text:
Railway air brake

A railway air brake is a railway brake power braking system with compressed air as the operating medium. Modern trains rely upon a fail-safe air brake system that is based upon a design patented by George Westinghouse on April 13, 1869. The Westinghouse Air Brake Company was subsequently organized to manufacture and sell Westinghouse's invention. In various forms, it has been nearly universally adopted.

The Westinghouse system uses air pressure to charge air reservoirs (tanks) on each car. Full air pressure causes each car to release the brakes. A subsequent reduction or loss of air pressure causes each car to apply its brakes, using the compressed air stored in its reservoirs.

Straight air brake
In the air brake's simplest form, called the straight air system, compressed air pushes on a piston in a cylinder. The piston is connected through mechanical linkage to brake shoes that can rub on the train wheels, using the resulting friction to slow the train. The mechanical linkage can become quite elaborate, as it evenly distributes force from one pressurized air cylinder to 8 or 12 wheels.

The pressurized air comes from an air compressor in the locomotive and is sent from car to car by a train line made up of pipes beneath each car and hoses between cars. The principal problem with the straight air braking system is that any separation between hoses and pipes causes loss of air pressure and hence the loss of the force applying the brakes. This could easily cause a runaway train. Straight air brakes are still used on locomotives, although as a dual circuit system, usually with each bogie (truck) having its own circuit.

Westinghouse air brake
In order to design a system without the shortcomings of the straight air system, Westinghouse invented a system wherein each piece of railroad rolling stock was equipped with an air reservoir and a triple valve, also known as a control valve. Unlike the straight air system, the Westinghouse system uses a reduction in air pressure in the train line to indirectly apply the brakes. The triple valve is so named because it performs three functions: It allows air into an air tank ready to be used, it applies the brakes, and it releases them. In so doing, it supports certain other actions (i.e. it 'holds' or maintains the application and it permits the exhaust of brake cylinder pressure and the recharging of the reservoir during the release). In his patent application, Westinghouse refers to his 'triple-valve device' because of the three component valvular parts comprising it: the diaphragm-operated poppet valve feeding reservoir air to the brake cylinder, the reservoir charging valve, and the brake cylinder release valve. Westinghouse soon improved the device by removing the poppet valve action. These three components became the piston valve, the slide valve, and the graduating valve.

 * If the pressure in the train line is lower than that of the reservoir, the brake cylinder exhaust portal is closed and air from the car's reservoir is fed into the brake cylinder. Pressure increases in the cylinder, applying the brakes, while decreasing in the reservoir. This action continues until equilibrium between the brake pipe pressure and reservoir pressure is achieved. At that point, the airflow from the reservoir to the brake cylinder is lapped off and the cylinder is maintained at a constant pressure.
 * If the pressure in the train line is higher than that of the reservoir, the triple valve connects the train line to the reservoir feed, causing the air pressure in the reservoir to increase. The triple valve also causes the brake cylinder to be exhausted to the atmosphere, releasing the brakes.
 * As the pressure in the train line and that of the reservoir equalize, the triple valve closes, causing the air in the reservoir to be sealed in, and the brake cylinder is not pressurized.

When the engine operator applies the brake by operating the locomotive brake valve, the train line vents to atmosphere at a controlled rate, reducing the train line pressure and in turn triggering the triple valve on each car to feed air into its brake cylinder. When the engine operator releases the brake, the locomotive brake valve portal to atmosphere is closed, allowing the train line to be recharged by the compressor of the locomotive. The subsequent increase of train line pressure causes the triple valves on each car to discharge the contents of the brake cylinder to the atmosphere, releasing the brakes and recharging the reservoirs.

The Westinghouse system is thus fail-safe—any failure in the train line, including a separation ("break-in-two") of the train, will cause a loss of train line pressure, causing the brakes to be applied and bringing the train to a stop, thus preventing a runaway train.

Modern systems
Modern air brake systems serve two functions:
 * Service braking applies and releases the brakes during normal operations.
 * Emergency braking rapidly applies the brakes in the event of a brake pipe failure or an emergency application by the engine operator or passenger emergency alarm/cord/handle.

When the train brakes are applied during normal operation, the engine operator makes a "service application" or a "service rate reduction”, which means that the brake pipe pressure reduces at a controlled rate. It takes several seconds for the brake pipe pressure to reduce and consequently takes several seconds for the brakes to apply throughout the train. The speed of pressure changes during a service reduction is limited by the compressed air's ability to overcome the flow resistance of the relatively-small-diameter pipe and numerous elbows throughout the length of the train, and the relatively-small exhaust port on the head-end locomotive, which means the brakes of the rear-most cars will apply sometime after those of the forward-most cars apply, so some slack run-in can be expected. The gradual reduction in brake pipe pressure will mitigate this effect.

Modern locomotives employ two air brake systems. The system which controls the brake pipe is called the automatic brake and provides service and emergency braking control for the entire train. The locomotive(s) at the head of the train (the "lead consist") have a secondary system called the independent brake. The independent brake is a "straight air" system that makes brake applications on the head-of-train locomotive consist independently of the automatic brake, providing for more nuanced train control. The two braking systems may interact differently as a matter of preference by the locomotive builder or the railroad. In some systems, the automatic and independent applications will be additive; in some systems the greater of the two will apply to the locomotive consist. The independent system also provides a bail off mechanism, which releases the brakes on the lead locomotives without affecting the brake application on the rest of the train.

In the event the train needs to make an emergency stop, the engine operator can make an "emergency application," which will rapidly vent all of the brake pipe pressure to atmosphere, resulting in a faster application of the train's brakes. An emergency application also results when the integrity of the brake pipe is lost, as all air will also be immediately vented to atmosphere.

An emergency brake application brings in an additional component of each car's air brake system. The triple valve is divided into two portions: the service section, which contains the mechanism used during brake applications made during service reductions, and the emergency section, which senses the faster emergency reduction of train line pressure. In addition, each car's air brake reservoir is divided into two sections—the service portion and the emergency portion—and is known as the "dual-compartment reservoir”. Normal service applications transfer air pressure from the service section to the brake cylinder, while emergency applications cause the triple valve to direct all air in both the sections of the dual-compartment reservoir to the brake cylinder, resulting in a 20 to 30 percent stronger application.

The emergency portion of each triple valve is activated by the higher rate of reduction of brake pipe pressure. Due to the length of trains and the small diameter of the brake pipe, the rate of reduction is highest near the front of the train (in the case of an engine operator-initiated emergency application) or near the break in the brake pipe (in the case of loss of brake pipe integrity). Farther away from the source of the emergency application, the rate of reduction can be reduced to the point where triple valves will not detect the application as an emergency reduction. To prevent this, each triple valve's emergency portion contains an auxiliary vent port, which, when activated by an emergency application, also locally vents the brake pipe's pressure directly to atmosphere. This serves to more rapidly vent the brake pipe and hasten the propagation of the emergency reduction rate along the entire length of the train.

Use of distributed power (i.e., remotely controlled locomotive units mid-train and/or at the rear end) somewhat mitigates the time-lag problem with long trains, because a telemetered radio signal from the engine operator in the front locomotive commands the distant units to initiate brake pressure reductions that propagate quickly through nearby cars.

Distributors
Many modern air brake systems use distributors instead of triple valves. These serve the same function as triple valves, but have additional functionality such as the ability to partially release the brakes.

Working pressures
The locomotive's air compressor typically charges the main reservoir with air at 125 –. The train brakes are released by admitting reduced and regulated main reservoir air pressure to the brake pipe through the engineer's automatic brake valve. In America, a fully charged brake pipe typically operates at 70 – for freight trains and 110 psi AAA for passenger trains. The brakes are applied when the engineer moves the automatic brake handle to a "service" position, which causes a reduction in brake pipe pressure.

During normal service, the pressure in the brake pipe is never reduced to zero and in fact, the smallest reduction that will cause a satisfactory brake response is used to conserve brake pipe pressure. A sudden and substantial pressure reduction caused by a loss of brake pipe integrity (e.g., a blown hose), the train breaking in two and uncoupling air hoses, or the engineer moving the automatic brake valve to the emergency position, will cause an emergency brake application. On the other hand, a slow leak that gradually reduces brake pipe pressure to zero, something that might happen if the air compressor is inoperative and therefore not maintaining main reservoir pressure, will not cause an emergency brake application.

Enhancements
Electro-pneumatic or EP brakes are a type of air brake that allows for immediate application of brakes throughout the train instead of the sequential application. EP brakes have been in British practice since 1949 and also used in German high-speed trains (most notably the ICE) since the late 1980s; they are fully described in Electro-pneumatic brake system on British railway trains. , electro-pneumatic brakes were in testing in North America and South Africa on captive service ore and coal trains.

Passenger trains have had for a long time a three-wire version of the electro-pneumatic brake, which gives up to seven levels of braking force.

In North America, the Westinghouse Air Brake Company supplied high-speed control brake equipment for several post-World War II streamlined passenger trains. This was an electrically controlled overlay on conventional D-22 passenger and 24-RL locomotive brake equipment. On the conventional side, the control valve set a reference pressure in a volume, which set brake cylinder pressure via a relay valve. On the electric side, pressure from a second straight-air trainline controlled the relay valve via a two-way check valve. This "straight air" trainline was charged and released by magnet valves on each car, controlled electrically by a three-wire trainline, in turn controlled by an electro-pneumatic master controller in the controlling locomotive. This controller compared the pressure in the straight air trainline with that supplied by a self-lapping portion of the engineers valve, signaling all of the "apply" or "release" magnets valves in the train to open simultaneously, changing the pressure in the straight-air trainline much more rapidly and evenly than possible by simply supplying air directly from the locomotive. The relay valve was equipped with four diaphragms, magnet valves, electric control equipment, and an axle-mounted speed sensor, so that at speeds over 60 mph full braking force was applied, and reduced in steps at 60 ,, bringing the train to a gentle stop. Each axle was also equipped with anti-lock brake equipment. The combination minimized braking distances, allowing more full-speed running between stops. The straight-air (electro-pneumatic trainline), anti-lock, and speed graduating portions of the system were not dependent on each other in any way, and any or all of these options could be supplied separately.

Later systems replace the automatic air brake with an electrical wire which runs in a circle round the whole train and has to be kept energized to keep the brakes off. In the UK it is known as a train wire. It is routed through various "governors" (switches operated by air pressure) which monitor critical components such as compressors, brake pipes and air reservoirs. Also if the train divides the wire will be broken, ensuring that all motors are switched off and both portions of the train have an immediate emergency brake application.

More recent innovations are electronically controlled pneumatic brakes where the brakes of all the wagons (cars) and locomotives are connected by a kind of local area network, which allows individual control of the brakes on each wagon, and the reporting back of performance of each wagon's brakes.

Limitations
The Westinghouse air brake system is very reliable but not infallible. The car reservoirs recharge only when the brake pipe pressure is higher than the reservoir pressure. Fully recharging the reservoirs on a long train can require considerable time (8 to 10 minutes in some cases ), during which the brake pipe pressure will be lower than locomotive reservoir pressure.

If the brakes must be applied before recharging has been completed, a larger brake pipe reduction will be required in order to achieve the desired amount of braking effort, as the system is starting out at a lower point of equilibrium (lower overall pressure). If many brake pipe reductions are made in short succession ("fanning the brake" in railroad slang), a point may be reached where car reservoir pressure will be severely depleted, resulting in substantially reduced brake cylinder piston force, causing the brakes to fail. On a descending grade, the result will be a runaway.

In the event of a loss of braking due to reservoir depletion, the engine driver may be able to regain control with an emergency brake application, as the emergency portion of each car's dual-compartment reservoir should be fully charged—it is not affected by normal service reductions. The triple valves detect an emergency reduction based on the rate of brake pipe pressure reduction. Therefore, as long as a sufficient volume of air can be rapidly vented from the brake pipe, each car's triple valve will cause an emergency brake application. However, if the brake pipe pressure is too low due to an excessive number of brake applications, an emergency application will not produce a large enough volume of air flow to trip the triple valves, leaving the engine driver with no means to stop the train.

To prevent a runaway due to loss of brake pressure, dynamic (rheostatic) braking can be utilized so the locomotive(s) will assist in retarding the train. Often, blended braking, the simultaneous application of dynamic and train brakes, will be used to maintain a safe speed and keep the slack bunched on descending grades. Care would then be given when releasing the service and dynamic brakes to prevent draw-gear damage caused by a sudden run out of the train's slack.

Another solution to loss of brake pressure is the two-pipe system, fitted on most locomotive-hauled passenger stock and many freight wagons. In addition to the traditional brake pipe, this enhancement adds the main reservoir pipe, which is continuously charged with air directly from the locomotive's main reservoir. The main reservoir is where the locomotive's air compressor output is stored, and is ultimately the source of compressed air for all systems that use it.

Since the main reservoir pipe is kept constantly pressurized by the locomotive, the car reservoirs can be charged independently of the brake pipe, this being accomplished via a check valve to prevent backfeeding into the pipe. This arrangement helps to reduce the above described pressure loss problems, and also reduces the time required for the brakes to release, since the brake pipe only has to recharge itself.

Main reservoir pipe pressure can also be used to supply air for auxiliary systems such as pneumatic door operators or air suspension. Nearly all passenger trains (all in the UK and USA), and many freights, now have the two-pipe system.

Accidents
At both ends of each car, there are angle cocks fitted. These valves cut off the air from the train line and vent the coupling hoses for uncoupling cars. The air brake only operates if the angle cocks are open except the ones at the front of the locomotive and at the end of the train.

The air brake can fail if one of the angle cocks is accidentally closed. In this case, the brakes on the wagons behind the closed cock will fail to respond to the driver's command. This happened in the 1953 Pennsylvania Railroad train wreck involving the Federal Express, a Pennsylvania Railroad passenger train which became a runaway while heading into Washington Union Station in Washington, D.C., causing the train to crash into the passenger concourse and fall through the floor. Similarly, in the Gare de Lyon rail accident, a valve was accidentally closed by the crew, reducing braking power.

There are a number of safeguards that are usually taken to prevent this sort of accident from happening. Railroads have strict government-approved procedures for testing the air brake systems when making up trains in a yard or picking up cars en route. These generally involve connecting the air brake hoses, charging up the brake system, setting the brakes and manually inspecting the cars to ensure the brakes are applied, and then releasing the brakes and manually inspecting the cars to ensure the brakes are released. Particular attention is usually paid to the rearmost car of the train, either by manual inspection or via an automated end-of-train device, to ensure that brake pipe continuity exists throughout the entire train. When brake pipe continuity exists throughout the train, failure of the brakes to apply or release on one or more cars is an indication that the cars' triple valves are malfunctioning. Depending on the location of the air test, the repair facilities available, and regulations governing the number of inoperative brakes permitted in a train, the car may be set out for repair or taken to the next terminal where it can be repaired.

A different kind of accident can occur if a malfunction in the air brake system (such as a broken air brake hose) causes the air brakes to engage unexpectedly. An example of this problem can be seen in the accident that caused the death of John Luther "Casey" Jones on 30 April 1900 on the Illinois Central Railroad main line at Vaughan, Mississippi.

Standardisation
The modern air brake is not identical with the original airbrake as there have been slight changes in the design of the triple valve, which are not completely compatible between versions, and which must therefore be introduced in phases. However, the basic air brakes used on railways worldwide are remarkably compatible.

European systems
European brake systems may vary, depending on the country, but the working principle is the same as for the Westinghouse air brake. European passenger cars used on national wide-spread railway networks have to comply with TSI LOC&PAS law which says in point 4.2.4.3 that all brake systems must comply to EN 14198:2004 standard, which derives and links to ratified by many train operating companies UIC leaflet 540. Those documents allows following brake design types for newly built rolling stock:

Historically, and according to UIC 540 we distinguish systems technically approved even since 1927-1932 such as: Westinghouse W, Knorr K, Kunze-Knorr, Drolshammer, Bozic, Hildebrand-Knorr.
 * Oerlikon ESG 121, ESH 100/200
 * SAB-WABCO SW 4, C3WR, WU-C, GF4 SS1, GF4 SS2, GF6 SS1, GF6 SS2
 * Knorr KKL II, KE and similar
 * Dako CV1nD
 * MZT HEPOS MH3f/HBG310 and similar
 * Bumar-Fablok MBF-01A, MBF-01B, MBF-02
 * Faiveley Transport SW4S and similar, FT SS1 / FT SS2 and similar
 * Keschwari Electronic Systems EDS 300

In the steam era, Britain's railways were divided – some using vacuum brakes and some using air brakes – but there was a gradual standardization on the vacuum brake. Some locomotives, e.g. on the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway, were dual-fitted so that they could work with either vacuum- or air-braked trains. In the diesel era, the process was reversed and British Railways switched from vacuum-braked to air-braked rolling stock in the 1960s.

Vacuum brakes
The main competitor to the air brake is the vacuum brake, which operates on negative pressure. The vacuum brake is a little simpler than the air brake. Instead of an air compressor, steam engines have an ejector with no moving parts, and diesel or electric locomotives have a mechanical or electrical "exhauster". Disconnection taps at the ends of cars are not required because the loose hoses are sucked onto a mounting block.

However, the maximum pressure in a vacuum system is limited to atmospheric pressure, so all the equipment has to be much larger and heavier to compensate. That disadvantage is made worse at high altitude. The vacuum brake is also considerably slower to both apply and release the brake, which requires a greater level of skill and anticipation from the driver. Conversely, the vacuum brake originally had the advantage of allowing gradual release, whereas the Westinghouse automatic air brake was originally available in only the direct-release form still common in freight service.

A primary fault of vacuum brakes is the inability to find leaks easily. In a positive air system, a leak is quickly found due to the escaping pressurized air. Discovering a vacuum leak is more difficult, although it is easier to repair, because a piece of rubber (for example) can just be tied around the leak and will be firmly held in place by the vacuum.

Electro-vacuum brakes have been used with considerable success on South African electric multiple unit trains. Despite requiring larger and heavier equipment, as stated above, the performance of the electro-vacuum brake approached that of contemporary electro-pneumatic brakes. However, their use has not been repeated.

title: Railway air brake


text:
Kalmyks

Kalmyks (Kalmyk: Хальмгуд, ; Халимагууд; Калмыки; archaically anglicised as Calmucks) are the only Mongolic-speaking people living in Europe, residing in the easternmost part of the European Plain.

This dry steppe area, west of the lower Volga River, known among the nomads as Itil/Idjil, basin on the Northwest shore of the Caspian Sea was the most suitable land for nomadic pastures. Itil or Idjil, the ancient name of the Volga River, written in the archaic Oirat script means exactly that, the "pastures" (Oirat-Kalmyk dictionary, 1977).

The ancestors of Kalmyks were nomadic groups of Oirat-speaking people, who migrated from Western Mongolia to Eastern Europe three times: in early medieval times, establishing in the 6th-8th century the Avar Khanate; in medieval times, establishing the Ulus of Juchi and Il-Kanate as Khuda-in-laws of Chiggis Khan (Juvaini A-M. Genghis Khan: the history of the world conqueror. Manchester, UK: Manchester Univ. Press; 1997), and finally, in early modern times, establishing the Kalmyk Khanate in the 17th century.

The Oirat language belongs to the western branch of the Mongolic language family, whose speakers include numerous sub-ethnic groups (Derbet, Torgut, Khoshut, Olot, Dzungar (Zunghar), Bayad, Zakhchin, Khoton, Myangad, Buzava) across a wide geographical area of Uvs and Khovd provinces (aimags) of Western Mongolia (N = 209,412), and in Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, China (N = 194,891). Ethnic groups of Oirat speakers in the Republic of Kalmykia, Russia (N = 162,740 ) include Torguts, Derbets and Buzavas, together with a smaller group called Khoshuts, who live in just two villages of Kalmykia. Up until today the Kalmyks have retained their distinguished sub-ethnic groups, being quite separated from their geographical neighbours in Russia and northeast Caucasus.

They are the only traditionally Buddhist people who are located within Europe. Through emigration, small Kalmyk communities have been established in the United States, France, Germany, and the Czech Republic.

Early history of the Oirats
The contemporary Kalmyks are a branch of the Mongolian Oirats, whose ancient grazing-lands spanned present-day parts of Kazakhstan, Russia, Mongolia and China. After the fall of the Mongol-led Yuan dynasty of China in 1368, the Oirats emerged as a formidable foe against the Khalkha Mongols, the Han-led Ming dynasty and the Manchu-led Qing dynasty. For 400 years, the Oirats conducted a military struggle for domination and control over both Inner Mongolia and Outer Mongolia. The struggle ended in 1757 with the defeat of the Oirats of the Dzungar Khanate against the Qing Empire, in the Dzungar–Qing Wars; they were the last of the Mongol groups to resist vassalage to Qing. At the start of this 400-year era, the Western Mongols designated themselves as the Four Oirat. The alliance comprised four major Western Mongol tribes: Khoshut, Choros, Torghut and Dörbet. Collectively, the Four Oirat sought power as an alternative to the Mongols, who were the patrilineal heirs to Genghis Khan. The Four Oirat incorporated neighboring tribes or splinter groups at times, so there was a great deal of fluctuation in the composition of the alliance, with larger tribes dominating or absorbing the smaller ones. Smaller tribes belonging to the confederation included the Khoits, Zakhchin, Bayids and Khangal.

Together, these nomadic tribes roamed the grassy plains of western Inner Asia, between Lake Balkhash in present-day eastern Kazakhstan and Lake Baikal in present-day Russia north of central Mongolia. They pitched their yurts and kept herds of cattle, flocks of sheep, horses, donkeys and camels.

Paul Pelliot translated the name "Torghut" as garde de jour. He wrote that the Torghuts owed their name either to the memory of the guard of Genghis Khan or, as descendants of the Keraites, to the old garde de jour. This was documented among the Keraites in The Secret History of the Mongols before Genghis Khan took over the region (Pelliot, 1930:30).

Period of open conflict
The Four Oirat was a political entity formed by the four major Oirat tribes. During the 15–17th centuries, they established under the name "10 tumen Mongols", a cavalry unit of 10,000 horsemen, including four Oirat tumen and six tumen composed of other Mongols. They reestablished their traditional pastoral nomadic lifestyle during the end of the Yuan dynasty. The Oirats formed this alliance to defend themselves against the Khalkha Mongols and to pursue the greater objective of reunifying Mongolia.

Until the mid-17th century, when bestowal of the title of Khan was transferred to the Dalai Lama, all Mongol tribes recognized this claim and the political prestige attached to it. Although the Oirats could not assert this claim prior to the mid-17th century, they did in fact have a close connection to Genghis Khan by virtue of the fact that Genghis Khan's brother, Qasar, was in command of the Khoshut tribe.

In response to the Western Mongols' self-designation as the Four Oirat, the Eastern Mongols began to refer to themselves as the "Forty Mongols", or the "Forty and Four". This means that the Khalkha Mongols claimed to have forty tümen to the four tümen maintained by the Four Oirat.

The Oirat alliance was decentralized, informal and unstable. For instance, the Four Oirat did not have a central location from which it was governed, and it was not governed by a central figure for most of its existence. The four Oirats did not establish a single military or a unified monastic system. Lastly, it was not until 1640 that the Four Oirat adopted uniform customary laws.

As pastoralist nomads, the Oirats were organized at the tribal level, where each tribe was ruled by a noyon or prince who also functioned as the chief taishi "chieftain". The chief taishi governed with the support of lesser noyons, who were also called taishi. These minor noyons controlled divisions of the tribe (ulus) and were politically and economically independent of the chief tayishi. Chief taishis sought to influence and dominate the chief taishis of the other tribes, causing intertribal rivalry, dissension and periodic skirmishes.

Under the leadership of Esen, Chief Taishi of the Choros, the Four Oirat unified Mongolia for a short period. After Esen's death in 1455, the political union of the Dörben Oirat dissolved quickly, resulting in two decades of Oirat-Eastern Mongol conflict. The deadlock ended during the reign of Batmunkh Dayan Khan, a five-year-old boy in whose name the loyal Eastern Mongol forces rallied. Mandukhai Khatun and Dayan Khan took advantage of Oirat disunity and weakness and brought Oirats back under Mongolian rule. In doing so, he regained control of the Mongol homeland and restored the hegemony of the Eastern Mongols.

After the death of Dayan in 1543, the Oirats and the Khalkhas resumed their conflict. The Oirat forces thrust eastward, but Dayan's youngest son, Geresenz, was given command of the Khalkha forces and drove the Oirats to Uvs Lake in northwest Mongolia. In 1552, after the Oirats once again challenged the Khalkha, Altan Khan swept up from Inner Mongolia with Tümed and Ordos cavalry units, pushing elements of various Oirat tribes from Karakorum to the Khovd region in northwest Mongolia, reuniting most of Mongolia in the process (Grousset, 1970:510).

The Oirats would later regroup south of the Altai Mountains in Dzungaria. But Geresenz's grandson, Sholoi Ubashi Khuntaiji, pushed the Oirats further northwest, along the steppes of the Ob and Irtysh Rivers. Afterwards, he established a Khalkha Khanate under the name, Altan Khan, in the Oirat heartland of Dzungaria.

In spite of the setbacks, the Oirats would continue their campaigns against the Altan Khanate, trying to unseat Sholoi Ubashi Khuntaiji from Dzungaria. The continuous, back-and-forth nature of the struggle, which defined this period, is captured in the Oirat epic song "The Rout of Mongolian Sholoi Ubashi Khuntaiji", recounting the Oirat victory over the Altan Khan of the Khalkha in 1587.

Resurgence of Oirat power

At the beginning of the 17th century, the First Altan Khan drove the Oirats westward to present-day eastern Kazakhstan. The Torghuts became the westernmost Oirat tribe, encamped in the Tarbagatai Mountains region and along the northern stretches of the Irtysh, Ishim and Tobol Rivers.

Further west, the Kazakhs – a Turco-Mongol people – prevented the Torghuts from sending its trading caravans to the Muslim towns and villages located along the Syr Darya river. As a result, the Torghuts established a trading relationship with the newly established outposts of the Tsarist government whose expansion into and exploration of Siberia was motivated mostly by the desire to profit from trade with Asia.

The Khoshut, by contrast, were the easternmost Oirat, encamped near the Lake Zaysan area and the Semey region along the lower portions of the Irtysh River, where they built several steppe monasteries. The Khoshut were adjacent to the Khalkha khanates of Altan Khan and Dzasagtu Khan. Both khanates prevented the Khoshut and the other Oirat from trading with Chinese border towns. The Khoshut were ruled by Baibagas Khan and then Güshi Khan, who were the first Oirat leaders to convert to the Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism.

Locked in between both tribes were the Choros, Dörbet Oirat and Khoid, collectively known as the "Dzungar people", who were slowly rebuilding the base of power they enjoyed under the Four Oirat. The Choros were the dominant Oirat tribe of that era. Their leader, Erdeni Batur, attempted to follow Esen Khan in unifying the Oirats to challenge the Khalkha. Under the dynamic leadership of Erdeni Batur, the Dzungars stopped the expansion of the first Altan Khan and began planning the resurrection of the Four Oirat under the Dzungar banner. In furtherance of such plans, Erdeni Batur designed and built a capital city called Kubak-sari on the Emil River near the modern city of Tacheng. During his attempt to build a nation, Erdeni Batur encouraged diplomacy, commerce and farming. He also sought to acquire modern weaponry and build small industry, such as metal works, to supply his military with weapons.

The attempted unification of the Oirat caused dissension among the tribes and their Chief Tayishis who were independent minded but also highly regarded leaders themselves. This dissension reputedly caused Kho Orluk to move the Torghut tribe and elements of the Dörbet tribe westward to the Volga region where his descendants formed the Kalmyk Khanate. In the east, Güshi Khan took part of the Khoshut to the Tsaidam and Qinghai regions in the Tibetan Plateau, where he formed the Khoshut Khanate to protect Tibet and the Gelug from both internal and external enemies. Erdeni Batur and his descendants, by contrast, formed the Dzungar Khanate and came to dominate Central Eurasia.

Torghut migration
In 1618, the Torghut and a small contingent of Dörbet Oirats (200,000–250,000 people) chose to migrate from the upper Irtysh River region to the grazing pastures of the lower Volga region south of Saratov and north of the Caspian Sea on both banks of the Volga River. The Torghut were led by their taishi, Kho Orluk. They were the largest Oirat tribe to migrate, bringing along nearly the entire tribe. The second-largest group was the Dörbet Oirats under their taishi, Dalai Batur. Together they moved west through southern Siberia and the southern Ural Mountains, avoiding the more direct route that would have taken them through the heart of the territory of their enemy, the Kazakhs. En route, they raided Russian settlements and Kazakh and Bashkir encampments.

Many theories have been advanced to explain the reasons for the migration. One generally accepted theory is that there may have been discontent among the Oirat tribes, which arose from the attempt by Kharkhul, taishi of the Dzungars, to centralize political and military control over the tribes under his leadership. Some scholars, however, believe that the Torghuts sought uncontested pastures as their territory was being encroached upon by the Russians from the north, the Kazakhs from the south and the Dzungars from the east. The encroachments resulted in overcrowding of people and livestock, thereby diminishing the food supply. Lastly, a third theory suggests that the Torghuts grew weary of the militant struggle between the Oirats and the Altan Khanate.

Period of self rule, 1630–1724

Upon arrival to the lower Volga region in 1630, the Oirats encamped on land that was once part of the Astrakhan Khanate but was now claimed by the Tsardom of Russia. The region was lightly populated, from south of Saratov to the Russian garrison at Astrakhan and on both the east and the west banks of the Volga River. The Tsardom of Russia was not ready to colonize the area and was in no position to prevent the Oirats from encamping in the region, but it had a direct political interest in ensuring that the Oirats would not become allied with its Turkic-speaking neighbors. The Kalmyks became Russian allies and a treaty to protect the southern Russian border was signed between the Kalmyk Khanate and Russia.

The Oirats quickly consolidated their position by expelling the majority of the native inhabitants, the Nogai Horde. Large groups of Nogais fled southeast to the northern Caucasian plain and west to the Black Sea steppe, lands claimed by the Crimean Khanate, itself a vassal or ally of the Ottoman Empire. Smaller groups of Nogais sought the protection of the Russian garrison at Astrakhan. The remaining nomadic tribes became vassals of the Oirats.

The Kalmyks battled the Karakalpaks. The Mangyshlak Peninsula was overtaken in 1639 by Kalmyks.

At first, an uneasy relationship existed between the Russians and the Oirats. Mutual raiding by the Oirats of Russian settlements and by the Cossacks and the Bashkirs, Muslim vassals of the Russians, of Oirat encampments was commonplace. Numerous oaths and treaties were signed to ensure Oirat loyalty and military assistance. Although the Oirats became subjects of the Tsar, such allegiance by the Oirats was deemed to be nominal.

In reality, the Oirats governed themselves pursuant to a document known as the "Great Code of the Nomads" (Iki Tsaadzhin Bichig). The Code was promulgated in 1640 by them, their brethren in Dzungaria and some of the Khalkha who all gathered near the Tarbagatai Mountains in Dzungaria to resolve their differences and to unite under the banner of the Gelug school. Although the goal of unification was not met, the summit leaders did ratify the Code, which regulated all aspects of nomadic life.

In securing their position, the Oirats became a borderland power, often allying themselves with the Russian Empire against the neighboring Muslim population. During the era of Ayuka Khan, the Oirats rose to political and military prominence as the Russian Empire sought the increased use of Oirat cavalry in support of its military campaigns against the Muslim powers in the south, such as Safavid Iran, the Ottoman Empire, the Nogais, the Tatars of Kuban and the Crimean Khanate. Ayuka Khan also waged wars against the Kazakhs, subjugated the Turkmens of the Mangyshlak Peninsula, and made multiple expeditions against the highlanders of the North Caucasus. These campaigns highlighted the strategic importance of the Kalmyk Khanate which functioned as a buffer zone, separating Russia and the Muslim world, as Russia fought wars in Europe to establish itself as a European power.

To encourage the release of Oirat cavalrymen in support of its military campaigns, the Russian Empire increasingly relied on the provision of monetary payments and dry goods to the Oirat Khan and the Oirat nobility. In that respect, the Russian Empire treated the Oirats as it did the Cossacks. The provision of monetary payments and dry goods, however, did not stop the mutual raiding, and, in some instances, both sides failed to fulfill its promises (Halkovic, 1985:41–54).

Another significant incentive the Russian Empire provided to the Oirats was tariff-free access to the markets of Russian border towns, where the Oirats were permitted to barter their herds and the items they obtained from Asia and their Muslim neighbors in exchange for Russian goods. Trade also occurred with neighboring Turkic tribes under Russian control, such as the Tatars and the Bashkirs. Intermarriage became common with such tribes. This trading arrangement provided substantial benefits, monetary and otherwise, to the Oirat tayishis, noyons and zaisangs.

Fred Adelman described this era as the "Frontier Period", lasting from the advent of the Torghut under Kho Orluk in 1630 to the end of the great khanate of Kho Orluk's descendant, Ayuka Khan, in 1724, a phase accompanied by little discernible acculturative change: "There were few sustained interrelations between Kalmyks and Russians in the frontier period. Routine contacts consisted in the main of seasonal commodity exchanges of Kalmyk livestock and the products thereof for such nomad necessities as brick tea, grain, textiles and metal articles, at Astrakhan, Tsaritsyn and Saratov. This was the kind of exchange relationship between nomads and urban craftsmen and traders in which the Kalmyks traditionally engaged. Political contacts consisted of a series of treaty arrangements for the nominal allegiance of the Kalmyk Khans to Russia, and the cessation of mutual raiding by Kalmyks on the one hand and Cossacks and Bashkirs on the other. A few Kalmyk nobles became russified and nominally Christian who went to Moscow in hope of securing Russian help for their political ambitions on the Kalmyk steppe. Russian subsidies to Kalmyk nobles, however, became an effective means of political control only later. Yet gradually the Kalmyk princes came to require Russian support and to abide in Russian policy." During the era of Ayuka Khan, the Kalmyk Khanate reached its peak of military and political power. The Khanate experienced economic prosperity from free trade with Russian border towns, China, Tibet and with their Muslim neighbors. During this era, Ayuka Khan also kept close contacts with his Oirat kinsmen in Dzungaria, as well as the Dalai Lama in Tibet.

From Oirat to Kalmyk

Historically, Oirat identified themselves by their respective sub-group names. In the 15th century, the three major groups of Oirat formed an alliance, adopting "Dörben Oirat" as their collective name. In the early 17th century, a second great Oirat Confederation emerged, which later became the Dzungar Empire. While the Dzungars (initially Choros, Dörbet and Khoit tribes) were establishing their empire in Central Eurasia, the Khoshuts were establishing the Khoshut Khanate in Tibet, protecting the Gelugpa sect from its enemies, and the Torghuts formed the Kalmyk Khanate in the lower Volga region.

After encamping, the Oirats began to identify themselves as "Kalmyk." This named was supposedly given to them by their Muslim neighbors and later used by the Russians to describe them. The Oirats used this name in their dealings with outsiders, viz., their Russian and Muslim neighbors. But they continued to refer to themselves by their tribal, clan, or other internal affiliations.

The name Kalmyk, however, wasn't immediately accepted by all of the Oirat tribes in the lower Volga region. As late as 1761, the Khoshut and Dzungars (refugees from the Manchu Empire) referred to themselves and the Torghuts exclusively as Oirats. The Torghuts, by contrast, used the name Kalmyk for themselves as well as the Khoshut and Dzungars. (Khodarkovsky, 1992:8)

Generally, European scholars have identified all western Mongolians collectively as Kalmyks, regardless of their location (Ramstedt, 1935: v–vi). Such scholars (e.g. Sebastian Muenster) have relied on Muslim sources who traditionally used the word "Kalmyk" to describe western Mongolians in a derogatory manner and the western Mongols of China and Mongolia have regarded that name as a term of abuse (Haslund, 1935:214–215). Instead, they use the name Oirat or they go by their respective tribal names, e.g., Khoshut, Dörbet, Choros, Torghut, Khoit, Bayid, Mingat, etc. (Anuchin, 1914:57).

Over time, the descendants of the Oirat migrants in the lower Volga region embraced the name "Kalmyk" irrespective of their locations, viz., Astrakhan, the Don Cossack region, Orenburg, Stavropol, the Terek and the Ural Mountains. Another generally accepted name is Ulan Zalata or the "red-buttoned ones" (Adelman, 1960:6).

Reduction in autonomy, 1724–1771
In January 1771 the oppression of Tsarist administration forced the larger part of Kalmyks (33 thousand households, or approximately 170,000–200,000 people) to migrate to Dzungaria. Ubashi Khan, the great-grandson of Ayuka Khan and the last Kalmyk Khan, decided to return his people to their ancestral homeland, Dzungaria, and restore the Dzungar Khanate and Mongolian independence. As C.D Barkman notes, "It is quite clear that the Torghuts had not intended to surrender the Chinese, but had hoped to lead an independent existence in Dzungaria."

Ubashi sent 30,000 cavalry in the first year of the Russo-Turkish War (1768–74) to gain weaponry before the migration. The 8th Dalai Lama was contacted to request his blessing and to set the date of departure. After consulting the astrological chart, he set a return date, but at the moment of departure, the weakening of the ice on the Volga River permitted only those Kalmyks (about 200,000 people) on the eastern bank to leave. Those 100,000–150,000 people on the western bank were forced to stay behind and Catherine the Great executed influential nobles from among them. Approximately five-sixths of the Torghut followed Ubashi Khan. Most of the Khoshut, Choros, and Khoid also accompanied the Torghut on their journey to Dzungaria. The Dörbet Oirat, in contrast, elected not to go at all.

Catherine the Great asked the Russian army, Bashkirs, and Kazakh Khanate to stop all migrants. Beset by Kazakh raids, thirst and starvation, approximately 85,000 Kalmyks died on their way to Dzungaria. After failing to stop the flight, Catherine abolished the Kalmyk Khanate, transferring all governmental powers to the governor of Astrakhan. The title of Khan was abolished. The highest native governing office remaining was the Vice-Khan, who also was recognized by the government as the highest ranking Kalmyk prince. By appointing the Vice-Khan, the Russian Empire was now permanently the decisive force in Kalmyk government and affairs.

After seven months of travel, only one-third (66,073) of the original group reached Balkhash Lake, the western border of Qing China. This migration became the topic of The Revolt of the Tartars, by Thomas De Quincey.

The Qing shifted the Kalmyks to five different areas to prevent their revolt and influential leaders of the Kalmyks soon died. The migrant Kalmyks became known as Torghut in Qing China. The Torghut were coerced by the Qing into giving up their nomadic lifestyle and to take up sedentary agriculture instead as part of a deliberate policy by the Qing to enfeeble them.

Life in the Russian Empire
After the 1771 exodus, the Kalmyks that remained part of the Russian Empire continued their nomadic pastoral lifestyle, ranging the pastures between the Don and the Volga Rivers, wintering in the lowlands along the shores of the Caspian Sea as far as Sarpa Lake to the northwest and Lake Manych-Gudilo to the west. In the spring, they moved along the Don River and the Sarpa lake system, attaining the higher grounds along the Don in the summer, passing the autumn in the Sarpa and Volga lowlands. In October and November they returned to their winter camps and pastures (Krader, 1963:121 citing Pallas, vol. 1, 1776:122–123). Despite their great loss in population, the Torghut still remained numerically superior, dominating the Kalmyks. The other Kalmyks in Russia included Dörbet Oirats and Khoshut. Elements of the Choros and Khoit also were present but were too few in number to retain their ulus (tribal division) as independent administrative units. As a result, they were absorbed by the ulus of the larger tribes.

The factors that caused the 1771 exodus continued to trouble the remaining Kalmyks. In the wake of the exodus, the Torghuts joined the Cossack rebellion of Yemelyan Pugachev in hopes that he would restore the independence of the Kalmyks. After Pugachev's Rebellion was defeated, Catherine the Great transferred the office of the Vice-Khan from the Torghut tribe to the Dörbet, whose princes supposedly remained loyal to the government during the rebellion. Thus, the Torghut were removed from their role as the hereditary leaders of the Kalmyk people. The Khoshut could not challenge this political arrangement due to their smaller population size.

The disruptions to Kalmyk society caused by the exodus and the Torghut participation in the Pugachev Rebellion precipitated a major realignment in Kalmyk tribal structure. The government divided the Kalmyks into three administrative units attached, according to their respective locations, to the district governments of Astrakhan, Stavropol and the Don and appointed a special Russian official bearing the title of "Guardian of the Kalmyk People" for purposes of administration. The government also resettled some small groups of Kalmyks along the Ural, Terek and Kuma rivers and in Siberia. The redistricting divided the now dominant Dörbet tribe into three separate administrative units. Those in the western Kalmyk Steppe were attached to the Astrakhan district government. They were called Baga (Lesser) Dörbet. By contrast, the Dörbets who moved to the northern part of the Stavropol province were called Ike (Greater) Dörbet even though their population was smaller. Finally, the Kalmyks of the Don became known as Buzava. Although they were composed of elements of all the Kalmyk tribes, the Buzava claimed descent from the Torghut tribe. Their name is derived from two tributaries of the Don River: Busgai and Busuluk. In 1798, Tsar Paul I recognized the Don Kalmyks as Don Cossacks. As such, they received the same rights and benefits as their Russian counterparts in exchange for providing national military services (Bajanowa, 1976:68–71). At the end of the Napoleonic Wars, Kalmyk cavalry units in Russian service entered Paris.

Over time, the Kalmyks gradually created fixed settlements with houses and temples, in place of transportable round felt yurts. In 1865, Elista, the future capital of the Kalmyk Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic was founded. This process lasted until well after the October Revolution of 1917.

Russian Revolution and Civil War
In the aftermath of the February Revolution, Kalmyk leaders believed that the Russian Provisional Government, which replaced the Tsarist government, would allow greater autonomy and freedom with respect to their culture, religion and economy. This enthusiasm, however, would soon dissolve after the Bolsheviks took control of the national government during the second revolution in November 1917.

After the Bolsheviks took control, various political and ethnic groups opposed to Communism organized in a loose political and military coalition known as the White movement. A volunteer "White Army" was raised to fight the Red Army, the military arm of the Bolshevik government. Initially, this army was composed primarily of volunteers and Tsarist supporters but were later joined by the Cossacks, including Don Kalmyks, many of whom resisted the Bolshevik policy of decossackization.

The second revolution split the Kalmyk people into opposing camps. Many were dissatisfied with the Tsarist government for its historic role in promoting the colonization of the Kalmyk steppe and in encouraging the russification of the Kalmyk people. But others also felt hostility towards Bolshevism for two reasons: (1) the loyalty of the Kalmyk people to their traditional leaders (i.e., nobility and clergy) – sources of anti-Communism – was deeply ingrained; and (2) the Bolshevik exploitation of the conflict between the Kalmyks and the local Russian peasants who seized Kalmyk land and livestock (Loewenthal, 1952:4).

The Astrakhan Kalmyk nobility, led by Prince Danzan Tundutov of the Baga Dörbets and Prince Sereb-Djab Tiumen of the Khoshuts, expressed their anti-Bolshevik sentiments by seeking to integrate the Astrakhan Kalmyks into the military units of the Astrakhan Cossacks. But before a general mobilization of Kalmyk horsemen could occur, the Red Army seized power in Astrakhan and in the Kalmyk steppe thereby preventing the mobilization from occurring.

After the capture of Astrakhan, the Bolsheviks engaged in savage reprisals against the Kalmyk people, especially against Buddhist temples and the Buddhist clergy (Arbakov, 1958:30–36). Eventually the Bolsheviks would draft as many as 18,000 Kalmyk horsemen in the Red Army to prevent them from joining the White Army (Borisov, 1926:84). This objective, however, failed to prevent many Red Army Kalmyk horsemen from defecting to the White side. The majority of the Don Kalmyks also sided with the White Movement to preserve their Cossack lifestyle and proud traditions. As Don Cossacks, the Don Kalmyks first fought under White army General Anton Denikin and then under his successor, General Pyotr Nikolayevich Wrangel. Because the Don Cossack Host to which they belonged was the main center of the White Movement and of Cossack resistance, the battles were fought on Cossack lands and were disastrous for the Don Cossacks as villages and entire regions changed hands repeatedly in a fratricidal conflict in which both sides committed terrible atrocities. The Don Cossacks, including the Don Kalmyks, experienced heavy military and civilian losses, either from the fighting itself or from starvation and disease induced by the war. Some argue that the Bolsheviks were guilty of the mass extermination of the Don Cossack people, killing an estimated 70 percent (or 700,000 persons) of the Don Cossack population (Heller and Nekrich, 1988:87).

By October 1920, the Red Army smashed General Wrangel's resistance in the Crimea, forcing the evacuation of some 150,000 White army soldiers and their families to Constantinople, Turkey. A small group of Don Kalmyks managed to escape on the British and French vessels. The chaos at the Russian port city of Novorossiysk was described by Major H.N.H. Williamson of the British Military Mission to the Don Cossacks as follows: "We could still hear scattered rifle fire and the sound of naval guns, and the Bolshevik sympathisers were sniping from the rooftops. In places Red infantry had infiltrated into the town, and were going in for murder, rape and every kind of bestiality, while explosions rocked the towns as Whites set fire to petrol tanks, and the wind blew an immense pall of smoke across the bay. The waterfront was black with people, begging to be allowed on board the ships. Some of the Kalmuk Cossacks still had their horses and the little tented carts in which they had travelled, and in the water all sorts of rubbish floated – trunks, clothes, furniture, even corpses. Conditions were appalling. The refugees were still starving and the sick and the dead lay where they had collapsed. Masses of them had even tried to rush the evacuation office and the British troops had had to disperse then at bayonet point. Women were offering jewels, everything they possessed – even themselves – for the chance of a passage. But they hadn't a ghost of chance. The rule was only White troops, their dependents and the families of men who had worked with the British were allowed on board."

From there, this group resettled in Europe, primarily in Belgrade (where they established the fourth Buddhist temple in Europe), Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia and France where its leaders remained active in the White movement. In 1922, several hundred Don Kalmyks returned home under a general amnesty. Some returnees, including Prince Dmitri Tundutov, were imprisoned and then executed soon after their return.

Formation of the Kalmyk Soviet Republic
The Soviet government established the Kalmyk Autonomous Oblast in November 1920. It was formed by merging the Stavropol Kalmyk settlements with a majority of the Astrakhan Kalmyks. A small number of Don Kalmyks (Buzava) from the Don Host migrated to this Oblast. The administrative center was Elista, a small village in the western part of the Oblast that was expanded in the 1920s to reflect its status as the capital of the Oblast.

In October 1935, the Kalmyk Autonomous Oblast was reorganized into the Kalmyk Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. The chief occupations of the Republic were cattle breeding, agriculture, including the growing of cotton and fishing. There was no industry.

Collectivization and revolts
On 22 January 1922, Mongolia proposed to migrate the Kalmyks during famine in Kalmykia but Russia refused; 71–72,000 Kalmyks died during the famine. The Kalmyks revolted against Russia in 1926, 1930 and 1942–1943. In March 1927, Soviet deported 20,000 Kalmyks to Siberia, tundra and Karelia. Soviet scientists attempted to convince the Kalmyks and Buryats that they were not Mongols during the 20th century under the demongolization policy.

In 1929, Joseph Stalin ordered the forced collectivization of agriculture, forcing the Astrakhan Kalmyks to abandon their traditional nomadic pastoralist lifestyle and to settle in villages. All Kalmyk herdsmen owning more than 500 sheep were deported to labor camps in Siberia.

World War II and exile
In June 1941 the German army invaded the Soviet Union, ultimately taking (some) control of the Kalmyk Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. In December 1942, however, the Red Army in their turn re-invaded the Republic. On 28 December 1943, the Soviet government accused the Kalmyks of collaborating with the Germans and deported the entire population, including Kalmyk Red Army soldiers, to various locations in Central Asia and Siberia. Within 24 hours the population transfer occurred at night during winter without notice in unheated cattle cars.

According to N. F. Bugai, the leading Russian expert on deportations, 4.9% of the Kalmyk population died during the first three months of 1944; 1.5% in the first three months of 1945; and 0.7% in the same period of 1946. From 1945 to 1950, 15,206 Kalmyks died and 7843 were born.

The Kalmyk Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic was quickly dissolved. Its territory was divided and transferred to the adjacent regions, viz., the Astrakhan and Stalingrad Oblasts and Stavropol Krai. Since no Kalmyks lived there any longer the Soviet authorities changed the names of towns and villages from Kalmyk names to Russian names. For example, Elista became Stepnoi.

Return from Siberian exile

Around half of (97–98,000) Kalmyk people deported to Siberia died before being allowed to return home in 1957. The government of the Soviet Union forbade teaching Kalmyk Oirat during the deportation. The Kalmyks' main purpose was to migrate to Mongolia. Under the Law of the Russian Federation of April 26, 1991, "On Rehabilitation of Exiled Peoples", repressions against Kalmyks and other peoples were qualified as an act of genocide.

In 1957, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev permitted the Kalmyk people to return to their home. Upon return, however, the Kalmyks found their homeland had become settled by Russians and Ukrainians, many of whom chose to remain. On January 9, 1957, Kalmykia once again became an autonomous oblast, and on 29 July 1958, an autonomous republic within the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic.

In the following years bad planning of agricultural and irrigation projects resulted in widespread desertification. In addition, industrial plants were constructed without an analysis of the economic viability of such plants.

In 1992, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Kalmykia chose to remain an autonomous republic of the successor government, the Russian Federation. The dissolution, however, facilitated the collapse of the economy at both the national and the local level, causing widespread economic and social hardship. The resulting upheaval caused many young Kalmyks to leave Kalmykia, especially in the rural areas, for economic opportunities in and outside the Russian Federation.

The local Supreme Soviet decided in 1992 to change the name of the republic to Khalmg Tangch. In June 1993, the Kalmyk authorities laid claim to the 3900 km2 of the Volga delta that were not returned to Kalmyks when the Kalmyk ASSR was recreated in 1957. The Kalmyk authorities claimed that under the terms of the 1991 law On the Rehabilitation of Repressed Peoples, the lands, currently in the Astrakhan Oblast and Dagestan, would formally belong to Kalmykia with effect from July 1, 1993. The long-standing dispute over the delineation of Kalmykia's borders with Astrakhan oblast and Dagestan resurfaced in 2005, but no border changes were made.

The Kalmyks' ability to maintain a mostly homogeneous existence contrasts with the Russian admixture with other similar people, "as there is evidence for Russian admixture with Yakuts," for example. Thus far, genetic analysis of the Kalmyks supports their Mongol roots that also shows that entire families of Kalmyks moved to the Volga region and not simply males as is generally the case with most nomadic tribal groups: "The genetic results support the historical record in that they indicate a close relationship between Kalmyks and Mongolians. Moreover, the genetic results indicate that the Kalmyk migration involved substantial numbers of individuals, and that Kalmyks have not experienced detectable admixture with Russians."

In modern times, Kalmykia has friendly diplomatic and cultural ties with Mongolia. In the context of the Russian invasion of Ukraine since 2022, the Kalmyks have been reported as one of Russia's ethnic minority groups suffering from a disproportionally large casualty rate among Russian forces.

Etymology

The name "Kalmyk" is a word of Turkic origin that means "remnant" or "to remain". Turkic tribes may have used this name as early as the thirteenth century. Arab geographer Ibn al-Wardi is documented as the first person to use the term in referring to the Oirats in the fourteenth century (Khodarkovsky, 1992:5, citing Bretschneider, 1910:2:167). The khojas of Kashgaria applied the name to Oirats in the fifteenth century (Grousset, 1970:506). Russian written sources mentioned the name "Kolmak Tatars" as early as 1530, and cartographer Sebastian Muenster (1488–1552) circumscribed the territory of the "Kalmuchi" on a map in his Cosmographia, which was published in 1544. The Oirats themselves, however, did not accept the name as their own.

Subgroups
There are these main ethnic subgroups of Kalmyks: Baatud, Dörbet, Khoid, Khoshut, Olot, Torghut and Buzava. The Torghuts and Dörbets are numerically dominant. The Buzavs are a small minority and are considered to be the most russified Kalmyks.

Location
The Kalmyks live primarily in the Republic of Kalmykia, a federal subject of Russia. Kalmykia is located in the southeast European part of Russia, between the Volga and the Don rivers. It has borders with the Republic of Dagestan in the south; the Stavropol Krai in the southwest; and the Rostov Oblast and the Volgograd Oblast in the west and the northwest, respectively. Its eastern border is the Astrakhan Oblast. The southeast border is the Caspian Sea.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, a large number of Kalmyks, primarily the young, moved from Kalmykia to larger cities in Russia, such as Moscow and St. Petersburg, and to the United States. The move was precipitated by the desire of these Kalmyks to pursue better educational and economic opportunities and continues today.

Currently, Kalmyks form a majority of the population in Kalmykia. According to the 2021 Russian census, there was a total of 159,138 Kalmyks who resided within Kalmykia. This represented 62.5% of the total population of the republic in 2021. In addition, Kalmyks have a much higher fertility rate than Russians and the other Slavic peoples, while the median age of the Kalmyk population is much lower than Russians. This ensures that the Kalmyk population will continue to grow for the foreseeable future.

Religion

The Kalmyks are the only inhabitants of Europe whose national religion is Buddhism. They embraced Buddhism in the early part of the 17th century and belong to the Tibetan Buddhist sect known as the Gelugpa (Virtuous Way). The Gelugpa are commonly referred to as the Yellow Hat sect. The religion is derived from the Indian Mahayana form of Buddhism. In the West, it was formerly referred to as Lamaism, from the name of the Tibetan monks, the lamas.

Historically, Kalmyk clergy received their training either on the steppe or in Tibet. The pupils who received their religious training on the steppe joined Kalmyk monasteries, which were active centers of learning. Many of these monasteries operated out of felt tents, which accompanied the Kalmyk tribes as they migrated. The Oirats maintained tent monasteries throughout present-day eastern Kazakhstan and along the migratory route they took across southern Siberia to the Volga. They also maintained tent monasteries around Lake Issyk Kul in present-day Kyrgyzstan.

The Oirats also built stone monasteries in the regions of eastern Kazakhstan. For instance, the remains of stone Buddhist monasteries have been found at Almalik and at Kyzyl-Kent (See image to the right). In addition, there was a great Buddhist monastery in Semipalatinsk (seven palaces), which derives its name from that seven-halled Buddhist temple. Further, remains of Buddhist monasteries have been found at Ablaiket near Ust Kamenogorsk and at Talgar, near Almaty, and at Sumbe in the Narynkol region, bordering China.

Upon completion of training, Kalmyk clergy dispensed not only spiritual guidance but also medical advice. As clergymen, the Kalmyk lamas enjoyed great political influence among the nobility and held a strong influence over the general tribal population. For many commoners, the only path to literacy and prestige was to join the Kalmyk monastic system.

As a matter of policy, the Tsarist government and the Russian Orthodox Church sought to gradually absorb and convert any subject of another creed or nationality. The aim of the policy was to eliminate foreign influence and to entrench newly annexed areas. The baptized indigenous population would then become loyal to the Russian empire and would agree to be governed by Russian officials.

In the 1700s, some Kalmyks converted to Roman Catholicism, however their numbers were insignificant compared to Kalmyk converts to Islam who were more numerous. One group of Kalmyk Muslims were known as the Tomuts who were formed as the offspring of mixed marriages between Kalmyk women and Kazakh and Bashkir communities who lived among the Kalmyks and by the end of the 1730s they numbered around 600 tents. Another group of Kalmyk Muslims was known as the Sherets, they consisted of 120 tents and in 1733 they fled from the Derbet tayishi Cheter and settled near Azov. Later they were transferred to Crimea where they converted to Islam. In 1744, 233 Kalmyk men and 413 Kalmyk women were converted to Islam by the Astrakhan Tatars. Today, Sart Kalmyks living in Kyrgyzstan are predominantly Sunni Muslims.

A small percentage of Kalmyk-Cossack families in Belarus converted to Judaism in the early 19th century.

The Kalmyks migrated to territory annexed by the Tsarist government and were subject to this policy of conversion as long as they remained in this territory, but the efforts of the Tsarist government remained unsuccessful for the most part. However, the policy did contribute to the conversion of some of the Kalmyk nobility. One of the earliest converts were the children of Donduk-Ombo, the sixth Khan of the Kalmyks who reigned between 1737 and 1741, and his Circassian-born wife (See Dondukov family). Another important convert was Baksaday-Dorji, the grandson of Ayuka Khan who adopted the Christian name, Peter Taishin. Each conversion was motivated by political ambition to become the Kalmyk Khan. Kalmyk Tayishis, by contrast, were given salaries and towns and settlements were established for them and their ulus. Kalmyk converts, however, often continued to follow Buddhist law instead of Christian law.

Later on, the Tsarist government policy of encouraging Russian and German settlements along the Volga indirectly pressured Kalmyks to convert for economic reasons. The settlers took the most fertile land along the river, leaving barren lands for the Kalmyks to graze their herds. The resulting reduction of herds led to impoverishment for Kalmyk Tayishis, some of whom led their ulus to Christianity to obtain economic benefits.

To discourage the monastic lifestyle, the government required the building of permanent structures at government determined construction sites while imposing Russian architects (Pozdneev, 1914). This policy resulted in the suspension of Lamaist canonical regulations governing monastery construction and in Kalmyk temples resembling Russian Orthodox churches. For example, the Khosheutovsky khurul is modeled after the Kazan Cathedral in St. Petersburg, Russia.

Other policies the Tsarist government implemented after the abolition of the Kalmyk Khanate in 1771, sought to gradually weaken the influence of the lamas. For instance, the government limited Kalmyk contact with Tibet. In addition, the Tsar began appointing the Šajin Lama (title of the High Lama of the Kalmyks). Further, the economic crises that resulted from settler encroachment forced many monasteries and temples to close and lamas to adopt a secularized lifestyle. The success of this policy is borne out by the decrease in the number of Kalmyk monasteries in the Volga region during the 19th century (Loewenthal, 1952 citing Riasanovsky, 1929).

 * {| class="wikitable"

! Year || Number
 * +Number of Kalmyk monasteries in the Volga region
 * early 19th century
 * style="text-align:center;"|200
 * 1834
 * style="text-align:center;"|76
 * 1847
 * style="text-align:center;"|67
 * before 1895
 * style="text-align:center;"|62
 * before 1923
 * style="text-align:center;"|60+
 * }
 * style="text-align:center;"|62
 * before 1923
 * style="text-align:center;"|60+
 * }
 * }

Like the Tsarist government, the Communist regime was aware of the influence the Kalmyk clergy held over the general population. In the 1920s and the 1930s, the Soviet government implemented policies to eliminate religion through control and suppression. Towards that end, Kalmyk khuruls (temples) and monasteries were destroyed and property confiscated; the clergy and many believers were harassed, killed, or sent to labor camps; religious artifacts and books were destroyed; and young men were prohibited from religious training.

In the 1920s and 1930s, Buddhist temples and monasteries were destroyed and almost all of the spiritual leaders were arrested. By 1940 all Kalmyk Buddhist temples were either closed or destroyed and the clergy systematically oppressed. Dr. Loewenthal writes that the policies were so enforced that the Kalmyk clergy and Buddhism were not mentioned in the work by B. Dzhimbinov, "Sovetskaya Kalmykiya," published in 1940. In 1944, the Soviet government exiled all Kalmyks not fighting in the Soviet army to Central Asia and Siberia, accusing them of collaborating with Nazi Germany. Upon rehabilitation in 1957, the Kalmyks were permitted to return home from exile, but all attempts by them to restore their religion and to build a temple failed.

By the 1980s, the Soviet campaign against religion was so successful that a majority of the Kalmyks had never received any formal spiritual guidance. By the late 1980s, however, the Soviet government reversed course and implemented policies favoring the liberalization of religion. As a result, the first Buddhist community was organized in 1988. By 1995, there were 21 Buddhist temples, 17 places of worship for various Christian denominations, and 1 mosque in the Republic of Kalmykia (Grin, 2000:7).

On December 27, 2005, a new khurul opened in Elista, the capital of the Republic of Kalmykia. The khurul was named "Burkhan Bakshin Altan Sume". It is the largest Buddhist temple in Europe. The government of the Republic of Kalmykia sought to build a magnificent temple of a monumental scale in hopes of creating an international learning center for Buddhist scholars and students from all over the world. More significantly, the temple is a monument to the Kalmyk people who died in exile between 1944 and 1957.

The Kalmyks of Kyrgyzstan live primarily in the Karakol region of eastern Kyrgyzstan. They are referred to as "Sart Kalmyks." The origin of this name is unknown. Likewise, it is not known when, why and from where this small group of Kalmyks migrated to eastern Kyrgyzstan. Due to their minority status, the Sart Kalmyks have adopted the Turkic language and culture of the majority Kyrgyz population. As a result, nearly all now belong to the Muslim faith.

Although Sart Kalmyks are Muslims, Kalmyks elsewhere by and large remain faithful to the Gelugpa Order of Tibetan Buddhism. In Kalmykia, for example, the Gelugpa Order with the assistance of the government has constructed numerous Buddhist temples. In addition, the Kalmyk people recognize Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama as their spiritual leader and Erdne Ombadykow, a Kalmyk American, as the supreme lama of the Kalmyk people. The Dalai Lama has visited Elista on a number of occasions. Buddhism and Christianity have been given the status of state religions. In November 2004 the 14th Dalai Lama visited Kalmykia. In October 2022, Erdne Ombadykow, the Supreme Lama of Kalmykia, condemned the Russian invasion of Ukraine and fled Russia to Mongolia. In January 2023, he was recognized in Russia as a foreign agent.

Language

Ethnologue classifies Kalmyk Oirat as a member of the Eastern branch of the Mongolic languages: "Mongolic, Eastern, Oirat-Khalkha, Oirat-Kalmyk-Darkhat". This places Standard Mongolian – which is essentially Khalkha Mongolian – and Kalmyk Oirat fairly close together.

Other linguists, such as Nicholas Poppe, have classified Kalmyk Oirat as belonging to the Western branch of the Mongolian language division and thus more distant from Khalkha and Standard Mongolian as spoken in modern Mongolia, since the language group developed separately and is distinct. Poppe also contends that Kalmyk and Oirat are two distinct languages in spite of little phonetic and morphological difference between them, and that the major distinction is in their lexicons. The Kalmyk language, for example, has adopted many words of Russian origin. Consequently, mainly on lexical grounds, Kalmyk is classified as a distinct language (Poppe 1970).

By population, the major dialects of Kalmyk are Torghut, Dörbet and Buzava (Bormanshinov 1990). Minor dialects include Khoshut and Olöt. The Kalmyk dialects vary somewhat, but their differences are insignificant. Generally, the Russian language less influenced the dialects of the pastoral nomadic Kalmyk tribes of the Volga region.

In contrast, the Dörbets (and later on, Torghuts) who migrated from the Volga region to the Sal District (Don) of the Don Host Oblast took the name Buzava (or Don Kalmyks). The Buzava dialect developed from their close interaction with Russians. In 1798 the Tsarist government recognized the Buzava as Don Cossacks, both militarily and administratively. As a result of their integration into the Don Host, the Buzava dialect incorporated many words of Russian origin. (Anon. 1914: 653–660)

In 1938, the Kalmyk literary language started using Cyrillic script. During World War II, all Kalmyks not fighting in the Soviet Army were forcibly exiled to Siberia and Central Asia, where they were dispersed and not permitted to speak Kalmyk in public places. As a result, the Kalmyk language was not formally taught to the younger generation of Kalmyks. Upon return from exile in 1957, the Kalmyks spoke and published primarily in Russian. Consequently, the younger generation of Kalmyks primarily speak Russian and not their own native language. This is a subject of popular concern. In recent years, the Kalmyk government has made attempts to revive the Kalmyk language. Some laws have been passed regarding the usage of Kalmyk on shop signs; for example, on entrance doors, the words 'Entrance' and 'Push-Pull' appear in Kalmyk.

According to UNESCO's 2010 edition of the Red Book of Endangered Languages, the Kalmyk language classified as definitely endangered.

Writing system
In the 17th century, Zaya Pandita, a Khoshut Buddhist monk, devised a writing system, Clear Script, based on the classical vertical Mongol script in order to phonetically capture the Oirat language. In the later part of the 19th and early part of the 20th centuries, Clear Script fell into disuse until the Kalmyks abandoned it in 1923 and introduced the Cyrillic script. In 1930, Kalmyk language scholars introduced a modified Latin alphabet, but it was not used for long.

List of notable Kalmyks

 * Maria Kirbasova, Russian human rights activist who founded the Committee of Soldiers' Mothers of Russia
 * Kristina Anna Evdokia Bange (1/2 Kalmyk)
 * Irina Kukanova (Kristina's mother)

Political figures

 * Kirsan Ilyumzhinov - 1st President of Kalmykia, former President of FIDE
 * Vladimir Lenin (Possibly up to 1/4 Kalmyk) - Russian revolutionary, politician, and political theorist
 * Ilya Ulyanov (1/2 Kalmyk)
 * Oka Gorodovikov - Red Army cavalry general
 * Lavr Kornilov - Imperial Russian Army general, commander of the anti-Bolshevik Volunteer Army

Khans of the Kalmyk Khanate

 * Kho Orluk
 * Shukhur Daichin — 1654-1661
 * Puntsug (Monchak) — 1661-1669
 * Ayuka Khan — 1669-1724
 * Tseren Donduk Khan — 1724-1735
 * Donduk Ombo Khan — 1735-1741
 * Donduk Dashi Khan — 1741-1761
 * Ubashi Khan — 1761-1771

Athletes

 * Sanan Sjugirov
 * Batu Khasikov
 * Mingiyan Semenov
 * Sandje Ivanchukov
 * Jean Djorkaeff (1/2 Kalmyk)
 * Youri Djorkaeff (1/4 Kalmyk)
 * Oan Djorkaeff (1/8 Kalmyk)
 * Liudmila Bodnieva

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

title: Kalmyks


text:
Oirat

Oirat or Elut (厄魯特, Èlǔtè) may refer to:

 * Oirats, the westernmost group of the Mongols
 * Oirat language

title: Oirat


text:
Talk:Root directory

Comment from cprompt with responses
I think the metaphor before the edit by Koyaanis Qatsi is clearer. To say that a document is in the room but not in the filing cabinet implies that the document exists external to the system which envelopes the rest of the documents. The original metaphor is closer to a true parallel when you consider the filing cabinet as a file system, as the folders as subdirectories. I'd like to see if anyone else has an opinion before I make a revert back to the original metaphor.

cprompt

" It can be likened to the root of a tree in which there are no more branches above. " Huh? In a tree, ALL branches are above the roots. I know what you're trying to say, but the way this is phrased it sounds a bit bizarre! GRAHAMUK 07:06, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * Better? Sorry... Dysprosia 07:08, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * That's why I added the link to tree data structure, so people without a computer science background would understand that in CS land trees grow down, not up.

 * Also, the note about Unix and FAT file systems is incorrect. Unix does put every filesystem in a directory, but it can use FAT partitions in just the same way. What you probably meant is that DOS/Windows insist on having a separate root for each partition. (Sorry, it's 0:30 over here and I'm ready for bed. I'll look at it again tomorrow to see if it still needs editing.) -- Kimiko 22:32, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * I have the vague impression that newer versions of Windows (all NT, or just 2000 and higher?) do support mounting filesystems at path points under an existing drive letter, but don't know details. Certainly it's not the default behavior. --Brion 07:49, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Windows "Workspace"/Desktop
Most recent versions of Windows have the "Desktop" (phyiscally, a subdirectory of the user's home directory (e.g. C:\Documents and Settings\ \Desktop)) as root of the hierarchy. The "workspace" (where the drives are mounted) is a subfolder of that.

This does not seem to be actually implemented in terms of file paths, though, so I don't know how noteworthy that development is.

To me it seems like another half-assed attempt to copy an existing design (like DOS, JScript, etc.), but the point is that there are clear tendencies towards a more Unixy way of doing things. — Ashmodai (talk · contribs) 07:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Miniroot.gz
Can anybody include a section about miniroot.gz ?. Thanks in advance --Mac 08:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This website is dead/no longer active.  S enator2029  (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Master directory
Should Master Directory redirect here or anywhere else or be a disambiguation page?90.190.225.121 (talk) 08:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

how can i reinstall my gdiplus.dll files ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.69.223 (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Directories / and /root
Dear Wikipedia community,

please receive my most respectful greeting. Right now I am refreshing my abilities with Linux and I have to say that I liked this article very much. Particularly the section about the directories / and /root which (disgracefully?) have the same name. Despite the fact it is a long custom they share the same name, is there a way to ... I don't know, create a petition so they have different names? I have an idea but I would like to know where/how to expose it.

Thank you very much.

George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 06:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:Root directory


text:
Talk:Japanese era name

Opposition
I think it might be good to include that there is significant opposition to the use of nengo in Japan, as it is seen as a symbol of the imperial system. For example, the Japan Communist Party has always opposed the use of nengo. Those opposed to the Japanese imperial system (kimigayo, hinomaru, etc), also tend to oppose the use of nengo. It is frequently tied in with feelings that Hirohito bears responsibility for WWII. --Westwind273 (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Conversion table
I suggest removing the entire conversation table from the article for the following reasons: Regards, Bendono (talk) 03:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It reads like an instruction manual, contrary to WP:NOTHOWTO
 * 2) The kanji column is unnecessary and redundant as it is given on the relevant article for the period. Contrary to WP:MOS-JA
 * 3) The fourth column is full of pronunciation notes and emperor reigns. The relevance to conversion is unclear. Also, it is unnecessary and redundant as it belongs on the relevant article for the period.
 * 4) While conversion details are necessary, they belong on each of the relevant era articles. In fact, they are already there. See for example Taika (era) where it lists the corresponding Gregorian year for each era year. Hence, unnecessary and redundant here.
 * 5) The list takes up the majority of the page while adding very little to it. We already have an extensive template at the bottom of the page again listing generally the same information.
 * Well, I'm not really sure about the "how-to" complaint, since this is only a 'conversion table' by virtue of the little formula at the top. If you removed that, then it would just become a list of eras.  But I tend to agree.  Now that there is a template, there may be  no need for the list here. At any rate, removing the list will at least remove some of the bloat in the article, w.r.t. all of those "Notes" at the bottom. So long as the alternate readings are eventually transferred over to the individual pages then I have no complaint about deleting the table.
 * But one thing to consider is the fact that if the actual list of REAL nengo is removed, it doesn't seem to make much sense to retain the list of imperial reigns either, and AFAIK this is the only place where you can find them. It would certainly seem odd to have a page called "Japanese era names" that doesn't actually list the era names, but instead contains a list of things that AREN'T era names. So if one goes, they should probably both go. Bueller 007 (talk) 05:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed the content discussed above (and placed it in this box so we don't have to go digging through the page history to find it for future reference) Bueller 007 (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC):

{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;font-size:88%;text-align: center; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #f90;" | List of Eras
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" style="text-align: left;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" style="text-align: left;" |

Conversion table from Gregorian calendar years to nengō
To convert a Japanese year to a Western or Gregorian calendar year, find the first year of the nengō (the nengō = the era name, see list below). When found, subtract 1, and add the number of the Japanese year. For example, the 23rd year of the Showa Era (Showa 23) would be 1948:

 * ILLUSTRATION: 1926 − 1 = 1925 ..., and then 1925 + 23 = 1948 ... or Showa 23.

Non-nengo periods
The following is an example of such an extension of the nengō system to include the post-Taika years not covered by a proper era name:

 * Reign of Emperor Jimmu, 660–581 BC
 * Reign of Emperor Suizei, 581–548 BC
 * Reign of Emperor Annei, 548–510 BC
 * Reign of Emperor Itoku, 510–475 BC
 * Reign of Emperor Kōshō, 475–392 BC
 * Reign of Emperor Kōan, 392–290 BC
 * Reign of Emperor Kōrei, 290–214 BC
 * Reign of Emperor Kōgen, 214–157 BC
 * Reign of Emperor Kaika, 157–97 BC
 * Reign of Emperor Sujin, 97–29 BC
 * Reign of Emperor Suinin, 29 BC – AD 71
 * Reign of Emperor Keikō, AD 71–131
 * Reign of Emperor Seimu, 131–192
 * Reign of Emperor Chūai, 192–201
 * Regency of Empress Jingū, 201–270
 * Reign of Emperor Ōjin, 270–313
 * Reign of Emperor Nintoku, 313–400
 * Reign of Emperor Richū, 400–406
 * Reign of Emperor Hanzei, 406–412
 * Reign of Emperor Ingyō, 412–454
 * Reign of Emperor Ankō, 454–457
 * Reign of Emperor Yūryaku, 457–480
 * Reign of Emperor Seinei, 480–485
 * Reign of Emperor Kenzō, 485–488
 * Reign of Emperor Ninken, 488–499
 * Reign of Emperor Buretsu, 499–507
 * Reign of Emperor Keitai, 507–534
 * Reign of Emperor Ankan, 534–536
 * Reign of Emperor Senka, 536–540
 * Reign of Emperor Kinmei, 540–572
 * Reign of Emperor Bidatsu, 572–586
 * Reign of Emperor Yōmei, 586–588
 * Reign of Emperor Sushun, 588–593
 * Reign of Emperor Suiko, 593–629
 * Reign of Emperor Jomei, 629–645
 * Taika era, 645–650
 * Hakuchi era, 650–654
 * Discontinuation of the nengō system, 654–686
 * Reign of Empress Saimei, 655–662
 * Reign of Emperor Tenji, 662–672
 * Reign of Emperor Kōbun, 672–673
 * Reign of Emperor Temmu, 673–686
 * Shuchō era, 686
 * Discontinuation of the nengō system, 686–701
 * Reign of Empress Jitō, 686–697
 * Reign of Emperor Mommu, 697–701
 * Taihō era, 701–704
 * }

Imperial year section
Because this section has nothing to do with the era names as such, I think it should be split into a new article. There's no sense in conflating these two concepts of the Japanese calendar. (Either they should be split or the article should be renamed "Japanese year-labelling systems", etc.) Bueller 007 (talk) 07:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support an expand; alternatively, merge section into Japanese calendar. 75.154.117.75 (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support; I came here to read about Japanese Imperial year. Era name does NOT explain it. Needs an expansion, too. -210.174.17.173 (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

About splitting article and hiding List Of Eras table
Splitting in few article makes user to multiply windows if he or she needs all of their types. There is some king of logic in the action but it cause inconvenience in use.

Also I asking to show List Of Eras table. It's very convenient for use in many fields/ I use it to translate dates and inscriptions in old books or prints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitsuore04078 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Point one: "convenience" shouldn't be a consideration. The fact of the matter is that they are two different, unrelated numbering schemes. I can see no reason to put them together.
 * Point two: I somewhat agree that it is nice to have a list of all the era names (with their kanji, etc.) in one place. Creating a new article called "List of Japanese era names" might not be a bad idea. But I think putting them on this article just leads to bloat. Bueller 007 (talk) 01:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. So... what happened to the table? Is there a separate article that's not linked to, or has the table been deleted entirely? I rather liked that table... the list currently found at the bottom of the page looks more cluttered, more chaotic; I think it'd look better as a table, no? LordAmeth (talk) 06:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The table is saved above. (Or in the history of the article, of course.) It can be used as the basis for a new "List of Japanese era names" article, if you like.  However, beware that I corrected a number of factual errors in Tenmei's template, and I believe that most of those errors derive directly from the original table (which was his basis for creating the template).  So a number of things in the original table (e.g., which era names properly belong in the Kamakura period, a couple of years for era start/end dates, a proper explanation of what happened to era names when the Northern & Southern courts split, etc.) will need to be updated/corrected. Bueller 007 (talk) 03:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Future years?
I know this subject probably doesn't come up often, but what is the practice concerning writing future dates with the year in nengō format? Just keep adding (e.g. 平成５０年)? 71.161.42.209 (talk) 06:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, we just keep adding. See this estimate of future population. Oda Mari (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation needed?
Nengo also is the planet's largest neural brain sim at the University of Waterloo in Canada. It stands for Neural ENgineering Objects in that context. I'd be happy to write an article on it as I use it all the time in my robotics work, but need more experienced editors to opine before disconnecting redirects, etc. What thinkest thou? -- Pdecalculus (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

 * Two small steps have been taken.
 * The Nengo redirect page has been converted into a disambiguation page; and
 * A stub article about a Neural Engineering Object has been drafted.
 * It is possible that the notability of this subject may be challenged? --Enkyo2 (talk) 01:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Retro dates
The Heisei period started on January 8, 1989. So 1989 = Heisei 1. How are dates described right before the start of the era, for example January 7 1989? -DePiep (talk) 13:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In the event that there's an era change, dates before the changeover use the old era name and dates after use the new one. So for 1989, it would have gone from January 7, Shouwa 64 to January 8, Heisei 1. Similarly, when the Emperor abdicates this year the date will go from April 30, Heisei 31 to May 1, [new era] 1. Sonictrey (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

One time abdication
This is a rather confusing statement. Abdications were very common in older days. I think that should be rephrased and checked since when it's considered not done to abdicate. Otherwise the sentence is actually rather wrong and "the one time" should be omitted. Kennin (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to remove the phrase "one-time" because that's what I was going to ask. "Emperor Akihito received special one-time permission to abdicate" suggests that with a broader permission, he might have abdicated more than once, which is obviously impossible since he could never become emperor again after abdicating. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Japanese era name


text:
Yuyao

Yuyao is a county-level city in the northeast of Zhejiang province, China. It is under the jurisdiction of the sub-provincial city of Ningbo.

It is located 40 km west of central Ningbo, 120 km east of Hangzhou, bordering Hangzhou Bay in the north. Yuyao covers an area of 1527 km2.

Demographics
As of the 2020 census, its population was 1,254,032. Its built-up (or metro) area with the county-level city of Cixi largely conurbated, had 3,083,520 inhabitants. However, recently the migrated workers and their families have increase the total population to about 1.6 million, but they do not show up in the official census and other related statistics data.

Geography and climate
Yuyao lies in a subtropical monsoon zone, rich in sunshine and rain fall, warm and humid, distinct in the four seasons. The mean annual sunshine is 2,061 hours and the annual rate of sunshine is 47%. The mean annual temperature is 16 degrees Celsius, and the coldest months perennially are January and February, the hottest are July and August. The mean annual precipitation is around 1,300 millimeters and changes greatly from year to year. The hyetal distribution is also uneven during a year, and the rainfall centers on East Asian rainy season (梅雨) (aka bai-u rainy period) from April to June and typhoon period from July to December.

Yuyao offers a wide variety of landscape from wide open ocean in Hangzhou Bay, rice fields in fertile plains to high spires in Siming Mountains. Yaojiang River originates in Siming Mountains in the south where the Ninth Fantasy world of Taoism is located. Yaojiang River goes through the county and extends eastward into East China Sea as well as Pacific Ocean.

In 2021, Typhoon In-fa caused 951.0 mm of rainfall to fall in Yuyao.

History
Yuyao is well known for its rich heritage of civilization. The Neolithic Hemudu culture formed in Yuyao about 5,000 B.C. is one of the earliest sites of human civilization on earth. The material and ethical relics revealed large-scale rice plantation and other agricultural activities, hurdle style architecture, paddling and boating and respecting birds and sun.

Yuyao also produced many famous scholars in history—for example, Yan Zi-Ling during the Han dynasty; Yu Fan during the Three Kingdoms period; Yu Xi during the Jin dynasty; Yu Shinan during the Sui and Tang dynasties; and Wang Yangming, Zhu Shunshui, and Huang Zongxi during the Ming dynasty. Wang Yangming and Huang Zongxi were ranked among China's top 10 ideologists. Yuyao was then named as "the Most Famous County" and "the Famous State on Literature". During the Anti-Japanese War, Yuyao was one of China's 19 bases against Japanese invaders and was the center of anti-Japanese bases of eastern Zhejiang province.

Administrative divisions
Subdistricts:
 * Lanjiang Subdistrict (兰江街道), Ditang Subdistrict (低塘街道), Fengshan Subdistrict (凤山街道), Langxia Subdistrict (朗霞街道), Lizhou Subdistrict (梨洲街道), Yangming Subdistrict (阳明街道)

Towns:
 * Dalan (大岚镇), Dayin (大隐镇), Huangjiabu (黄家埠镇), Hemudu (河姆渡镇), Lubu (陆埠镇), Liangnong (梁弄镇), Linshan (临山镇), Mushan (牟山镇), Mazhu (马渚镇), Simingshan (四明山镇), SImen (泗门镇), Sanqishi (三七市镇), Xiaocao'e (小曹娥镇), Zhangting (丈亭镇)

The only township is Luting Township (鹿亭乡)

Economy
Yuyao is known as a place for rice and fish. Its economy has been booming as private enterprises dominate after the economic reform began in late 1970s. In 2007, GDP will reach RMB 34 billions, with double digit annual growth rates over the past 20 years. It ranked as one of the top-20 counties in terms of comprehensive economic strength out of all the 2100 counties in China. The industry products are mainly electric appliances, plastic moulding, machinery and textiles. High-tech industries such as materials, optical, electro-mechanical integration and fine chemical industry are developing rapidly. The main agriculture, forestry and animal husbandry products of Yuyao are tea, fruits like waxberry and mandarin orange, bamboo, silkworm, fowl, livestock and fish. Fresh produce is available in all seasons.

Transport
The Shanghai-Hangzhou-Ningbo Expressway and China National Highway 329 and Shanghai-Hangzhou-Ningbo Railway go through Yuyao. The world's longest trans-oceanic bridge – the 36 km Hangzhou Bay Bridge – was recently completed construction near the northern border of Yuyao. It reduced the cross bay traffic to only 80 km from the current 420 km section of Shanghai-Hangzhou-Ningbo Expressway around Hangzhou Bay.

title: Yuyao


text:
Bossuet

Bossuet is a French surname. Notable people with the surname include:

 * Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet (1627–1704), French bishop and theologian, uncle of Louis
 * Louis Bossuet (1663–1742), French parliamentarian, nephew of Jacques-Bénigne

title: Bossuet


text:
Liu Huaqing

Liu Huaqing (1 October 1916 – 14 January 2011) was a Chinese revolutionary and an admiral of the People's Liberation Army Navy, who served as the third Commander-in-Chief of the Navy from 1982 through 1988. He is considered to have greatly contributed to the modernization of the Chinese Navy, and is hailed as the "father of the modern Chinese Navy" and "father of Chinese aircraft carriers".

Biography
Taking over the role of Navy Commander-in-Chief from his predecessor Ye Fei (who retired due to health problems), Liu had outlined a three-step process by which China would have a navy of global reach by the second half of the 21st century. In step one, from 2000 to 2010, China would develop a naval force that could operate up to the first island chain. In step two, from 2010 to 2020, China's navy would become a regional force capable of projecting force to the second island chain. In step three, to be achieved by 2040, China would possess a blue-water navy centered around aircraft carriers. He was a strong advocate of the Chinese aircraft carrier programme.

Liu encouraged technological innovation within China that would increase naval capabilities, but he also advocated large foreign purchases. During the 1960s and 1970s, Liu was responsible for naval research and development before heading national military research. He was also the top commander of the troops enforcing martial law to suppress the Tiananmen Square protests on 3–4 June 1989. From 1992 to 1997 Liu was a member of the Politburo Standing Committee. He was the last Standing Committee member of an active military personnel. Since he left the Standing Committee in 1997, no other military leader has sat on the committee. Liu officially retired after stepping down as Vice Chairman of the Central Military Committee in March 1998.

Liu remained active through the mid-1990s and appeared in uniform at 2007 commemorations of the 80th anniversary of the founding of the People's Liberation Army in Beijing. He also appeared in Beijing during the 60th anniversary of the People's Republic of China on October 1, 2009.

Liu died on 14 January 2011 in Beijing. His son Liu Zhuoming is a vice admiral of the PLA Navy. His daughter Liu Chaoying, a former lieutenant colonel in the PLA, was a major figure in the 1996 United States campaign finance controversy.

title: Liu Huaqing