text:
Experimental film

Experimental film or avant-garde cinema is a mode of filmmaking that rigorously re-evaluates cinematic conventions and explores non-narrative forms or alternatives to traditional narratives or methods of working. Many experimental films, particularly early ones, relate to arts in other disciplines: painting, dance, literature and poetry, or arise from research and development of new technical resources.

While some experimental films have been distributed through mainstream channels or even made within commercial studios, the vast majority have been produced on very low budgets with a minimal crew or a single person and are either self-financed or supported through small grants.

Experimental filmmakers generally begin as amateurs, and some use experimental films as a springboard into commercial film-making or transition into academic positions. The aim of experimental filmmaking may be to render the personal vision of an artist, or to promote interest in new technology rather than to entertain or to generate revenue, as is the case with commercial films.

Definition
The term experimental film describes a range of filmmaking styles that frequently differ from, and are often opposed to, the practices of mainstream commercial and documentary filmmaking. Avant-garde is also used, for the films of the sort shot in the twenties in France, Germany or Russia, to describe this work, and "underground" was used in the sixties, though it has also had other connotations. Today the term "experimental cinema" prevails, because it's possible to make experimental films without the presence of any avant-garde movement in the cultural field.

While "experimental" covers a wide range of practice, an experimental film is often characterized by the absence of linear narrative, the use of various abstracting techniques—out-of-focus, painting or scratching on film, rapid editing—the use of asynchronous (non-diegetic) sound or even the absence of any sound track. The goal is often to place the viewer in a more active and more thoughtful relationship to the film. At least through the 1960s, and to some extent after, many experimental films took an oppositional stance toward mainstream culture.

Most experimental films are made on very low budgets, self-financed or financed through small grants, with a minimal crew or, often a crew of only one person, the filmmaker. Some critics have argued that much experimental film is no longer in fact "experimental" but has in fact become a mainstream film genre. Many of its more typical features—such as a non-narrative, impressionistic, or poetic approaches to the film's construction—define what is generally understood to be "experimental".

Beginnings
In the 1920s, two conditions made Europe ready for the emergence of experimental film. First, the cinema matured as a medium, and highbrow resistance to the mass entertainment began to wane. Second, avant-garde movements in the visual arts flourished. The Dadaists and Surrealists in particular took to cinema. René Clair's Entr'acte (1924) featuring Francis Picabia, Marcel Duchamp, and Man Ray, and with music by Erik Satie, took madcap comedy into nonsequitur.

Artists Hans Richter, Jean Cocteau, Marcel Duchamp, Germaine Dulac, and Viking Eggeling all contributed Dadaist/Surrealist shorts. Fernand Léger, Dudley Murphy, and Man Ray created the film Ballet Mécanique (1924), which has been described as Dadaist, Cubist, or Futurist. Duchamp created the abstract film Anémic Cinéma (1926).

Alberto Cavalcanti directed Rien que les heures (1926), Walter Ruttmann directed Berlin: Symphony of a Metropolis (1927), and Dziga Vertov filmed Man with a Movie Camera (1929), experimental "city symphonies" of Paris, Berlin, and Kiev, respectively.

One famous experimental film is Luis Buñuel and Salvador Dalí's Un chien andalou (1929). Hans Richter's animated shorts, Oskar Fischinger's abstract films, and Len Lye's GPO films are examples of more abstract European avant-garde films.

France
Working in France, another group of filmmakers also financed films through patronage and distributed them through cine-clubs, yet they were narrative films not tied to an avant-garde school. Film scholar David Bordwell has dubbed these French Impressionists and included Abel Gance, Jean Epstein, Marcel L'Herbier, and Dimitri Kirsanoff. These films combine narrative experimentation, rhythmic editing and camerawork, and an emphasis on character subjectivity.

In 1952, the Lettrists avant-garde movement, in France, caused riots at the Cannes Film Festival, when Isidore Isou's Traité de bave et d'éternité (also known as Venom and Eternity) was screened. After their criticism of Charlie Chaplin at the 1952 press conference in Paris for Chaplin's Limelight, there was a split within the movement. The Ultra-Lettrists continued to cause disruptions when they announced the death of cinema and showed their new hypergraphical techniques; the most notorious example is Guy Debord's Howlings in favor of de Sade (Hurlements en Faveur de Sade) from 1952.

Soviet Union
The Soviet filmmakers, too, found a counterpart to modernist painting and photography in their theories of montage. The films of Dziga Vertov, Sergei Eisenstein, Lev Kuleshov, Alexander Dovzhenko, and Vsevolod Pudovkin were instrumental in providing an alternative model from that offered by classical Hollywood. While not experimental films per se, they contributed to the film language of the avant-garde.

Italy
Italy had a historically difficult relationship with its avant-garde scene, although, the birth of cinema coincided with the emerging of Italian Futurism.

Potentially the new medium of cinema was a perfect match for the concerns of futurism, a renowned for promoting new aesthetics, motion, and modes of perception. Especially, given the futurist fascination with the sensation of speed and the dynamism of modern life. However, what is left of futurist cinema is mostly on paper, many films very lost, and other never got made. Amongst those literatures it is worth noting The Futurist Cinema (Marinetti et al., 1916), Technical Manifesto of Futurist Literature (1912), The Variety Theatre (1913), The Futurist Synthetic Theatre (1915), and The New Religion – Morality of Speed (1916). Perhaps, the futurists were amongst the first avant-garde filmmakers group devoted to the potential of the image, praising motion and aiming towards an anti-narrative aesthetic. As an example, Marinetti's quote:  "'The cinema is an autonomous art. The cinema must therefore never copy the stage. The cinema, being essentially visual, must above all fulfil the evolution of painting, detach itself from reality, from photography, from the graceful and solemn...'"As exemplified in the quote, the image is the real subject, not the story or the acting, an approach and attitude that remain true for the whole history of experimental filmmaking.

Anton Giulio Bragaglia is undoubtedly the most known filmmaker from the futurist movement.

Prewar and postwar American avant-garde: the birth of experimental cinema
The United States had some avant-garde films before World War II, such as Manhatta (1921), by Charles Sheeler and Paul Strand, and The Life and Death of 9413: a Hollywood Extra (1928), by Slavko Vorkapich and Robert Florey. However, much pre-war experimental film culture consisted of artists working, often in isolation, on film projects. In the early 1930s, Painter Emlen Etting (1905–1993) directed dance films that are considered experimental. Commercial artist (Saturday Evening Post) and illustrator Douglass Crockwell (1904–1968) made animations with blobs of paint pressed between sheets of glass in his studio at Glens Falls, New York.

In Rochester, New York, medical doctor and philanthropist James Sibley Watson and Melville Webber directed The Fall of the House of Usher (1928) and Lot in Sodom (1933). Harry Smith, Mary Ellen Bute, artist Joseph Cornell, and Christopher Young made several European-influenced experimental films. Smith and Bute were both influenced by Oskar Fischinger, as were many avant garde animators and filmmakers. In 1930, the magazine Experimental Cinema appeared. The editors were Lewis Jacobs and David Platt. In October 2005, a large collection of films of that period were restored and re-released on DVD, titled Unseen Cinema: Early American Avant Garde Film 1894-1941.

With Slavko Vorkapich, John Hoffman made two visual tone poems, Moods of the Sea (aka Fingal's Cave, 1941) and Forest Murmurs (1947). The former film is set to Felix Mendelssohn's Hebrides Overture and was restored in 2004 by film preservation expert David Shepard.

Meshes of the Afternoon (1943) by Maya Deren and Alexander Hammid is an early American experimental film. It provided a model for self-financed 16 mm production and distribution, one that was soon picked up by Cinema 16 and other film societies. Just as importantly, it established an aesthetic model of what experimental cinema could do. Meshes had a dream-like feel that hearkened to Jean Cocteau and the Surrealists, but equally seemed personal, new and American. Early works by Kenneth Anger, Stan Brakhage, Shirley Clarke, Gregory Markopoulos, Jonas Mekas, Willard Maas, Marie Menken, Curtis Harrington, Sidney Peterson, Lionel Rogosin, and Earle M. Pilgrim followed in a similar vein. Significantly, many of these filmmakers were the first students from the pioneering university film programs established in Los Angeles and New York. In 1946, Frank Stauffacher started the "Art in Cinema" series of experimental films at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, where Oskar Fischinger's films were featured in several special programs, influencing artists such as Jordan Belson and Harry Smith to make experimental animation.

They set up "alternative film programs" at Black Mountain College (now defunct) and the San Francisco Art Institute. Arthur Penn taught at Black Mountain College, which points out the popular misconception in both the art world and Hollywood that the avant-garde and the commercial never meet. Another challenge to that misconception is that late in life, after their Hollywood careers had ended, both Nicholas Ray and King Vidor made avant-garde films.

Film theorist P. Adams Sitney offers a concept of "visionary film", and he invented a few genre categories, including the mythopoetic film, the structural film, the trance film and the participatory film, in order to describe the historical morphology of experimental cinema in the American avant-garde from 1943 to the 2000s.

The New American Cinema and structural film
The film society and self-financing model continued over the next two decades, but by the early 1960s, a different outlook became perceptible in the work of American avant-garde filmmakers. Filmmakers like Michael Snow, Hollis Frampton, Ken Jacobs, Paul Sharits, Tony Conrad, and Ernie Gehr, are considered by P. Adams Sitney to be key models for what he calls "structural film". Sitney says that the key elements of structural film are a fixed camera position, flicker effect, re-photography off screen, and loop printing. Artist Bruce Conner created early examples such as A Movie (1958) and Cosmic Ray (1962). As Sitney has pointed out, in the work of Stan Brakhage and other American experimentalists of early period, film is used to express the individual consciousness of the maker, a cinematic equivalent of the first person in literature. Brakhage's Dog Star Man (1961–64) exemplified a shift from personal confessional to abstraction, and also evidenced a rejection of American mass culture of the time. On the other hand, Kenneth Anger added a rock sound track to his Scorpio Rising (1963) in what is sometimes said to be an anticipation of music videos, and included some camp commentary on Hollywood mythology. Jack Smith and Andy Warhol incorporated camp elements into their work, and Sitney posited Warhol's connection to structural film.

Some avant-garde filmmakers moved further away from narrative. Whereas the New American Cinema was marked by an oblique take on narrative, one based on abstraction, camp and minimalism, structural filmmakers like Frampton and Snow created a highly formalist cinema that foregrounded the medium itself: the frame, projection, and most importantly, time. It has been argued that by breaking film down into bare components, they sought to create an anti-illusionist cinema, although Frampton's late works owe a huge debt to the photography of Edward Weston, Paul Strand, and others, and in fact celebrate illusion. Further, while many filmmakers began making rather academic "structural films" following Film Culture's publication of an article by P. Adams Sitney in the late 1960s, many of the filmmakers named in the article objected to the term.

A critical review of the structuralists appeared in a 2000 edition of the art journal Art in America. It examined structural-formalism as a conservative philosophy of filmmaking.

The 1960–70s and today: Time arts in the conceptual art landscape
In the 1970s, Conceptual art pushed even further. Robert Smithson, a California-based artist, made several films about his earthworks and attached projects. Yoko Ono made conceptual films. The most notorious of these is Rape, which centers on a woman's life being invaded with cameras, as she attempts to flee. Around this time, a new generation was entering the field, many of whom were students of the early avant-gardists. Leslie Thornton, Peggy Ahwesh, and Su Friedrich expanded upon the work of the structuralists, incorporating a broader range of content while maintaining a self-reflexive form.

Andy Warhol, the man behind Pop Art and a variety of other oral and art forms, made over 60 films throughout the 1960s, most of them experimental. In more recent years, filmmakers such as Craig Baldwin and James O'Brien (Hyperfutura) have made use of stock footage married to live action narratives in a form of mash-up cinema that has strong socio-political undertones. Chris Marker's La Jetée (1962) consists almost entirely of still photographs accompanied by narration, while Jonás Cuarón's Year of the Nail (2007) uses unstaged photographs which the director took of his friends and family combined with voice acting to tell a fictional story. Other examples of films created in the 21st Century with this technique are Lars von Trier's Dogville and David Lynch's filmography.

Feminist avant-garde and other political offshoots
Laura Mulvey's writing and filmmaking launched a flourishing of feminist filmmaking based on the idea that conventional Hollywood narrative reinforced gender norms and a patriarchal gaze. Their response was to resist narrative in a way to show its fissures and inconsistencies. Chantal Akerman and Sally Potter are just two of the leading feminist filmmakers working in this mode in the 1970s. Video art emerged as a medium in this period, and feminists like Martha Rosler and Cecelia Condit took full advantage of it.

In the 1980s feminist, gay and other political experimental work continued, with filmmakers like Barbara Hammer, Su Friedrich, Tracey Moffatt, Sadie Benning and Isaac Julien among others finding experimental format conducive to their questions about identity politics.

The queercore movement gave rise to a number experimental queer filmmakers such as G.B. Jones (a founder of the movement) in the 1990s and later Scott Treleaven, among others.

Experimental film in universities
With very few exceptions, Curtis Harrington among them, the artists involved in these early movements remained outside the mainstream commercial cinema and entertainment industry. A few taught occasionally, and then, starting in 1966, many became professors at universities such as the State Universities of New York, Bard College, California Institute of the Arts, the Massachusetts College of Art, University of Colorado at Boulder, and the San Francisco Art Institute.

Many experimental-film practitioners do not in fact possess college degrees themselves, although their showings are prestigious. Some have questioned the status of the films made in the academy, but longtime film professors such as Stan Brakhage, Ken Jacobs, Ernie Gehr, and many others, continued to refine and expand their practice while teaching. The inclusion of experimental film in film courses and standard film histories, however, has made the work more widely known and more accessible.

Exhibition and distribution
Beginning in 1946, Frank Stauffacher ran the "Art in Cinema" program of experimental and avant-garde films at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art.

From 1949 to 1975, the Knokke-Le-Zoute Experimental Film Festival—located in Knokke-Heist, Belgium—was the most prominent festival of experimental cinema in the world. It permits the discovery of American avant-garde in 1958 with Brakhage's films and many others European and American filmmakers.

From 1947 to 1963, the New York-based Cinema 16 functioned as the primary exhibitor and distributor of experimental film in the United States. Under the leadership of Amos Vogel and Marcia Vogel, Cinema 16 flourished as a nonprofit membership society committed to the exhibition of documentary, avant-garde, scientific, educational, and performance films to ever-increasing audiences.

In 1962, Jonas Mekas and about 20 other film makers founded The Film-Makers' Cooperative in New York City. Soon similar artists cooperatives were formed in other places: Canyon Cinema in San Francisco, the London Film-Makers' Co-op, and Canadian Filmmakers Distribution Center.

Following the model of Cinema 16, experimental films have been exhibited mainly outside of commercial theaters in small film societies, microcinemas, museums, art galleries, archives and film festivals.

Several other organizations, in both Europe and North America, helped develop experimental film. These included Anthology Film Archives in New York City, The Millennium Film Workshop, the British Film Institute in London, the National Film Board of Canada and the Collective for Living Cinema.

Some of the more popular film festivals, such as Ann Arbor Film Festival, the New York Film Festival's "Views from the Avant-Garde" Side Bar, the International Film Festival Rotterdam, and Media City Film Festival prominently feature experimental works.

The New York Underground Film Festival, Chicago Underground Film Festival, the LA Freewaves Experimental Media Arts Festival, MIX NYC the New York Experimental Lesbian and Gay Film Festival, and Toronto's Images Festival also support this work and provide venues for films which would not otherwise be seen. There is some dispute about whether "underground" and "avant-garde" truly mean the same thing and if challenging non-traditional cinema and fine arts cinema are actually fundamentally related.

Venues such as Anthology Film Archives, San Francisco Cinematheque, Pacific Film Archive in Berkeley, California, Tate Modern, London and the Centre Pompidou in Paris often include historically significant experimental films and contemporary works. Screening series no longer in New York that featured experimental work include the Robert Beck Memorial Cinema, Ocularis and the Collective for Living Cinema.

All these associations and movements have permitted the birth and development of national experimental films and schools like "body cinema" ("Écoles du corps" or "Cinéma corporel") and "post-structural" movements in France, and "structural/materialism" in England for example.

Influences on mainstream commercial media
Though experimental film is known to a relatively small number of practitioners, academics and connoisseurs, it has influenced and continues to influence cinematography, visual effects and editing.

Experimental film reached mainstream audiences at world exhibitions, especially those in Montreal, Expo 67, and Osaka, Expo 70.

The genre of music video can be seen as a commercialization of many techniques of experimental film. Title design and television advertising have also been influenced by experimental film.

Many experimental filmmakers have also made feature films, and vice versa.

title: Experimental film


text:
Skandranon

Skandranon Rashkae is one of the two fictional protagonists of the Mage Wars series by Mercedes Lackey and Larry Dixon and titular character of two of the three books.

He is a gryphon, an intelligent hybrid of both raptor and feline parts, a species artificially created by Urtho, the Mage of Silence. Despite being referred to as 'the Black Gryphon', he is not naturally black, and it is stated within the novel The Black Gryphon that he in fact dyes his feathers. During the events at the end of the book however he is bleached white by magic, leading to the title of the sequel The White Gryphon. In the third book of the series, The Silver Gryphon, he is a secondary character.

Skandranon is portrayed as vain and publicly aloof, but also brave the point of recklessness, insisting he personally carries out dangerous missions. He is also shown to be the closest of all the gryphons to Urtho, the creator of his species. It is noted within the Black Gryphon that he is the only one permitted to enter Urtho's tower as he pleases. He is also an avid reader; the character Amberdrake mentions 'Skan's cures for boredom are reading, sleeping and teasing his friends, in that order'.

In addition to being the "prime specimen of his species" he is a superb aerial warrior and Master-class mage. His mate, Zhaneel, is said to be the first true-bred "Gryfalcon" type, but she is not the first. While he can usually enunciate perfectly, while angered or injured his speech distinctively rolls the rs and s's so more people are likely to take notice.

In series set later but in the same world, Gryphons of that time mention that it is an honour to be treading the same ground as 'The Great Skandranon' while exploring the ruins of Urtho's tower.

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

title: Skandranon


text: File:C-17 Aldergrove.jpg

title: File:C-17 Aldergrove.jpg


text:
User talk:Ravensign

Ravensign primarily seeks to perform edits that improve readibiliy, neutral voice and objectivity.

title: User talk:Ravensign


text:
Fatality (Mortal Kombat)

Fatality is the name given to a gameplay feature in the Mortal Kombat series of fighting video games, in which the victor of the final round in a match inflicts a brutal and gruesome finishing move onto their defeated opponent. Prompted by the announcer saying "Finish Him/Her", players have a short time window to execute a Fatality by entering a specific button and joystick or D-Pad combination, while positioned at a specific distance from the opponent. The Fatality and its derivations are notable features of the Mortal Kombat series and have caused a large cultural impact and controversies.

Conception
The origins of the Fatality concept has been traced back to several violent Asian martial arts media. In The Street Fighter (1974), a Japanese martial arts film, Sonny Chiba performs x-ray fatality finishing moves, which at the time was seen as a gimmick to distinguish it from other martial arts films. In the Japanese shōnen manga and anime series Fist of the North Star, the protagonist Kenshiro performs gory fatalities in the form of finishing moves which consist of attacking pressure points that cause heads and bodies to explode. The Japanese seinen manga and anime series Riki-Oh (1988 debut), along with its Hong Kong martial arts film adaptation Story of Ricky (1991), featured gory fatalities in the form of finishing moves similar to those that later appeared in Mortal Kombat.

While creating Mortal Kombat, Ed Boon and John Tobias started with the idea of a Street Fighter II style system and retained many of its conventions but tweaked others. The most notable additions were graphic blood effects, more brutal fighting techniques, and especially the fatal finishing moves (this was a novelty as the traditional fighting games ended with the loser simply knocked unconscious and the victor posing for the players). According to Boon, it started with an idea to enable the player to hit a dizzied opponent at the end of the match with a "free hit", and that idea "quickly evolved into something nasty." Tobias recalled it differently: "Our first idea was to use them as a finishing move for final boss Shang Tsung, who was going to pull out his sword and behead his opponent. Then we thought, 'What if the player could do that to his opponent?'" Tobias and former Midway Games programmer Mark Turmell stated that initially no one at Midway expected players to find the Fatalities in the game. Tobias said: "When we watched players react to the Fatalities, we knew we had no choice but to give them more."

Gameplay
Much like special moves, a Fatality may require certain distances and quick button sequences in order to achieve the desired result. Usually, every character has their own special Fatality that must be performed at a certain distance from the opponent, the three distances being: close (the finishing move would not work unless the player is right next to the opponent), sweep (the player should stand a step or two away from the opponent, but still within the distance that a sweeping low kick should hit), and far (at least one jump's length away from the opponent).

Each character has signature Fatalities. Traditionally for the main and important characters of the games their Fatalities are usually a reflection of either their storyline or their special abilities: e.g., Sub-Zero's Fatalities have traditionally involved the use of his powers of ice, whereas Scorpion's storyline of a hellspawn ninja spectre involves the use of setting someone ablaze or using his famous spear. The number of individual Fatalities varies depending upon the game; while characters in Mortal Kombat and Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance had only one, Mortal Kombat II and Mortal Kombat 3 and its updates (Mortal Kombat Trilogy and Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3) featured as many as four.

Cultural impact
The Fatalities were featured in ScrewAttack's "Top 10 OMGWTF Moments" due to the competition it gave to other games including Street Fighter II and how it popularized the arcades, as well as in machinima.com's list of top ten gaming memes. The 2012 film Wreck-It Ralph shows a cyborg resembling Mortal Kombat's Kano performing his signature heart-ripping Fatality move on a zombie.

By 1996, Mortal Kombat's creation had become a generic gaming term for a lethal finishing move in any game, including the termed "Fatals" in the Killer Instinct series. In the game ClayFighter 63⅓ the Fatalities were parodied in the form of "Claytality." "Fatalities" expanded into the shooter genre, most notably in the Gears of War series as "Executions".

Variations
In many games in the franchise there are different types of Fatalities and Finishers:

Animality
This finisher allows the player to morph into an animal and maul their opponent. This style of Fatality debuted in Mortal Kombat 3. According to Boon, his team "listened to what the players said about MKII and the Animalities that they thought were in there but really were not. To answer all these rumors, we put Animalities in MKIII [sic]."

In order to perform an Animality, the player must first grant their opponent Mercy, the act which revives the opponent in lieu of delivering a final blow or performing a Fatality by restoring a small amount of health. Should the opponent be defeated again, an Animality may be performed.

Babality
Introduced in Mortal Kombat II, the Babality turns an opponent into an infant version of the character. Sometimes the opponent will wear a miniature version of the clothes they wore when fully-grown, complete with smaller versions of accessories such as Raiden's hat or Johnny Cage’s shades. In MK3 and its updates, the generic green "Babality!!" text and the sound of a baby crying used in MKII is replaced with pastel colored alphabet blocks and a short lullaby with the end portion of "Rock-a-bye-baby", together with an unnervingly gentle announcement of the move. Their initial appearance in Mortal Kombat II Revision 2.1 came with some glitches including one that allowed players to perform attacks after the Babality was performed. They returned in Mortal Kombat (2011) with special animations for each character.

Brutality
Introduced in Mortal Kombat Trilogy and the Super NES and Genesis versions of Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3, this finisher allowed players to perform a combo which would cause the opponent to explode. Brutalities were not very popular, as they were extremely difficult to accomplish, requiring the player to memorize and perform a special 11-hit combo.

This finisher did not appear in another game until Mortal Kombat: Shaolin Monks, in which it was not explicitly used as a finisher, but rather as a powerup. A move similar to the Brutality appeared in Mortal Kombat: Deception, in the form of a Fatality of Li Mei: her Fatality was to rapidly strike the opponent repeatedly, then to step back and pose as her opponent twitches for a moment, before exploding in a pile of gore. Brutalities make a return appearance in 2015's Mortal Kombat X, featured as enhanced versions of certain moves used as the finishing blow in the decisive round of a fight. They again appeared in 2019's Mortal Kombat 11 and in 2023's Mortal Kombat 1 in which every character shares the Brutality "The Klassic" (which consists of decapitating the opponent with a rising uppercut while their spine is still attached to their head. This was very similar to Sub-Zero's "Spine Rip" Fatality in Mortal Kombat (1992)).

Faction Kill
Appearing only in Mortal Kombat X, the winning player performs a unique fatality pertaining to which faction that player is part of in the game. Each faction has a set of five completely unique faction kills, however the player has to play continuously for one single faction to reveal every faction kill available to that particular faction, including one that is unlocked by a Faction War victory.

Friendship
The fighter performs an act of kindness, leaving the opponent unharmed at the end of the fight. These actions include Sub-Zero making a snowman, Noob Saibot throwing a bowling ball and hitting a few pins, Stryker acting as a crossing guard and allowing all the other fighters to run past, or Jax taking out a jump rope and using it. Developers described the inclusion of Friendships as "a counter to all the blood and gore", saying they wanted a different aspect to the game. In MKII, Shao Kahn would announce "Friendship... Friendship?", while in MK3 and MKT he would say "Friendship... Friendship, Again?" in a clearly disappointed or confused tone. While largely left out since MK3, and only alluded to in some characters' fatalities, it returned upon the release of Mortal Kombat 11: Aftermath as part of a free update to the main game. The updated Friendships are even more over-the-top, humorous, and in some cases, heartwarming.

Hara-Kiri
The Hara-Kiri (Japanese for a certain type of ritual suicide and literally means "belly cut"; Kenshi is the only character who uses it in this form) is a finishing move in which the losing player kills themselves upon defeat at the end of the last match, rather than be finished off by their opponent. Examples include Liu Kang internally combusting, Kabal stabbing himself between his eyes, Sindel performing a back flip and landing head-first (which results in her neck being snapped), and Darrius crushing his own head. It is the first time in the series in which the defeated player is allowed to perform a finishing move. The maneuver debuted in Deception but has not been included in any subsequent series installments.

Heroic Brutality
Heroic Brutalities are finishing moves exclusive to the 2008 crossover game Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe. In addition to the MK characters' Fatalities being toned down therein to accommodate the game's "Teen" rating, the Heroic Brutalities represented the DC characters' moral code against killing. The censored finishers from both sides were considered a negative point of the game.

Kreate-A-Fatality
For Mortal Kombat: Armageddon, the Fatality concept was completely revised. In all previous games, finishing moves were in the form of a button combo, activating a scripted animation sequence. For Armageddon, the old system was replaced with a new Kreate-A-Fatality, or "Kustom-Chain-Fatality" system. After defeating an opponent in two rounds (with default settings), players are given a limited amount of time to perform one of several violent moves (such as ripping an organ out) attributed to a button and direction combination. The time then resets and the player can perform a second move, but the time bar decreases more rapidly after each move. It is also possible to "fail" the Fatality by running out of time before performing a final finishing move (such as ripping the opponent's head off). Once the player reaches 10 chains, he/she must use a finisher or else the Fatality sequence will stop and the player will not receive a rank or reward. If time runs out before the player can end the chain with a final fatal move, no rank or reward is given and the Fatality is not counted, regardless of how many moves were completed.

This concept has been met with a mixed reaction, with some fans and critics preferring the more interactive nature and freedom of the Kreate-a-Fatality system, and others missing the previous games' character-specific ending moves and alternatives to killing the opponent. Originally, there were individual character-specific Kreate-a-Fatality moves for each character, but this feature was dropped, reportedly due to such a feat's infeasibility (especially in regards to the Kreate-A-Character option, which individual moves would not translate to). This kind of Fatality has only been in this game.

Stage Fatality
Stage Fatalities brought environment interaction within the series, occurring when a player uses a part of the stage or map to execute a player. It is a finishing move that is not a standard character Fatality. Some examples of Stage Fatalities are having the victim fall into a pool of acid or a pit of spikes, or to be run over by a subway train; the stage then does not darken. Stage Fatalities are present in the series from the first Mortal Kombat, though are absent from Deadly Alliance.

Deception features more Stage Fatalities, renamed Death Traps, than any previous Mortal Kombat game. A special button combination is no longer required, as the opponent only needs to be either standing or hit in a particular spot on the stage. Unlike previous Stage Fatalities, Death Traps can be initiated anytime during a round and only require the opponent be hit into them, meaning an instant victory. However, if they are not executed in the decisive round, the fight does not end, going on to the next round. This action acts as a ring out. It was possible for some Death Traps to kill both fighters simultaneously, in which case the round went to the player who had taken the least damage, or Player 1 if both players had full life bars.

Traditional Stage Fatalities, seen since the original MK game through MK4, made a return in the 2011 Mortal Kombat. Button combinations are once again used to perform Stage Fatalities.

Quitality
Quitalities, first introduced in Mortal Kombat X, occurs when a player disconnects in the middle of an online match. This results in their character instantly dying, and their opponent is awarded with a win. Examples of quitalities include the loser's head simultaneously exploding or the loser swiftly snapping their own neck. Like the Hara-Kiri, the Quitality is a finisher that requires the defeated player to commit instead of the winner, although it can be done at any point during the match.

Miscellaneous

 * Fergality: The Mega Drive/Genesis version of Mortal Kombat II featured an exclusive finishing move that allowed Raiden to transform his opponent into Probe Ltd. employee Fergus McGovern, who worked on that port of the game. This finisher could only be performed on the Armory stage.
 * Multality: Mortal Kombat: Shaolin Monks features Multalities, which are Fatalities performed on multiple common enemies at one time.
 * Animalities and Brutalities were both rumored to be featured in MKII, but were only later added in MK3 and Mortal Kombat Trilogy, respectively. The rumored types of Fatalities that did not actually exist in any of the games included "Nudalities" and "Weirdalities", among others.

Notable Fatalities

 * In December 1994, GamePro polled readers for their favorite Fatalities and published the results in their March 1995 issue. All were from MKII: Jax's "Arm Rip", Sub-Zero's "Ice Grenade", and Shang Tsung's "Soul Stealer".
 * GamePro counted down their "12 Lamest Fatalities" from various fighting games in 2008. Those from Mortal Kombat were: Liu Kang's "Death by Arcade Machine" (MK3, #12); The Flash's "Tornado Slam" (MKvsDC, #11); Raiden's Friendship (MKII, #10); Jax's "Amazing Growing Man" (MK3, #9); Scorpion's and Rain's Animalities (UMK3/MKT, tied at #8); Sindel's "Killer Hair" (MK3, #7), Kano's "Stomach Pounce" (MKvsDC, #5); all Babalities (#3); and Kano's "Ripping Out an Invisible Heart" in the censored Super NES version of the first game (#1).
 * Game Informer published a list of the series' best, worst, and "downright confusing" Fatalities in 2010.
 * Best: Liu Kang's "Dragon" (MKII); Sub-Zero's "Spine Rip" (MK); Reptile's "Head Snack" (MKII); Jade's "Head Gymnastics" (MK:D); Sektor's "Compactor" (MK3); Jax's "Arm Pull" (MKII); Dairou's "Ribs to the Eyes" (MK:D); and Sindel's "Scream" (MK3).
 * Worst: Liu Kang's "Cartwheel" (MK); Kano's "Knee Stomp" (MKvsDC); Kitana's "Kiss of Death" (MKII); Kabal's "Inflating Head" and "Scary Face" (MK3); Rain's "Upside-Down Uppercut" (MKT); and Bo' Rai Cho's "Fart of Doom" (MK:D).
 * Most confusing: Liu Kang's "Arcade Machine" (MK3); Jax's "Giant Stomp" (MK3); Johnny Cage's "Three Head Punch" (MKII); Cyrax's "Self-Destruct" (MK3); Darrius' "Rearranger" (MK:D); and Smoke's "Earth Detonation" (MK3).
 * In 2010, ScrewAttack counted down their selections of the series' best and worst Fatalities.
 * Best: Reptile's "Facial Surgery" (MK4); Quan Chi's "Leg Beating" (MK4); Dairou's "Ribs in the Eyes" (MK:D); Cyrax's "Trash Compactor" (MK:DA); Kano's "Skeleton Remover" (MK3); Baraka's "Blades-in-the-Chest" (MKII); Scorpion's "Party Popper" (MK:DA); Johnny Cage's "Punching Bag" (MK:SM); Liu Kang's "Dragon Transformation" (MKII); and Sub-Zero's "ESRB-Maker" (MK).
 * Worst: Tanya's "Neck Breaker" (MK4); Kabal's "Scary Face" (MK3); Sindel's Hara-Kiri (MK:D); Kenshi's "Eyeball-Popper" (MK:DA); Quan Chi "Makes You a Giraffe" (MK:DA); Raiden's "Accident" (MK:D); Reptile's Animality (UMK3); Motaro's "Head Yoink" (MKT): Liu Kang's "Cartwheel" (MK); and every finisher in MKvsDC.
 * UGO.com counted down their top 50 "Most Gruesome Finishing Moves Ever" in video games in 2011. Those from Mortal Kombat were: Sub-Zero's "Spine Rip" (MK, #50); Johnny Cage's "Triple Uppercut" (MKII, #45); the Joker's "Last Joke" (MKvsDC, #40); Kung Lao's "Hat Slice" (MKII, #35); Johnny Cage's "Nutbuster" (MK:SM, #29); the "Pit" Fatality (MK, #22); Sektor's "Iron Clamp" (MK3, #15); Dairou's "Ribeyes" (MK:D, #5); and Smoke's "Armageddon" (MK3, #2).
 * Prima Games, in 2014, counted down their selection of the top fifty Fatalities from the entire Mortal Kombat series, with the top ten being Baraka's "Lifting Stab" (MKII); Noob Saibot's "Make a Wish" (MK2011); Kitana's "Kiss of Death" (MKII); Johnny Cage's "Nut Buster" (MK:SM); Ermac's "Mind Over Splatter" (MK2011); the "Pit" Fatality (MK); Dairou's "Eye Stab" (MK:D); Kung Lao's "Blade Drag" (MK2011); Kano's "Heart Rip" (MK); and Sub-Zero's "Beheading, Complete with Spine" (MK).
 * GameSpot posted their chronological selections of the ten best and worst Fatalities in Mortal Kombat history in 2022, in their commemoration of the series' 30th anniversary.
 * Best: Sub-Zero's "Spine Rip" (MK); Kung Lao's "Hat Split" (MKII); Shang Tsung's Kintaro transformation (MKII); Quan Chi's "Shake a Leg" (MK4); Sub-Zero's "Pitch" (MK:D); Scorpion's "Nether Gate" (MK2011); Ermac's "Inner Workings" (MKX); Cassie Cage's "Selfie" (MKX); Shang Tsung's "Kondemned to the Damned" (MK11); and D'Vorah's "New Species" (MK11).
 * Worst: Liu Kang's "Cartwheel Uppercut" (MK); Jade's "Shaky Staff" (UMK3); Classic Sub-Zero's "Blackout" (UMK3); Quan Chi's "Neck Stretch" (MK:DA); Scorpion's "Only a Flesh Wound" (MK:DA); Ashrah's "Voodoo Doll" (MK:D); all Fatalities in MK: Armageddon; Kano's "Stomp, Drop, and Roll" (MKvsDC); Cassie Cage's "I <3 You" (MK11); and Skarlet's "Heart Condition" (MK11).

title: Fatality (Mortal Kombat)


text:
Comedy Inc. (Australian TV series)

Comedy Inc. was an Australian sketch comedy television series, which ran on the Nine Network from 19 February 2003 to 26 December 2007. The series was produced by Crackerjack Productions. It first premiered in February 2003 in the new wave of Australian sketch comedy shows being launched across the free-to-air channels along with Big Bite and skitHOUSE. Since the end of the series episodes have been repeated on the Foxtel cable channel, The Comedy Channel and during 2009, reruns were shown on Nine HD before the channel's closure.

Cast

 * Paul McCarthy — Seasons 1–5 (2003–2007)
 * Jim Russell — Seasons 1–5 (2003–2007)
 * Emily Taheny — Seasons 1–5 (2003–2007)
 * Mandy McElhinney — Seasons 1-4 (2003–2006)
 * Genevieve Morris — Seasons 1–4 (2003–2006)
 * Katrina Retallick — Seasons 1–4 (2003–2006)
 * Gabriel Andrews — Seasons 1–3 (2003–2005)
 * Ben Oxenbould — Seasons 1–3 (2003–2005)
 * Scott Brennan — Seasons 4–5 (2006–2007)
 * Simon Mallory — Seasons 4–5 (2006–2007)
 * Rebecca De Unamuno — Season 5 (2007)
 * Fiona Harris — Season 5 (2007)
 * Janis McGavin — Season 5 (2007)

Overview
When the series debuted, it rapidly gained the highest ratings of the three sketch comedies at that period of Australian television. It subsequently gained numerous nominations for major Australian and international film and television awards. The show has also proved to be more commercially successful in Australia than its rivals and was the first to release a VHS/DVD of content from the series.

The show had many different formats. For example, a more risqué variation of the series was broadcast in 2005, entitled Comedy Inc: The Late Shift. The episodes were aired at a later time, because of the content. The Late Shift aired from 2005 until the end of the series in 2007.

Skits and formula
Comedy Inc. features original skits, impersonations and irreverent parodies of other television programmes and films. For example, popular Australian and British series such as Big Brother Australia, Dancing with the Stars, Australia's Brainiest Kid, Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? Renovation Rescue, Hi-5, Bob the Builder (as Bodgy Builder) and Thomas and Friends (as Ernest the Engine and Others) are frequently subject to many spoofs, as are Australian news and current affair programmes, such as Today Tonight and 60 Minutes.

In addition, the series features original skits, such as "Selina: She Grows on You", a segment which features an eccentric gardener for a wealthy woman, and her zany and original ways of keeping her garden up to scratch.

A recurring sketch features Emily Taheny as an unnamed woman who approaches other women at inappropriate and private moments such as going to the toilet, showering at a gym or giving birth to a baby. "Matt and Bray" was a skit about family man Al (Russell) and his two odd neighbours (McCarthy and Oxenbould). The skit ended in at the end of season 3, as Ben Oxenbould had left the main cast.

Another recurring sketch features Katrina Retallick as a doctor who approaches her patients stating that "recent medical studies" show that song is the best way to convey possibly upsetting news. She then takes a guitar and starts a cheerful melody about the patient's fatal condition such as cancer, AIDS or a brain tumor, with the rest of the hospital staff and eventually the patient singing along.

"Berni (with an 'i')" (Taheny) was a 10 part skit about 'Berni' and her pathway to fame. Also featured Oxenbould as her flamboyantly gay ex-fiancé. Emily Taheny and Mandy McElhinney played two women on an informercial-like programme, selling odd items or already invented items such as a decorative dynamic compression plate or an ice cube tray. Their respective catchphrases which are said several times throughout the sketch are "sensational" and "absolutely".

A long running skit is "Blokeman" (Russell). The skit always begins with a comic strip story, explaining about an average man (who spoke in a general Australian accent) who made his own beer in his kitchen to have only had it explode, thus becoming "Blokeman". Blokeman is looked upon as a normal hero, despite his obvious "bogan" qualities (ugg boots, mullet, beer belly, broad Australian accent). He is hesitant to help when people ask and usually finds the easiest way to complete the task. He has a girlfriend named "Wondermoll" (McElhinney). In the later series', Blokeman has a nemesis, "Metrosexual Man" (Mallory). When Metrosexual Man appears in a sketch, he is usually followed by the phrase "gay in everyway, except for sexual orientation".

A notable sketch with a father (Russell) who tucks his young son into bed every night, who usually asks him a question, but unbeknownst to himself, is slightly mature. An example is when the son asks his father "What happened to his cousin". Instead of telling a white lie, the father explains to his son that his cousin is gay and was thrown out by his homophobic father.

The sketch will always end with the following lines:
 * Son: "Honest dad?"
 * Father: "Would I lie to you, mate?"

Timeslots
When Comedy Inc. began in early 2003, it held the 8:30 pm Wednesday timeslot for two years before moving to 9:30 pm on various nights in 2005, when it was moved around in attempts to improve ratings and changed its name to Comedy Inc.: The Late Shift.

Comedy Inc: Specials (2005)
In 2005 two one-hour specials called "Comedy Inc: Takes out TV" were aired, the first during the series and then the week following the final episode before "The Late Shift". They featured mostly television parody sketches with a few general sketches.

Comedy Inc: The Late Shift (2005–2007)
Beginning with its 2005 season, the show aired in a later timeslot, in the process changing its name to Comedy Inc.: The Late Shift. This version was a success with both audiences and television critics, due to its slightly more risque content, as well as original new characters like "Blokeman" and "Matt and Bray". The new show marked the beginning of a collaboration between new head writer Rick Kalowski and producer/director David McDonald. (After working together on 45 episodes of the show from 2004, the pair left the show at the end of the fourth series in late 2006).

The fourth series of Comedy Inc. debuted on Tuesday 30 May 2006 again on the Nine Network. The new series marked the departure of Ben Oxenbould and Gabriel Andrews from the show, and their replacement with the popular Australian comedian Scott Brennan and actor Simon Mallory. In a new 10.30 pm timeslot on Sundays, it again dominated its timeslot, proving especially popular with younger viewers. The fourth series, characterised by darker and even more risque material than the first series of Comedy Inc.: The Late Shift (words such as fuck, for example, are no longer censored), ran 25 one-hour episodes in total, following an extension of the series by the Nine Network, making it the longest running series of the show to date.

On Thursday 19 October 2006, the show was nominated at the 2006 "Australian Film Institute Awards" in five categories, including Best Television Comedy Series, Best Direction in Television, and two nominations for Best Performance in a Television Comedy Series, one each for Paul McCarthy and Genevieve Morris.

The fifth season was directed by Damian Davis, previously director of The Ronnie Johns Half Hour. The head writers were Kevin Brumpton and Angus Fitzsimons.

The fifth season began production in January 2007 and would end in July 2007. On 5 September 200, most of the female cast left—including Mandy McElhinney, Katrina Retallick and Genevieve Morris—and they were replaced by SkitHOUSE actress Fiona Harris, previously recurring actress Rebecca De Unamuno, and newcomer Janis McGavin.

On 26 December 2007, the show aired its final episode, as the cast had felt that the fifth series should be their last.

An international version of the show, comprising a series of 20 half-hour episodes, has aired on cable television in several countries. A second series of the international version of the show aired in late 2007. The international version focusses on sketches, character pieces and parodies of overseas programs, and excludes parodies of Australian programs with which a foreign audience would be unfamiliar.

Critical and commercial reception
Although critical reaction to the series on its debut in 2003 was mixed, reviews of the show have improved with each series. The 2005 and 2006 series of the show, in particular, received largely positive reviews from most major Australian newspapers, some suggesting that the later timeslot had made for a darker, more interesting and funnier show. Consistent with that critical response, it is the 'later timeslot' series of the show that has been nominated for various awards.

Jim Schembri, notoriously tough television critic for the Melbourne newspaper The Age has described the show as "the hands-down funniest and smartest local laughfest on TV in 2006."

Commercially, Comedy Inc has also proved to be successful, although it never attained the ratings of its 2003 season. The success of the later series is often said to have affected the cancellation of its competitors, such as skitHOUSE.

Award nominations and wins
As noted above, Comedy Inc. has received many and various nominations and awards. In 2005, the "Australian Film Institute" Awards nominated Comedy Inc.: The Late Shift for Best Television Comedy Series, as well as a 2006 Logie Award for Most Outstanding Comedy Series, and 2006 Rose D'Or (Golden Rose of Montreaux) Award for Best International Comedy Series. David McDonald received nominations for Best Direction in Television, and for Best Series (in his capacity as producer) at both the 2005 and 2006 "Australian Film Institute" Awards for his work on the show.

Guest cast
These notable cast members made guest appearances on Comedy Inc:
 * Billy Birmingham
 * Chas Licciardello
 * Andrew Hansen
 * Indiana Evans
 * James Reyne
 * Shawn Cosgrove
 * Robert DiPierdomenico
 * Deni Hines
 * Barry Crocker
 * Tim Minchin

title: Comedy Inc. (Australian TV series)


text:
Eastern question

In diplomatic history, the Eastern question was the issue of the political and economic instability in the Ottoman Empire from the late 18th to early 20th centuries and the subsequent strategic competition and political considerations of the European great powers in light of this. Characterized as the "sick man of Europe", the relative weakening of the empire's military strength in the second half of the eighteenth century threatened to undermine the fragile balance of power system largely shaped by the Concert of Europe. The Eastern question encompassed myriad interrelated elements: Ottoman military defeats, Ottoman institutional insolvency, the ongoing Ottoman political and economic modernization programme, the rise of ethno-religious nationalism in its provinces, and Great Power rivalries. In an attempt to triangulate between these various concerns, the historian Leslie Rogne Schumacher has proposed the following definition of the Eastern Question:

"The 'Eastern Question' refers to the events and the complex set of dynamics related to Europe's experience of and stake in the decline in political, military and economic power and regional significance of the Ottoman Empire from the latter half of the eighteenth century to the formation of modern Turkey in 1923."

The period in which the Eastern Question was internationally prominent is also open to interpretation. While there is no specific date on which the Eastern question began, the Russo-Turkish War (1828–29) brought the issue to the attention of the European powers, Russia and Britain in particular. As the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire was believed to be imminent, the European powers engaged in a power struggle to safeguard their military, strategic and commercial interests in the Ottoman domains. Imperial Russia stood to benefit from the decline of the Ottoman Empire; on the other hand, Austria-Hungary and Great Britain deemed the preservation of the Empire to be in their best interests. The Eastern question was put to rest after the First World War, one of the outcomes of which was the collapse and division of the Ottoman holdings.

Background

The Eastern question emerged as the power of the Ottoman Empire began to decline during the 18th century. The Ottomans were at the height of their power in 1683, when they lost the Battle of Vienna to the combined forces of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and Austria, under the command of John III Sobieski. Peace was made much later, in 1699, with the Treaty of Karlowitz, which forced the Ottoman Empire to cede many of its Central European possessions, including those portions of Hungary which it had occupied. Its westward expansion arrested, the Ottoman Empire never again posed a serious threat to Austria, which became the dominant power in its region of Europe. The Eastern question did not truly develop until the Russo-Turkish Wars of the 18th century.

According to Karl Marx's writings around the Crimean War, the main factor of the Eastern question was Russian imperialism towards Turkey—with Turkey being a barrier that would protect the rest of Europe, and thus Britain's interests laid with the Ottoman Empire during the Crimean War.

Napoleonic era

The Napoleonic era (1799–1815) brought some relief to the faltering Ottoman Empire. It distracted Russia from further advances. Napoleon invaded Egypt but his army was trapped there when the British decisively defeated the French fleet at Aboukir Bay. A peace interlude in 1803 allowed the army to return to France.

To secure his own domination and to render the rest of Europe virtually powerless, Napoleon established an alliance with Russia by concluding the Treaty of Tilsit in 1807. Russia pledged to provide aid to Napoleon in his war against Britain; in turn, the Emperor of Russia would receive the Ottoman territories of Moldavia and Wallachia. If the Sultan refused to surrender these territories, France and Russia were to attack the Empire, and the Ottoman domains in Europe were to be partitioned between the two allies.

The Napoleonic scheme threatened not only the Sultan, but also Britain, Austria and Prussia, which were almost powerless in the face of such a potent alliance. The alliance naturally proved accommodating to the Austrians, who hoped that a joint Franco-Russian attack, which would probably have utterly devastated the Ottoman Empire, could be prevented by diplomacy; but if diplomatic measures failed, the Austrian minister Klemens von Metternich decided that he would support the partition of the Ottoman Empire—a solution disadvantageous to Austria, but not as dangerous as a complete Russian takeover of Southeastern Europe.

An attack on the Empire, however, did not come to pass, and the alliance concluded at Tilsit was dissolved by the French invasion of Russia in 1812. Following Napoleon's defeat by the Great Powers in 1815, representatives of the victors met at the Congress of Vienna, but failed to take any action relating to the territorial integrity of the decaying Ottoman Empire. This omission, together with the exclusion of the Sultan from the Holy Alliance, was interpreted by many as supportive of the position that the Eastern question was a Russian domestic issue that did not concern any other European nations.

Serbian Revolution

The Serbian Revolution or Revolutionary Serbia refers to the national and social revolution of the Serbian people between 1804 and 1815, during which Serbia managed to fully emancipate itself from the Ottoman Empire and exist as a sovereign European nation-state, and a latter period (1815–1833), marked by intense negotiations between Belgrade and the Ottoman Empire. The term was invented by a famous German historian, Leopold von Ranke, in his book Die Serbische Revolution, published in 1829. These events marked the foundation of modern Serbia. While the first phase of the revolution (1804–1815) was in fact a war of independence, the second phase (1815–1833) resulted in official recognition of a suzerain Serbian state by the Porte (the Ottoman government), thus bringing the revolution to its end.

The revolution took place by stages: the First Serbian Uprising (1804–1813), led by Karađorđe Petrović; Hadži Prodan's revolt (1814); the Second Serbian Uprising (1815) under Miloš Obrenović; and official recognition of the Serbian state (1815–1833) by the Porte.

The Proclamation (1809) by Karađorđe in the capital Belgrade represented the peak of the revolution. It called for unity of the Serbian nation, emphasizing the importance of freedom of religion, Serbian history and formal, written rules of law, all of which it claimed the Ottoman Empire had failed to provide. It also called on Serbs to stop paying the jizya tax to the Porte.

The ultimate result of the uprisings was Serbia's suzerainty from the Ottoman Empire. The Principality of Serbia was established, governed by its own parliament, government, constitution and its own royal dynasty. Social element of the revolution was achieved through introduction of the bourgeois society values in Serbia, which is why it was considered the world's easternmost bourgeois revolt, which culminated with the abolition of feudalism in 1806. The establishment of the first constitution in the Balkans in 1835 (later abolished) and the founding in 1808 of its first university, Belgrade's Great Academy, added to the achievements of the young Serb state. By 1833, Serbia was officially recognized as a tributary to the Ottoman Empire and as such, acknowledged as a hereditary monarchy. Full independence of the Principality was internationally recognized during the second half of the 19th century.

Greek War of Independence

The Eastern question once again became a major European issue when the Greeks declared independence from the Sultan in 1821. It was at about this time that the phrase "Eastern question" was coined. Ever since the defeat of Napoleon in 1815, there had been rumours that the Emperor of Russia sought to invade the Ottoman Empire, and the Greek Revolt seemed to make an invasion even more likely. The British foreign minister, Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh, as well as the Austrian foreign minister, Metternich, counselled the Emperor of Russia, Alexander I, not to enter the war. Instead, they pleaded that he maintain the Concert of Europe (the spirit of broad collaboration in Europe which had persisted since Napoleon's defeat). A desire for peaceful co-operation was also held by Alexander I, who had founded the Holy Alliance. Rather than immediately putting the Eastern question to rest by aiding the Greeks and attacking the Ottomans, Alexander wavered, ultimately failing to take any decisive action.

Alexander's death in 1825 brought Nicholas I to the Imperial Throne of Russia. Deciding that he would no longer tolerate negotiations and conferences, he chose to intervene in Greece. Britain also soon became involved, with its intervention motivated in part by the desire to prevent the young Greek state from becoming a wholly Russian vassal. The spirit of romanticism that then dominated Western European cultural life also made support for Greek independence politically viable. France too aligned itself with the Greeks, but Austria (still worried about Russian expansion) did not. Outraged by the interference of the Great Powers, the Ottoman Sultan, Mahmud II, denounced Russia as an enemy of Islam, prompting Russia to declare war in 1828. An alarmed Austria sought to form an anti-Russian coalition, but its attempts were in vain.

As the war continued into 1829, Russia gained a firm advantage over the Ottoman Empire. By prolonging hostilities further, however, Russia would have invited Austria to enter the war against her and would have resulted in considerable suspicion in Britain. Therefore, for the Russians to continue with the war in hopes of destroying the Ottoman Empire would have been inexpedient. At this stage, the King of France, Charles X, proposed the partition of the Ottoman Empire among Austria, Russia and others, but his scheme was presented too belatedly to produce a result.

Thus, Russia was able to secure neither a decisive defeat nor a partition of the Ottoman Empire. It chose, however, to adopt the policy of degrading the Ottoman Empire to a mere dependency. In 1829, the Emperor of Russia concluded the Treaty of Adrianople with the Sultan; his empire was granted additional territory along the Black Sea, Russian commercial vessels were granted access to the Dardanelles, and the commercial rights of Russians in the Ottoman Empire were enhanced. The Greek War of Independence was terminated shortly thereafter, as Greece was granted independence by the Treaty of Constantinople in 1832.

Muhammad Ali of Egypt
Just as the Greek Revolt was coming to an end, the Egyptian–Ottoman War (1831–1833) broke out in the Ottoman Empire between the Sultan and his nominal viceroy in Egypt, Muhammad Ali. The modern and well trained Egyptians looked as though they could conquer the empire. The Tsar of Russia, in keeping with his policy of reducing the Ottoman Sultan to a petty vassal, offered to form an alliance with the Sultan. In 1833, the two rulers negotiated the Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, in which Russia secured complete dominance over the Ottomans. The Russians pledged to protect the Empire from external attacks; in turn, the Sultan pledged to close the Dardanelles to warships whenever Russia was at war. This provision of the Treaty raised a problem known as the "Straits question". The agreement provided for the closure for all warships, but many European statesmen mistakenly believed that the clause allowed Russian vessels. Britain and France were angered by the misinterpreted clause; they also sought to contain Russian expansionism. The two kingdoms, however, differed on how to achieve their objective; the British wished to uphold the Sultan, but the French preferred to make Muhammad Ali (whom they saw as more competent) the ruler of the entire Ottoman Empire. Russian intervention led the Sultan to negotiate a peace with Muhammad Ali in 1833, but war broke out once again in 1839.

Sultan Mahmud II died the same year, leaving the Ottoman Empire to his son Abdulmejid I in a critical state: the Ottoman army had been significantly defeated by the forces of Muhammad Ali. Another disaster followed when the entire Turkish fleet was seized by the Egyptian forces. Great Britain and Russia now intervened to prevent the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, but France still continued to support Muhammad Ali. In 1840, however, the Great Powers agreed to compromise; Muhammad Ali agreed to make a nominal act of submission to the Sultan, but was granted hereditary control of Egypt.

The only unresolved issue of the period was the Straits question. In 1841, Russia consented to the abrogation of the Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi by accepting the London Straits Convention. The Great Powers — Russia, Britain, France, Austria and Prussia — agreed to the re-establishment of the "ancient rule" of the Ottoman Empire, which provided that the Turkish straits would be closed to all warships whatsoever, with the exception of the Sultan's allies during wartime. With the Straits Convention, the Russian Emperor Nicholas I abandoned the idea of reducing the Sultan to a state of dependence, and returned to the plan of partitioning Ottoman territories in Europe.

Thus, after the resolution of the Egyptian struggle which had begun in 1831, the weak Ottoman Empire was no longer wholly dependent on Russia but was dependent on the Great Powers for protection. Attempts at internal reform failed to end the decline of the Empire. By the 1840s, the Ottoman Empire had become the "sick man of Europe", and its eventual dissolution appeared inevitable.

Revolutions of 1848
After the Great Powers reached a compromise to end the revolt of Mehmet Ali, the Eastern question lay dormant for about a decade until revived by the Revolutions of 1848. Although Russia could have seized the opportunity to attack the Ottoman Empire—France and Austria were at the time occupied by their own insurrections—it chose not to. Instead, Emperor Nicholas committed his troops to the defence of Austria, hoping to establish goodwill to allow him to seize Ottoman possessions in Europe later.

After the Austrian Revolution was suppressed, an Austro-Russian war against the Ottoman Empire seemed imminent. The Emperors of both Austria and Russia demanded that the Sultan return Austrian rebels who had sought asylum in the Empire, but he refused. The indignant monarchs withdrew their ambassadors to the Sublime Porte, threatening armed conflict. Almost immediately, however, Britain and France sent their fleets to protect the Ottoman Empire. The two Emperors, deeming military hostilities futile, withdrew their demands for the surrender of the fugitives. The short crisis created a closer relationship between Britain and France, which led to a joint war against Russia in the Crimean War of 1853–56.

Crimean War
A new conflict began during the 1850s with a religious dispute. Under treaties negotiated during the 18th century, France was the guardian of Roman Catholics in the Ottoman Empire, while Russia was the protector of Orthodox Christians. For several years, however, Catholic and Orthodox monks had disputed possession of the Church of the Nativity and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Palestine. During the early 1850s, the two sides made demands which the Sultan could not possibly satisfy simultaneously. In 1853, the Sultan adjudicated in favour of the French, despite the vehement protestations of the local Orthodox monks.

Emperor Nicholas of Russia dispatched Prince Menshikov on a special mission to the Porte. By previous treaties, the Sultan was committed "to protect the Christian religion and its Churches", but Menshikov tried to negotiate a new treaty, under which Russia would be allowed to interfere whenever it deemed the Sultan's protection inadequate. At the same time, however, the British government sent Lord Stratford, who learnt of Menshikov's demands upon arriving. Through skillful diplomacy, Lord Stratford convinced the Sultan to reject the treaty, which compromised the independence of the Ottomans. Shortly after he learned of the failure of Menshikov's diplomacy, Nicholas marched into Moldavia and Wallachia (Ottoman principalities in which Russia was acknowledged as a special guardian of the Orthodox Church), with the pretext that the Sultan failed to resolve the issue of the Holy Places. Nicholas believed that the European powers would not object strongly to the annexation of a few neighbouring Ottoman provinces, especially given Russian involvement in suppressing the Revolutions of 1848.

Britain, seeking to maintain the security of the Ottoman Empire, sent a fleet to the Dardanelles, where it was joined by another fleet sent by France. Yet the European powers hoped for a diplomatic compromise. The representatives of the four neutral Great Powers—Britain, France, Austria and Prussia—met in Vienna, where they drafted a note which they hoped would be acceptable to both the Russians and the Ottomans. The note was approved by Nicolas but rejected by Sultan Abd-ul-Mejid I, who felt that the document's poor phrasing left it open to many interpretations. Britain, France and Austria were united in proposing amendments to mollify the Sultan, but their suggestions were ignored in the Court of Saint Petersburg. Britain and France set aside the idea of continuing negotiations, but Austria and Prussia held hope for diplomacy despite the rejection of the proposed amendments. The Sultan proceeded to war, his armies attacking the Russian army near the Danube. Nicholas responded by despatching warships, which destroyed the entire Ottoman fleet at Sinop on 30 November 1853, allowing Russia to land and supply its forces on the Ottoman shores fairly easily. The destruction of the Ottoman fleet and the threat of Russian expansion alarmed both Britain and France, who stepped forth in defence of the Ottoman Empire. In 1854, after Russia ignored an Anglo-French ultimatum to withdraw from the Danubian Principalities, Britain and France declared war.

"France takes Algeria from Turkey, and almost every year England annexes another Indian principality: none of this disturbs the balance of power; but when Russia occupies Moldavia and Wallachia, albeit only temporarily, that disturbs the balance of power. France occupies Rome and stays there several years during peacetime: that is nothing; but Russia only thinks of occupying Constantinople, and the peace of Europe is threatened. The English declare war on the Chinese, who have, it seems, offended them: no one has the right to intervene; but Russia is obliged to ask Europe for permission if it quarrels with its neighbor. England threatens Greece to support the false claims of a miserable Jew and burns its fleet: that is a lawful action; but Russia demands a treaty to protect millions of Christians, and that is deemed to strengthen its position in the East at the expense of the balance of power. We can expect nothing from the West but blind hatred and malice... (comment in the margin by Nicholas I: ‘This is the whole point’)."

Among those who supported the Franco-English point of view was Karl Marx, in his articles for the New York Tribune circa 1853. Karl Marx saw the Crimean War as a conflict between the democratic ideals of the west that started with "great movement of 1789" against "Russia and Absolutism". Marx saw the Ottoman Empire as a buffer against a pattern of expansionism by the Tsar.

Emperor Nicholas I presumed that Austria, in return for the support rendered during the Revolutions of 1848, would side with him, or at the very least remain neutral. However, Austria felt threatened by the Russian troops in the nearby Danubian Principalities. When Britain and France demanded the withdrawal of Russian forces from the Principalities, Austria supported them; and, though it did not immediately declare war on Russia, it refused to guarantee its neutrality. When, in the summer of 1854, Austria made another demand for the withdrawal of troops, Russia (fearing that Austria would enter the war) complied.

Though the original grounds for war were lost when Russia withdrew her troops from the Danubian Principalities, Britain and France continued hostilities. Determined to address the Eastern question by ending the Russian threat to the Ottoman Empire, the allies posed several conditions for a ceasefire, including that Russia should give up its protectorate over the Danubian Principalities; that Russia should abandon any right to interfere in Ottoman affairs on the behalf of Orthodox Christians; that the Straits Convention of 1841 was to be revised; and finally, all nations were to be granted access to the river Danube. As the Emperor refused to comply with these "Four Points", the Crimean War proceeded.

Peace negotiations began in 1856 under the Emperor Nicholas I's successor, Alexander II. Under the ensuing Treaty of Paris, the "Four Points" plan proposed earlier was largely adhered to; most notably, Russia's special privileges relating to the Danubian Principalities were transferred to the Great Powers as a group. In addition, warships of all nations were perpetually excluded from the Black Sea, once the home to a Russian fleet (which had been destroyed during the war). The Emperor of Russia and the Sultan agreed not to establish any naval or military arsenal on that sea coast. The Black Sea clauses came at a tremendous disadvantage to Russia, for it greatly diminished the naval threat it posed to the Ottomans. Moreover, all the Great Powers pledged to respect the independence and territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire.

The Treaty of Paris stood until 1871, when France was crushed in the Franco-Prussian War. While Prussia and several other German states united into a powerful German Empire, Napoleon III was deposed in the formation of the French Third Republic. Napoleon had opposed Russia over the Eastern question in order to gain the support of Britain. But the new French Republic did not oppose Russian interference in the Ottoman Empire because that did not significantly threaten French interests. Encouraged by the decision of France, and supported by the German minister Otto, Fürst von Bismarck, Russia denounced the Black Sea clauses of the treaty agreed to in 1856. As Britain alone could not enforce the clauses, Russia once again established a fleet in the Black Sea.

Great Eastern Crisis (1875–78)
In 1875 the territory of Herzegovina rebelled against the Ottoman Sultan in the Province of Bosnia; soon after, Bulgaria rebelled as well. The Great Powers believed they should intervene to prevent a bloody war in the Balkans. The first to act were the members of the League of the Three Emperors (Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia), whose common attitude toward the Eastern Question was embodied in the Andrassy Note of 30 December 1875 (named for the Hungarian diplomat Julius, Count Andrassy). The note, seeking to avoid a widespread conflagration in Southeastern Europe, urged the Sultan to institute various reforms, including granting religious liberty to Christians. A joint commission of Christians and Muslims was to be established to ensure the enactment of appropriate reforms. With the approval of Britain and France, the note was submitted to the Sultan, and he agreed on 31 January 1876. But the Herzegovinian leaders rejected the proposal, pointing out that the Sultan had already failed in his promises of reforms.

Representatives of the Three Emperors met again in Berlin, where they approved the Berlin Memorandum (May 1876). To convince the Herzegovinians, the memorandum suggested that international representatives be allowed to oversee the institution of reforms in the rebelling provinces. But before the memorandum could be approved by the Porte, the Ottoman Empire was convulsed by internal strife, which led to the deposition of Sultan Abdul-Aziz (30 May 1876). The new Sultan, Murad V, was himself deposed three months later due to his mental instability, and Sultan Abdul Hamid II came to power (31 August 1876). In the meantime, the hardships of the Ottomans had increased; their treasury was empty, and they faced insurrections not only in Herzegovina and Bulgaria, but also in Serbia and Montenegro. Still, the Ottoman Empire managed to crush the insurgents in August 1876. The result incommoded Russia, which had planned to take possession of various Ottoman territories in Southeastern Europe in the course of the conflict.

After the uprisings were largely suppressed, however, rumours of Ottoman atrocities against the rebellious population shocked European sensibilities. Russia now intended to enter the conflict on the side of the rebels. Delegates of the Great Powers (who now numbered six due to the rise of Italy) assembled at the Constantinople Conference (23 December 1876 to 20 January 1877) to make another attempt for peace. However, the Sultan refused the December 1876 proposals to allow international representatives to oversee the reforms in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In 1877 the Great Powers again made proposals to the Ottoman Empire, which the Porte rejected (18 January 1877).

Russia declared war against the Ottoman Empire on 24 April 1877. The Russian chancellor Prince Gorchakov had effectively secured Austrian neutrality with the Reichstadt Agreement of July 1876, under which Ottoman territories captured in the course of the war would be partitioned between the Russian and Austria-Hungarian Empires, with the latter obtaining Bosnia and Herzegovina. Britain, though acutely aware of the Russian threat to its colonies in India, did not involve itself in the conflict. However, when Russia threatened to conquer Constantinople, British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli urged Austria and Germany to ally with him against this war-aim. Russia negotiated peace through the Treaty of San Stefano (3 March 1878), which stipulated independence to Romania, Serbia, and Montenegro, autonomy to Bulgaria, reforms in Bosnia and Herzegovina; the ceding Dobruja and parts of Armenia and a large indemnity to Russia. This would give Russia great influence in Southeastern Europe, as it could dominate the newly independent states. To reduce these advantages to Russia, the Great Powers (especially Britain), insisted on a thorough revision of the Treaty of San Stefano.

At the Congress of Berlin, the Treaty of Berlin of 13 July 1878 adjusted the boundaries of the new states in the Ottoman Empire's favour. Bulgaria was divided into two states (Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia), as it was feared that a single state would be susceptible to Russian domination. Ottoman cessions to Russia were largely sustained. Bosnia and Herzegovina, though still nominally within the Ottoman Empire, were transferred to Austrian control. A secret agreement between Britain and the Ottoman Empire transferred the Ottoman island of Cyprus to Britain. These final two procedures were predominantly negotiated by Disraeli, whom Otto von Bismarck famously described as "The old Jew, that is the man", after his level-headed Palmerstonian approach to the Eastern question.

Germany and the Ottoman Empire
Germany drew away from Russia and became closer to Austria-Hungary, with whom it concluded the Dual Alliance in 1879. Germany also closely allied with the Ottoman Empire. The German government took over the re-organisation of the Ottoman military and financial system; in return, it received several commercial concessions, including permission to build the Baghdad Railway, which secured for them access to several important economic markets and opened the potential for German entry into the Persian Gulf area, then controlled by Britain. German interest was driven not only by commercial interests, but also by a burgeoning rivalry with Britain and France. Meanwhile, Britain agreed to the Entente Cordiale with France in 1904, thereby resolving differences between the two countries over international affairs. Britain also reconciled with Russia in 1907 with the Anglo-Russian Entente.

For the German historian Leopold von Ranke Christianity was morally most superior and could not be improved upon. When Ranke wrote ''Zur orientalischen Frage. Gutachten'' at the behest of the kaiser he framed the Eastern Question as primarily religious in nature; the civil rights of Christians against Muslims in the Ottoman Empire could only be secured by the intervention of the Christian European nations. He was considered a leading authority in the field of Orientalism in his time.

Young Turk Revolution
In April 1908, the Committee of Union and Progress (more commonly called the Young Turks), a political party opposed to the despotic rule of Sultan Abdul Hamid II, led a rebellion against the Sultan. The pro-reform Young Turks deposed the Sultan by July 1909, replacing him with the ineffective Mehmed V. This began the Second Constitutional Era of the Ottoman Empire.

In the following years, various constitutional and political reforms were instituted, but the decay of the Ottoman Empire continued.

Bosnian Crisis
As the Young Turks took charge of the government in Ottoman Empire, the Austrians feared they might regain control of Bosnia and Herzegovina – which was under the de facto rule of Austria-Hungary under the Treaty of Berlin, but the provinces officially remained possessions of the Ottoman Empire. The Austrian foreign minister Graf (count) Lexa von Aehrenthal resolved to annex the territory, which was both economically and strategically important. Russia was contacted by Aehrenthal. Izvolsky agreed that Russia would not object to the annexation. In return, Austria would not object to opening the Bosphorus and Dardanelles Straits to Russian warships, an advantage that had been denied to Russia since 1841. On October 7, 1908, Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Serbians were outraged. However, Germany was allied with Austria, leaving Serbia helpless against two great powers. Although the conflict was resolved without any immediate warfare, the result embittered relations between Serbia and Austria-Hungary. Russia's resentment at having been deceived and humiliated contributed to the outbreak of World War I.

Timeline

 * 1699 – Treaty of Karlowitz ends Ottoman control in much of Central Europe and brings an end to Ottoman expansionism
 * 1710–11 – Pruth River Campaign
 * 1711 – Treaty of the Pruth
 * 1714–18 – Ottoman–Venetian War
 * 1718 – Treaty of Passarowitz with Austria and Venice; major Turkish losses
 * 1730–35 – Afsharid–Ottoman War. Turks lose much of Caucasus
 * 1735–39 – Austro-Russian–Turkish War; stalemate
 * 1739 – Belgrade Convention (peace treaty of Russo war of 1735), possession of Azov by Russian firm
 * 1768–74 – Russo-Turkish War. Russia gains control of southern Ukraine, Crimea, and the upper northwestern part of the North Caucasus
 * 1774 – Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca, Russia wins (peace treaty of Russo war of 1768), the Orthodox protection rights of Turkish territory
 * 1787–91 – Austro-Turkish War; Turkish loss
 * 1789 – French Revolution. Ottoman Empire is generally neutral.
 * 1791 – Treaty of Sistova. Peace treaty of the Austro–Turkish War (1787–1791). Ottoman-Habsburg wars ended.
 * 1792 – Treaty of Jassy (treaty of Russo war of 1787)
 * 1795 – Treaty of Algiers. The US government pays tax to the Ottoman Empire for safe trade in the Mediterranean.
 * 1796 – Catherine II directed the army to Transcaucasia under the command of General Zubov. Baku falls.
 * 1798–1802 – Napoleon to Egypt and Syria
 * 1804–13 – Russo-Persian War
 * 1806–12 – Russo-Turkish War
 * 1813 – Treaty of Gulistan (treaty of Russo-Persian War of 1804), Iran gives up Georgia and Azerbaijan sovereignty.
 * 1817–64 – Caucasian War
 * 1821–29 – Greek War of Independence; Greek victory
 * 1826–28 – Ottoman-Egyptian invasion of Mani
 * 1826–28 – Russo-Persian War
 * 1829 – Treaty of Adrianople; Greece gains autonomy
 * 1831 – Muhammad Ali of Syria, invasion of Anatolia, First Egyptian-Turkish War (~ 1833). Bosnian uprising.
 * 1833 – Convention of Kütahya (English version) (peace treaty of the First Egyptian-Turkish War) Unkyaru-Sukeresshi treaty.
 * 1838 – British soil commercial treaty (English version) entered into.
 * 1839–41 – Edict of Gülhane, Tanzimat starts, Second Egyptian-Turkish War (~ 1841) (English version)
 * 1840 – London Convention (the treaty of the Second Egyptian-Turkish War)
 * 1841 – London Straits Convention (English version), Unkyaru-Sukeresshi treaty is discarded, the passage of the Russian fleet from Bosphorus and Dardanelles is prohibited.
 * 1846 in Baku – Oil well drilling machine was made. There were hand-dug oil well before that.
 * 1853–56 – Crimean War
 * 1856 – Treaty of Paris (peace treaty of the Crimean War)
 * 1867 – Alfred Nobel invents dynamite
 * 1870 – Constantinople Conference
 * 1870 – Bulgarian Exarchate
 * 1872 – Russia sold overseas oil well drilling rights in Baku to investors
 * 1875:
 * Herzegovina Uprising (1875–77)
 * Serbian Uprising
 * 1876:
 * First Ottoman constitution enacted
 * The Bulgarian April Uprising
 * Nobel Brothers in Baku
 * Montenegro-Ottoman War (1876-1878)
 * 1877–78 – Russo-Turkish War and Congress of Berlin (1878) - Liberation of Bulgaria, Independence of Romania, independence of Montenegro, independence of Serbia
 * 1878–79 – Kresna–Razlog uprising
 * 1885 – Bulgarian unification

 * 1894–1896 – Hamidian massacres of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire
 * 1897 – Greco-Turkish War. Constantinople Convention (1897)
 * 1899 – German Baghdad Railway won the right-of-way. United Kingdom that has been competing Second Boer War withdrew in war expenses increased.
 * 1903 – Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising
 * 1904 – Russo-Japanese War
 * 1905 – Yıldız assassination attempt. Armenian Revolutionary Federation attempted to assassinate Abdulhamid II, according to Abdulhamid II.
 * 1908 – Bulgarian Declaration of Independence
 * 1908 – Young Turk Revolution, Bosnia and Herzegovina annexation
 * 1911-1912 - Italo-Turkish War, loss of Libya and the Dodecanese Islands
 * 1912 – Albanian Declaration of Independence. Balkan League is formed by four Balkan countries.
 * 1912–13 – Balkan Wars
 * 1912–13 – First Balkan War
 * 1913 – Second Balkan War
 * 1913 – London Convention, Turkey lost Crete and European territory except for Istanbul
 * 1914–18 – World War I; alliance with Germany; Turkish loss
 * 1919 – Sèvres Treaty (treaty following the end of WWI)
 * 1919–22 – Greco-Turkish War
 * 1920 – Republic of Turkey established
 * 1920–22 – Operation Nemesis
 * 1923 – Treaty of Lausanne

Historiography

 * Abazi, Enika, and Albert Doja. "The past in the present: time and narrative of Balkan wars in media industry and international politics." Third World Quarterly 38.4 (2017): 1012–1042. Deals with travel writing, media reporting, diplomatic records, policy-making, truth claims and expert accounts.
 * Case, Holly. The Age of Questions (Princeton University Press, 2018) excerpt

 * Schumacher, Leslie Rogne. "The Eastern Question as a Europe question: Viewing the ascent of ‘Europe’ through the lens of Ottoman decline." Journal of European Studies 44.1 (2014): 64-80. Long bibliography pp 77-80
 * Tusan, Michelle. "Britain and the Middle East: New Historical Perspectives on the Eastern Question," History Compass (2010), 8#3 pp 212–222.

title: Eastern question


text:
Religious Zionist Party

The Religious Zionist Party (הציונות הדתית), known as Tkuma (תקומה) until 2021 and officially known as National Union–Tkuma (האיחוד הלאומי-תקומה, HaIchud HaLeumi–Tkuma), was a far-right, ultra-nationalist, Jewish supremacist, and religious Zionist  political party in Israel. In all the elections since its founding in 1998, the party had joined other factions and competed as part of a united list. In 2023, the Religious Zionist Party and The Jewish Home agreed to merge to become National Religious Party–Religious Zionism.

History
Tkuma was established by Hanan Porat and Zvi Hendel in 1998. The pair left the National Religious Party in reaction to the Wye River Memorandum. Almost immediately after the creation of Tkuma, it joined together with Moledet and Herut – The National Movement, to form the National Union, a right-wing coalition which won four seats in the 1999 elections, with only one of those seats going to Tkuma. These elections were a failure for the right-wing bloc, and were won by Ehud Barak, leaving the National Union and Tkuma in the opposition. In February 2000, Yisrael Beiteinu joined the National Union, alongside Tkuma, and the two parties joined Ariel Sharon's first government in 2001. One year later, Tkuma and the rest of the National Union left Sharon's government over disagreements over the handling of the Second Intifada. For the 2003 elections, the National Union kept its alliance with Yisrael Beiteinu, with its increased support helping to win seven seats for the entire list, and two for Tkuma. The party was included in Ariel Sharon's coalition, alongside Likud, Shinui, the National Religious Party, and Yisrael BaAliyah.

Because of tensions over the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip (Tkuma was ideologically opposed, and Hendel lived in the Gaza settlement of Ganei Tal), National Union ministers Binyamin Elon and Avigdor Lieberman were sacked, and the party left the coalition. However, the National Union was bolstered by the addition of Ahi, which had split off from the National Religious Party when they decided to remain in the coalition.

Before the 2006 elections, the alliance between the National Union and Yisrael Beiteinu was dissolved, and a new alliance between the National Union and the National Religious Party was formed, which won nine seats, two of which were allocated to Tkuma and taken by Hendel and Uri Ariel.

On 3 November 2008, ahead of the 2009 elections, Tkuma faced a crisis. The party itself announced that it would unite with Ahi, the National Religious Party, and Moledet, to form a new right-wing party, which was later named the Jewish Home. However, around half of the former Tkuma members later left the new party to re-establish Tkuma and rejoin the National Union alongside Moledet, Hatikva, and Eretz Yisrael Shelanu. In the elections themselves, the National Union got four seats, with Tkuma getting two seats.

Ahead of the 2013 elections, the National Union split, with all member parties except for Tkuma splitting off to form Otzma LeYisrael, leaving Tkuma as the only party left in the National Union. Tkuma proceeded to change its name to "National Union–Tkuma", appropriating the National Union name. The party opted to run as part of the Jewish Home list for the 2013 elections. The Jewish Home won 12 seats, four of which (Ariel, Ben-Dahan, Kalfa, and Strook) were members of Tkuma. The party decided to continue its alliance with the Jewish Home for the 2015 Knesset elections, taking the 2nd, 8th, 13th, and 17th spots on the joint list. The Jewish Home dropped to eight seats in that election.

In 2019 Bezalel Smotrich took over party leadership, winning party elections in a landslide against Ariel. Ahead of the April 2019 elections, the party joined with the Jewish Home and Otzma Yehudit to create the Union of Right-Wing Parties, which won five seats in the elections, two of which went to National Union–Tkuma.

Ahead of the September 2019 elections, Tkuma and the Jewish Home agreed to form an alliance with the New Right, called Yamina, with Tkuma leader Smotrich receiving the third spot on the joint list.

Yamina officially split on 10 October 2019 into two Knesset factions – the New Right, and the Jewish Home–National Union. For the 2020 elections, Otzma Yehudit and The Jewish Home agreed on 20 December to run together, in an alliance later named the United Jewish Home. Smotrich was critical of the move, stating that it was unlikely that the alliance would pass the electoral threshold. Tkuma, The Jewish Home, and the New Right reformed Yamina on 15 January 2020. On 22 April 2020 it was reported that Yamina leader Naftali Bennett was now "considering all options" for Yamina's political future, including departing from Netanyahu's government, which had just agreed to a coalition government with the leader of the opposition Blue and White party, Benny Gantz, and joining the opposition. Bennett was said to be unhappy with the new coalition government's decision to hold back on the issue of judicial reform.

On 14 May 2020 The Jewish Home's only Knesset member, Rafi Peretz, ended his status as a member of Yamina, and agreed to join Netanyahu's new government as well. On 15 May, Tkuma, along with the New Right, split with Netanyahu and made the Yamina alliance a member of the opposition. On 17 May 2020 Bennett met with Gantz, who also succeeded him as defence minister, and declared that the Yamina party would be a member of the opposition, with its "head held high". Tkuma was renamed on 7 January, while it ended its membership in Yamina on 20 January 2021.

In February 2021 the party agreed to run a shared list for the 2021 Knesset elections with Noam and Otzma Yehudit. The list ran under the Religious Zionist Party name and won six seats, four of which were filled by Religious Zionist Party members. On 14 June, after the swearing-in of the 36th government, MK Ofir Sofer split from the Likud faction and merged into the Religious Zionist Party, increasing the number of seats held by the party to seven. He had run during the election as part of the Likud list for Knesset, as a member of Atid Ehad party, using it as a shelf party (a dormant, but still-registered, party brought back into use).

The Religious Zionist Party, Noam and Otzma Yehudit submitted a single list on 14 September 2022 ahead of the 2022 Knesset elections, which saw the alliance win 14 seats. The parties split into three parties in the Knesset on 20 November 2022.

Ideology
The Religious Zionist Party is opposed to any territorial concessions to Palestinian or Syrian claims for land. Some members support the annexation of the entire West Bank, though the official policy of the Jewish Home parliamentary faction, of which the party was aligned between 2013 and 2019, only supports annexation of Area C of the West Bank, which makes up the 63% of land in the West Bank allocated to Israel in the Oslo Accords. The party is opposed to recognition of same-sex marriage on a religious basis. The party advocates for increased funding for Torah study and religious education. Jewish-American columnist David E. Rosenberg has stated that the Religious Zionist Party's "platform includes things like annexation of West Bank settlements, the expulsion of asylum-seekers, and political control of the judicial system". He further described the Religious Zionist Party as a political party "driven by Jewish supremacy and anti-Arab racism". The party has been assessed by The Middle East Journal as "militantly anti-Arab" and far-right.

title: Religious Zionist Party