no use saying that Latin culture and through it the Latin language has pervaded and is pervading modern life in thousands of ways: no one denies that, and therefore great parts of the Latin language must necessarily be incorporated in our Interlanguage of the future - but only those parts which have proved their vitality by surviving in the languages actually now spoken - that is the test of what we can use and what not.

The decisive reason, however, why we must oppose the adoption of one of the existing languages, living or dead, is that each of them is several times more difficult than a constructed language need be and than those constructed languages are already which have any chance of being selected; while in Part II I shall try to show that it is possible in some respects to go further in simplification than most of the proposed artificial languages have gone. It will now be our task to consider those objections which are constantly raised against the idea of a constructed language and to show that they are far from being conclusive.

title: Novial/AIL Latin


text:
Novial/AIL Objections

Objections to Constructed Languages
Objections are raised both by professional philologists (linguists) and by laymen. Among the former I must here specially mention the two leaders of German comparative linguistics, Brugmann and Leskien, but their attacks were made at the time when Esperanto was beginning to gain favour, and later languages have avoided not a few of the imperfections found fault with by the two Leipzig professors. In 1925 Professor G. Güntert in his Grundfragen der Sprachwissenschaft tried to reduce the whole idea ad absurdum, but on the basis of so deficient a knowledge of the facts of the case and with so prejudiced a mind that he proved less than nothing. It would be a very great mistake to suppose that professional philologists as a body are against constructed languages; it would be much more correct to say that those among them who have gone most into the question are the best disposed to them. I may mention here among those who have spoken in favour of the idea in abstracto, Schuchardt, Vilh. Thomsen and Meillet - three of the greatest stars in the philological world - and among those who have actually taken part in the International Language Movement, Baudouin de Courtenay, Ernst Kock, Wallensköld, Collinson and Sapir, all of them university professors.

People who hear about constructed languages will often say that such a language must be as lifeless as a dead herring, and that we may just as well think of setting up an homunculus made in a chemical retort and claiming for it the qualities of a living human being. Languages are not organisms, and their "life" is not to be compared with that of animals or plants. Forty years ago Schuchardt was able to make short work of this objection by showing how much in the so-called natural languages was really artificial, that is, due to conscious endeavours and conscious selection, and yet was just as capable of "living" as anything else. What we have to do is to study existing languages and their history so as to find out the actual laws of their development and then build on what has most vitality.

title: Novial/AIL Objections


text:
Novial/AIL Differences

Differences in an Interlanguage
A further objection is this: such a language can never be exactly alike in the mouths of all who use it; there will always be a good many divergences and differences. But could not the same thing be said of any existing language? English is spoken in many ways, differing according to localities and to classes and sets of people. What is essential in one as well as in the other case is that there should be so much practical agreement that mutual understanding is possible - and as a matter of fact that has been attained in the case of more than one constructed language.

"An Englishman and a Frenchman will never be able to pronounce the same words in the same way." In this form the statement is not exact: modern practical language-teaching on the basis of phonetics has shown possibilities in this direction which former times could not suspect; but further, phonetic schooling and training is needed to a far less extent in the case of a constructed language than when it is a question of teaching a foreign national language, with its many fine nuances which it is necessary to know and to observe if one wants to have a good pronunciation, and on which we must therefore at present insist in our schools. The phonetic system of a constructed language should be very simple indeed - and is so in the case of all recent schemes. Volapük had German ü and ö, which are easy enough for a Frenchman and a Scandinavian, but not for an Englishman, a Spaniard or a Russian, though a few hours training after a phonetic explanation will suffice to enable anyone to pronounce these sounds; but Esperanto and several other constructed languages have shown how easy it is to dispense with these vowels so as to have only the five vowels a, e, i, o, u (pronounced in the continental way): sound which no nation find difficult. Similarly with consonants: if the language is really constructed on a sensible plan, a sufficient degree of phonetic agreement can easily be obtained even among people who start from such different sound-systems as French and English. It must be remembered that the fewer the distinctive sounds (the "phonemes") which one has in a language, the wider the margin of correctness which can be allowed to each sound without infringing on the domain of its neighbour, and thus running the risk of a word being misheard for another.

But we need not linger over theoretical considerations: the practical experiences of Volapükists, Esperantists and Idists in their congresses and informal meetings has shown every participant that the fears of sceptics are groundless with regard to pronunciation. "Ab esse ad posse valet consequentia": when one has actually seen a thing, one cannot any longer doubt that it is possible. As for myself, I was present at a meeting of the Philological Society of London in 1887, at a time when I was an utter disbeliever in artificial languages, and there I heard an Englishman and a German speaking Volapük and understanding one another perfectly in that curious tongue. Later I have heard Esperanto and Ido spoken by people of a great many nationalities and have been able as a phonetician to observe the ease with which they were able to converse with one another on various topics. It should also be remembered that as an interlanguage is chiefly spoken when men and women from different countries meet, they will naturally tend to rub off the peculiarities of their national pronunciations. This was the experience related by a French Idist after a visit to English Idists: "During the first sentences there was an appreciable difference between our pronunciations; but gradually an pretty rapidly, on account of the very necessity of making ourselves understood, each of us adapted himself to the other, my English host giving a clear enunciation to all syllables, and myself paying more attention to stress than when I am talking Ido with my countrymen. After some moments, we struck, as it were, the same middle note" (Progreso, 4.429). I am perfectly sure that a similar mutual adaptation has taken place very often, and will take place again whenever interlinguists meet together from various countries with the sincere wish of getting full benefit from the conversation. The more such a language is spoken at international gatherings, the more will everybody's pronunciation quite naturally approach the ideal average.

It will further be said that there are difficulties arising from the form-system of any constructed language, which people with different morphologies in their own language will not be able to overcome. If the interlanguage distinguishes four cases, as Volapük did on account of the idiosyncrasies of its German inventor, Englishmen will constantly stumble at these rules. Quite so; therefore recent schemes avoid such complications. Nothing can be concluded from imperfect schemes, except just this, that we must make the interlanguage of the future more perfect, i.e. simpler. Volapük made the error of having four cases; Esperanto made a simpler, though lesser, mistake with its compulsory accusative, used not only for the direct object, but also without preposition to indicate the place to (or towards) which. The simpler the morphological structure is, the less inducement will there be to make grammatical mistakes from a recollection of the grammatical rules of one's native language. But that simplicity does not mean that the language we construct is to be a kind of "Pidgin" incapable of expressing nuances of thought which are necessary to highly cultivated Europeans. I have devoted a long chapter of my book Language to a study of Pidgin English, Beach-la-Mar and similar exotic minimum-languages or makeshift-languages, so I speak with some knowledge of the matter when I say that the interlanguage I am advocating in this book is totally different from such languages through being expressive and efficient, though extremely simple in its grammatical structure.

The following objection is found in various forms even in quite recent articles, and it cannot be denied that it carries a certain weight. Everybody will necessarily transfer some of his speech-habits to the international language, which will thus be coloured differently - in word order, phraseology, etc. - according to the native language underlying each user's way of thinking. There is, however, not so much in that objection as one might imagine beforehand, and here, too, we have already a good deal of experience gathered through practical work with various interlanguages. As a matter of fact a great many people have learnt how to express their thoughts in a constructed language in such a fashion as to be easily understood by people starting from very different national languages. Personally I have read articles and received letters, chiefly in Ido, but also in Esperanto and Occidental, written from not a few countries, Russia, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Hungary, etc., and expressed so accurately that I could hardly detect a single trace of the writers' nationality, though I do not deny that some correspondents lacked this power of effacing their mother-tongue. Some Russians will feel inclined to use sua instead of mea, when the subject of the sentence is "me," etc. No language, not even a simple interlanguage, can be learnt without some instruction, either through the mouth of a teacher, or through a book, or through both; and it must be the chief and foremost task of an instructor to warn his pupils against these idiomatic turns and expressions which cannot be easily understood abroad. It requires very little linguistic knowledge on the part of an Englishman to understand that he should avoid translating phrases like "put up with," "how do you do?" "go in for," etc., word for word into any foreign language. "Take place" means something different from "Platz nehmen." During the war a German paper was indignant and took it as a sign of the cruelty of English girls that one had written to her "young man" the following threat: "I will cut you dead unless you enlist at once"; the German translated: "Ich will dich zerhacken," and took it literally!

The all-important rule in dealing with an interlanguage must always be not to translate word for word from one's native language, but to render the thought itself in its simplest form. This of course requires some mental discipline and amounts to saying that a constructed language cannot be expected to fulfil all the functions and uses to which a national language can be put. It must necessarily remain an intellectual language, a language for the brain, not for the heart; it can never expect to give expression to those deep emotions which find their natural outlet through a national language. There will always be something dry and prosaic about it, and it is a mistake to try and translate very deep poetry in it, for it will be capable of rendering only those elements of poetry which might as well have been expressed through a paraphrase in native prose. But all this does not hinder a constructed language from being eminently useful in very many practical affairs of the utmost importance. This leads us to the following consideration.

title: Novial/AIL Differences


text:
Novial/AIL Not so good

Not so Good as Existing Languages
An objection¹ which is often raised against constructed languages is that they can never be as good as natural languages. It is true that our Interlanguage is not as rich as English, not as elegant as French, not as vigorous as German, not as beautiful as Italian, not as full of nuances as Russian, not as "homelike" as our mother-tongue. But note this well, that all these good qualities, which one appreciates and praises in the national languages, are found only when they are spoken or written by natives. And the Interlanguage may very well be richer than the English spoken by a Frenchman, more elegant than French as spoken by a Dane, more vigorous than the German of some Italians, more beautiful than the Italian of the English, more full of nuances than the Russian of Germans, and more homelike than my own tongue spoken by Russians. And as our language is an auxiliary language, it can only be compared fairly with natural languages as spoken by foreigners; and then neither Ido nor Novial need feel ashamed of itself.

¹ This and the following paragraphs are the translation of the Novial text found below among specimens.

title: Novial/AIL Not so good


text:
Novial/AIL Future

Future Differentiations
From linguists (philologists) one very often hears the following objection: even if all inhabitants of the earth learnt one and the same language, the unity would soon disappear, and different languages would arise in the same way as the Romanic languages were produced by the splitting up of Latin.

Against this objection I have two critical remarks: in the first place, the argument from linguistic history is not sound; and secondly, if it were, that should not hinder us from working for an international language.

It is quite true that the history of languages often shows us a tendency to differentiation: it is well known that most European languages have taken their origin from one and the same language. But the tendency towards differentiation is by no means inevitable. Those who believe that a language must everywhere and always break up into a number of dialects forget the most important law of linguistic biology, namely that constant intercourse creates linguistic unity, even where it did not exist, and that discontinuance of intercourse produces linguistic differences where there was once unity. If after the colonization of Iceland the Icelandic tongue came to be different from Norwegian, this was due to the cessation of constant communication, and if nowadays the speech of California is in perfect agreement in all essential points with that of Boston, this is due to the fact that the inhabitants of the western and eastern parts of America are in very active intercourse with one another. Antiquity witnessed many cases of differentiation of languages; we nowadays see more of the reverse process - dialects are everywhere disappearing, and unity is constantly increasing: an ever-growing number of people speaking the great national unity-languages. Thus the only condition under which an international language once adopted would split up into different languages, would be the want of constant intercourse; if for example a colony of Novialists (or Esperantists) emigrated to a previously uninhabited land, and lived there entirely isolated from the rest of the world. But such a supposition is evidently absurd, and we must insist that as long as an interlanguage continues to be useful in its true function as an aid to intercourse between different countries, there is no danger that it will suffer the fate that befell Latin, when that language was split up into the Romanic languages.

Even if we admit for a moment the possibility and probability of such a differentiation, this ought not to deter us from working for an international language and speaking it. Those who think that any language must by a natural law necessarily and fatally differentiate, will nevertheless speak their mother-tongue every day without being afraid that in accordance with that fatal law it will split up under their hands. And this is quite natural, for such a differentiation is not a matter of a moment; it will take some time, even a long time, and we may confidently assert that it will not take place during our lives. We can thus say: After us the deluge! But, as I have already said, I do not believe that even after us the dreaded linguistic deluge will take place.

title: Novial/AIL Future


text:
Novial/AIL Number of proposed

Number of Proposed Languages
A criticism which is much more serious in its consequences is this: people will never agree on one single artificial language to be used everywhere. A great many interlanguages have been proposed, and new ones spring up on all sides. One of these may be just as good as another, and if some have had a certain vogue and have gathered a troop of adherents, this success has in each case been only temporary, so that each new scheme must be prepared to share the fate of Volapük, which had its heyday of triumph forty years ago and is now totally forgotten.

This objection would certainly be decisive, if the construction of an interlanguage were entirely arbitrary and dependent on an inventor's fancy, and if, on the other hand, the choice between various schemes depended exclusively on the public's whimsical preferences. But fortunately neither of these premises is correct, as we shall see when we cast a glance at the history of the international language movement, and more particularly at its more recent phases.

title: Novial/AIL Number of proposed


text:
Novial/UIL Introduktione

 Un International Lingue (1928)

 da profesore Otto Jespersen, Ph.D., Litt.D., LL.D. (1869-1943)

Traduktet fro li original angli libre.

Introduktione
Disi libre es intentet kom pledo por un artifisial international auxiliari lingue, e komensim sal es bon vido tu kel es implikat per disi adjektives. Artifisial, t.e. fat konsiosim da un home o grupe de homes, kontrastant konter tali natural lingues kom anglum, fransum ets., kel on ha parla durant generationes e kelen developo ha primim eventa sin ke li individus es konsiosi pri chanjos. Ma li termine artifisial inklina krea prejudiko konter li lingue pri kel nus sal trakta, e men taske in disi libre sal es montra quam tre natural tali lingue pove es; dunke me sal prefera parla pri “konstruktet” lingue, e insted termina li existant lingues kom natural me sal usa li plu apti termine national lingues.

Li sekuenti adjektive esed international. Tu signifika ke on intente ke li lingue bli usa non da uli singli natione o uli singli lande, ma da individus kel, quankam les apartena a diferanti nationalesos, have kelku kel les voli komunika a mutu.

Triesmi: auxiliari. Disu implika ke on intente ke nusen international lingue es nur sorte de substitute de national lingues kand unque disus non es kapabli serva kom moyene de komunikatione. On non intente ke novi lingue devud remplasa li existanti lingues: nule kun sobri senses vud kreda ke es posibli forsa ke omni nationes oblive sen propri lingues e konkorda pri un singli substitute por omni funktiones. Ma tu kel tre multi sensosi viros e femas in multi landes ya kreda es laborindi, es stando de aferes in kel edukat angle, kand lo renkontra edukat spane o holandane o bulgare, vud es altigrad serti pri bli komprendat si lo vud parla a lo in konstruktet lingue adoptat por ti eme – stando de aferes anke in kel on vud kondukte international konferos e kongreses pri politikal o siential o komersal questiones liberim sin besono de interpreteres, e on vud sirkula omni ofisial dokumentes kel relate plu kam un state in singli lingue. Dunke, tu pri kel nus interlinguistes pensa, non es tu kel Schleyer fad kom li fanfaronanti moto de sen Volapük, "Menade bal, püki bal" (A un homal rase, un lingue), ma kontrastim tu kel altri inventere de un artifisial lingue, Bollack, prendad kom sen moto: Li duesmi lingue por omnes. Li novi interlingue non vud viola li sakri jures del patral lingue, ma vud bli usa nur kand du o plu multi persones, non-savant mutun lingue, vud have okasione por parla o skripte a mutu.¹

¹In disi libre me ofte usa li abreviatione I.A.L. por International Auxiliari Lingue, anke kelkifoy I.L.

title: Novial/UIL Introduktione


text:
Basic Algebra/Solving Quadratic Equations/The Zero Product Property

Lesson
The zero property is based on the elementary concept that when you multiply two numbers and the answer is zero, then one of the numbers multiplied must be zero.

Rule: if a × b = 0, then a = 0 or b = 0.

Meaning that the zero property establishes that a or b has to equal zero in order for the result to be zero, a or b could be any random number while the other variable is zero so that result would still be zero.

Example Problems
(x+5)(x-3)=0

x+5=0 x-3=0 -5 -5 +3 +3

x=-5   x=3

Practice Problems
Easy

Medium

Hard


text:
Basic Algebra/Solving Quadratic Equations/Solving Quadratic Equations by Factoring

Lesson
The easiest way to solve a quadratic equation is to factor the problem. Steps:
 * 1) Make "Y" a zero.
 * 2) list all the factors of "a" in y=ax2+bx+c.
 * 3) List all the factors of "c" in y=ax2+bx+c.
 * 4) See which factors can be used in such a way that when added or subtracted together they equal "b"

Example Problems
y=x2+2x+1 0=(x+1)(x+1) or 0=(x+1)2 x=-1
 * 1) a=1 1*1=1
 * 2) c=1 1*1=1
 * 3) b=2 1+1=2

Practice Problems
Easy

Medium

Hard


text:
Basic Algebra/Solving Quadratic Equations/Quadratic Equation Word Problems

Practice Problems
 {Easy}

{x^2+2x=8 x={ -4_2 } or { 2_2 }
 * type="{}" coef="2"}

{Suppose you are an event coordinator for a large performance theater. One of the hottest new Broadway musicals as started to tour, and your city is the first stop on the tour. You need to supply information about projected ticket sales to the box office manager. the box office manager uses this information to anticipate staffing needs until the tickets sell out. You provide the manager with a quadratic equation that models the expected number of sales for each day x. (x-1 is the day tickets go on sale).

Tickets = -0.2x^2 +12x +11}

{Does the graph of this equation open up or down? -up +down
 * type="" coef="1"}

{ Medium}

{ Hard}


text:
False Friends of the Slavist/Map none

none

title: False Friends of the Slavist/Map none


text:
User:Btball

My user page on Wikipedia is Brian.

title: User:Btball


text:
User talk:Btball

My talk page on Wikipedia is Brian.

title: User talk:Btball


text:
Hungarian/Vocabulary

You can find an online English-Hungarian dictionary here: (it can also pronounce the words, although not perfectly, as it uses a speech synthesizer.)

title: Hungarian/Vocabulary


text:
Basic Algebra/Working with Numbers/Chapter Test

Please post your test problems this way:
 * Problem:(answer,level of difficulty(easy, medium, hard))
 * Example 2x=6: (x=3,easy)
 * Example 2x+x^2+x(=3x+x^2(form1 level))
 * Example combine1:2,3:2(=6:4:2)(form2 level)


text:
Basic Algebra/Solving Equations/Chapter Test

Please post your test problems this way:
 * Problem:(answer,level of difficulty(easy, medium, hard))
 * Example 2x=6: (x=3,easy)
 * Example 2x/2+4x/4=4(x=2,medium)


text:
Basic Algebra/Proportions and Proportional Reasoning/Chapter Test

Please post your test problems this way:
 * Problem:(answer,level of difficulty(easy, medium, hard))
 * Example 2x=6: (x=3,easy)
 * 2+2=x (x=4,easy)


text:
Basic Algebra/Lines (Linear Functions)/Chapter Test

Please post your test problems this way:
 * Problem:(answer,level of difficulty(easy, medium, hard))
 * Example 2x=6: (x=3,easy)


text:
Basic Algebra/Linear Inequalities/Chapter Test

Please post your test problems this way:
 * Problem:(answer,level of difficulty(easy, medium, hard))
 * Example 2x=6: (x=3,easy)


text:
Basic Algebra/Systems of Linear Equations/Chapter Test

Please post your test problems this way: $$x+11=36$$:
 * Problem:(answer,level of difficulty(easy, medium, hard))
 * Example

($$x=36-11=25$$, easy)

\begin{cases} x+11=y+111\\ y=-3x \end{cases} $$

$$x+11=-3x+111$$

$$x=25$$ ,($$25+11=36$$)

($$y=36-111=-75$$, medium)


text:
Basic Algebra/Polynomials/Chapter Test

Please post your test problems this way:
 * Problem:(answer,level of difficulty(easy, medium, hard))
 * Example 2x=6: (x=3,easy)

title: Basic Algebra/Polynomials/Chapter Test


text:
Basic Algebra/Factoring/Chapter Test

Please post your test problems this way:
 * Problem:(answer,level of difficulty(easy, medium, hard))
 * Example 2x=6: (x=3,easy)

title: Basic Algebra/Factoring/Chapter Test


text:
Basic Algebra/Solving Quadratic Equations/Chapter Test

Please post your test problems this way:
 * Problem:(answer,level of difficulty(easy, medium, hard))
 * Example 2x=6: (x=3,easy)


text:
Basic Algebra/Quadratic Functions/Chapter Test

Please post your test problems this way:
 * Problem:(answer,level of difficulty(easy, medium, hard))
 * Example 2x=6: (x=3,easy)


text:
Basic Algebra/Exponential Functions/Chapter Test

Please post your test problems this way:
 * Problem:(answer,level of difficulty(easy, medium, hard))
 * Example 2x=6: (x=3,easy)


text:
Basic Algebra/Rational Expressions and Equations/Chapter Test

Please post your test problems this way:
 * Problem:(answer,level of difficulty(easy, medium, hard))
 * Example 2x=6: (x=3,easy)


text:
Basic Algebra/Radical Expressions and Equations/Chapter Review

Lesson 1. Square Root Functions

Lesson 2. Equations with Radicals

Lesson 3. Rational Exponents

Lesson 4. The Pythagorean Theorem

Lesson 5. The Distance Formula


text:
Talk:Diplomacy/Alliances

Can you improve on Cadilac Alliances? Even I'd like to know what it is...

Please watch for vandalism
Can people be more careful about watching changes to this page? I just had a look at the Sealion because someone linked me to it, and thought "Oh, that's brilliant, but why would Germany cede the North Sea to France, who already has ENC?"

A bit more research showed that in fact the Sealion puts Germany into the North Sea, not France. Presumably someone tinkered the page so they could then point to it and say "No, you should let me have North Sea." Very clever tactics on their part, but please, people - keep an eye on the page. :) 98.180.9.209 (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Diplomacy/Alliances