Lead-Free Solders: From Materials Science and Engineering By William D. Callister, Jr. (Very good Book)
Solders
are metal alloys that are used to bond or join two or more components (usually
other metal alloys). They are used extensively in the electronics industry to
physically hold assemblies together; furthermore, they must allow expansion and
contraction of the various components, must transmit electrical signals, and
also dissipate any heat that is generated. The bonding action is accomplished by
melting the solder material, allowing it to flow among and make contact with
the components to be joined (which do not melt), and, finally, upon
solidification, forming a physical bond with all of these components.
In
the past, the vast majority of solders have been lead-tin alloys. These
materials are reliable, inexpensive, and have relatively low melting
temperatures. The most common lead–tin solder has a composition of 63 wt% Sn–37
wt% Pb.
According
to the lead–tin phase diagram, Figure 9.8, this composition is near the
eutectic and has melting temperature of about 1800 C, the lowest
temperature possible with the existence of a liquid phase (at equilibrium) for
the lead–tin system. It follows that this alloy is often called a “eutectic
lead-tin solder.”
Unfortunately,
lead is a mildly toxic metal, and there is serious concern about the environmental
impact of discarded lead-containing products that can leach into groundwater
from landfills or pollute the air if incinerated. Consequently, in some countries
legislation has been enacted that bans the use of lead-containing solders. This
has forced the development of lead-free solders that, among other things, must
have relatively low melting temperatures (or temperature ranges). Some of these
are ternary alloys (i.e., composed of three metals), to include
tin–silver–copper and tin–silver–bismuth solders. The compositions of several
lead-free solders are listed in Table 1(given below).
Compositions, Solidus Temperatures, and
Liquidus Temperatures for Five Lead-Free Solders
Composition(wt%)
SolidusTemp (0C)
Liquidus Tempreture
(0C)
52 In/48 Sn*
118
118
57 Bi/43 Sn*
139
139
91.8 Sn/3.4 Ag/4.8 Bi
211
213
95.5 Sn/3.8 Ag/0.7 Cu*
217
217
99.3 Sn/0.7 Cu*
227
227
*The
compositions of these alloys are eutectic compositions; therefore, their
solidus and liquidus temperatures are identical.Adapted from E. Bastow, “Solder Families and How They Work,”Advanced Materials & Processes,
Vol. 161, No. 12, M.W. Hunt
Of
course, melting temperatures (or temperature ranges) are important in the
development and selection of these new solder alloys, information that is
available from phase diagrams. For example, the tin-bismuth phase diagram is
presented in Figure 9.10. Here it may be noted that a eutectic exists at 57 wt%
Bi and 1390C which are indeed the composition and melting
temperature of the Bi–Sn soldier in Table 1.
Saint Thomas Christian In India (Background): As with early Christianity in the Roman Empire, it is assumed that the initial converts were largely Jewish proselytes among the Cochin Jews who are believed to have arrived in India around 562 BC, after the destruction of the First Temple. Many of these Jews presumably spoke Aramaic like St. Thomas, also a Jew by birth, who is credited by tradition with evangelising India.
A historically more likely claim by Eusebius of Caesarea is that Pantaenus, the head of the Christian exegetical school in Alexandria, Egypt went to India during the reign of the Emperor Commodus and found Christians already living in India using a version of the Gospel of Matthew with "Hebrew letters, a mixture of colture." This is a plausible reference to the earliest Indian churches which are known to have used the Syriac (a dialect of Aramaic) New Testament. Pantaenus' evidence thus indicates that Syriac-speaking Christians had already evangelised parts of India by the late 2nd century.
Thomas the Apostle (called Didymus which means "the twin") was one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus Christ, according to the New Testament. He is informally called doubting Thomas because he doubted Jesus' resurrection when first told, (in the Gospel of John), followed later by his confession of faith, "My Lord and my God", on seeing Jesus' wounded body.
Thomas is believed to have left northwest India when invasion threatened and traveled by vessel to the Malabar coast, possibly visiting southeast Arabia and Socotra en route, and landing at the former flourishing port of Muziris (modern-day North Paravur and Kodungalloor)(c. 51–52 AD) in the company of a Jewish merchant Abbanes (Hebban).
According to tradition, the Apostle reached Muziris, India in AD 52 where there was a Jewish community at the time. He baptized several people (Even before church founders was born), founding what today are known as Saint Thomas Christians or Nasranis. After his death, the reputed relics of Saint Thomas the Apostle were enshrined as far as Mesopotamia in the 3rd century, and later moved to various places. In 1258, some of the relics were brought to Abruzzo in Ortona, Italy, where they have been held in the Church of Saint Thomas the Apostle. He is often regarded as the Patron Saint of India, and the name Thoma remains quite popular among Saint Thomas Christians of India.
He is believed by the St Thomas Christian tradition to have established Ezharappallikal or Seven and half churches in Kerala. These churches are at Kodungallur, Palayoor, Kottakkavu (Paravur), Kokkamangalam, Niranam, Nilackal (Chayal), Kollam and Thiruvithamcode (half church).Remains of some of his buildings, influenced by Greek architecture, indicate that he was a great builder. According to the legend, Thomas was a skilled carpenter and was bidden to build a palace for the king. However, the Apostle decided to teach the king a lesson by devoting the royal grant to acts of charity and thereby laying up treasure for the heavenly abode.
According to tradition, St. Thomas was killed at Mylapore, near Chennai, in 72 and his body was interred there. Ephrem the Syrian states that the Apostle was martyred in India, and that his relics were taken then to Edessa. This is the earliest known record of his martyrdom.
The accounts of Marco Polo from the 13th century state that the Apostle had an accidental death outside his hermitage in Chennaiby a badly aimed arrow of a fowler who not seeing the saint shot at peacocks there. Since at least the 16th century, the St. Thomas Mount has been a common site revered by Hindus, Muslims and Christians of India (After that European/American Church Christian came with there own intolerant brand of Christianity).
The records of Barbosa from early 16th century inform that the tomb was then maintained by a Muslim who kept a lamp burning there. The San Thome Basilica presently located at the tomb was first built in the 16th century and rebuilt in the 19th.
Few relics are still kept at San Thome Basilica in Mylapore, India. Marco Polo, the Venetian traveller and author of Description of the World, popularly known as Il Milione, is reputed to have visited Southern India in 1292. The He also stopped at Quilon (Kollam) on the western Malabar coast of India, where he met Syrian Christians and recorded their tradition of St. Thomas and his tomb on the eastern Coromandel coast of the country. Il Milione, the book he dictated on his return to Europe, was on its publication condemned by the Church as a collection of impious and improbable traveller's tales. It became very popular reading in medieval Europe and inspired Spanish and Portuguese sailors to seek out the fabulous (and possibly Christian) India described in it.
Indian Hindu Kings allows Thomas to live and preach when early Christians in Europe suffered sporadic persecution as the result of local pagan populations putting pressure on the imperial authorities to take action against the Christians in their midst, who were thought to bring misfortune by their refusal to honour the gods. Persecution was on the rise in Asia Minor towards the end of the 1st century.Christianity was as such established in India even before some nations of Europe had been Christianised. Reference (Robert Eric Frykenberg (28 January 2010).Christianity in India: From Beginnings to the Present, Oxford University Press)
What we get in Return:
Reaction Of Chruch Christinity of Europe:
During the rule of Vasudeva I (A Hindu King), the Kushan emperor, the bones of St. Thomas were transferred from the Mylapore to Edessa. These are generally rejected by various Christian religions as either apocryphal or heretical. The two centuries that lapsed between the life of the apostle and the recording of this work cast doubt on their authenticity (Because It challenged their Intolerant Racist version of White Christianitywhich pissed on Jesus' teaching of Nonviolence during two world wars).
Roman Catholicism was first introduced to India by Portuguese, Italian and Irish Jesuits in the 16th century. Evangelical Protestantism was later spread to India by the efforts of British, American, German, Scottish missionaries to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ (Bible: propaganda material of church) among Indians.Most of these Conversions was done by cheating the poor people of these areas. They used abusive word for Hindu gods (with out understanding these concepts ) even today people like Pat Robertson are example of this mindset . Some more examples are given below.
In February 2001, T. John, the Karnataka civil aviation minister and a member of the Orthodox church, described the Gujarat earthquake, which resulted in death of over 20,000 people, as “the punishment of God to the people for ill-treating Christians and minorities in the state.”
John also saw a divine connection between attacks on Christians in Orissa and the cyclone that hit the region in December 1999, killing 10,000 people. This is nothing but vicarious pleasure at the expense of non-Christian Indians.
Many Kerala Christians who joined the Communist Party of India were denied burial services by the church upon their deaths. This can be traumatic for the surviving members because the rest of the community members tend to treat them as outcastes. (Imagine the state of children who are not able to bury their dead father.)
In September 2000 when Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee was in the US on an official visit, Christian fundamentalist John Dayal appeared before the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) in Washington DC.
The virulently anti-Hindu “Dayal should have thought of the possibility that the timing of that invitation extended to him by USCIRF was not an accident. It is quite likely it was part of the US State Department’s plan to place the visiting Prime Minister on his defensive and thereby weaken India’s efforts to convey to the American public the destructive consequences of cross-border terrorism aided and abetted by Pakistan”.
When Nepal was groaning in earthquake, Some Christian Missionaries were shamelessly selling Chruch
1400 souls dead in Nepal and climbing, I wonder how many of those heard the Gospel?
-Joshua Aguilar
MASSIVE 7.8 EARTHQUAKE STRIKES NEPAL. More signs of the soon return of Jesus Christ.
-Brian E Frazer
Devastating Nepal earthquake could have been prayed down by acknowledging that Christ is the ruler of God's creation Matt 18:19-20, Rev 3:14
-Charles Boucher Jr.
Praying for the country of Nepal...may this tragedy be an open door for many to receive the gospel!
-Chris Chadwick
Praying 4 the lost souls in Nepal. Praying not a single destroyed pagan temple will b rebuilt & the people will repent/receive Christ.
-Tony Miano (@TonyMiano)April 25, 2015
Suffering is a call to conversion: it reminds us of our frailty and vulnerability.
-— Pope Francis (@Pontifex) March 24, 2015
Church made Christianity an unpopular subject in India because they destroyed our culture mutual of respect and Harmony. Although I do believe there are many good follower of Christ who know about true nature of Humanity but Church is not certainly one of those.
Workers
in England and Germany began forming associations to fight for better living
and working conditions. They set up funds to help members in times of distress
and demanded a reduction of working hours and the right to vote. In Germany,
these associations worked closely with the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and
helped it win parliamentary seats. By 1905, socialists and trade unionists
formed a Labour Party in Britain and a Socialist Party in France. However, till
1914, socialists never succeeded in forming a government in Europe. Represented
by strong figures in parliamentary politics, their ideas did shape legislation,
but governments continued to be run by conservatives, liberals and radicals.
The
Russian Revolution:
In
one of the least industrialised of European states this situation was reversed.
Socialists took over the government in Russia through the October Revolution of
1917. The fall of monarchy in February 1917 and the events of October are
normally called the Russian Revolution.
How
did this come about? What were the social and political conditions in Russia
when the revolution occurred?
The
Russian Empire in 1914:
In
1914, Tsar Nicholas II ruled Russia and its empire. Besides the territory
around Moscow, the Russian empire included current-day Finland, Latvia,
Lithuania, Estonia, parts of Poland, Ukraine and Belarus. It stretched to the
Pacific and comprised today’s Central Asian states, as well as Georgia, Armenia
and Azerbaijan. The majority religion was Russian Orthodox Christianity - which
had grown out of the Greek Orthodox Church - but the empire also included
Catholics, Protestants, Muslims and Buddhists.
Russian Dynasty Before Revolution:
Nicholas II (18 May [O.S. 6 May] 1868 – 17 July 1918) was the last Emperor of Russia, Grand Duke of Finland, and titular King of Poland. His official short title was Tsar Nicholas II, Emperor and Autocrat of All the Russias. Like other Russian Emperors he is commonly known by the monarchical title Tsar (though Russia formally ended the Tsardom in 1721). He is known as Saint Nicholas the Passion-Bearer by the Russian Orthodox Church and has been referred to as Saint Nicholas the Martyr.
Nicholas was the eldest son of Emperor Alexander III and Empress Maria Feodorovna of Russia (formerly Princess Dagmar of Denmark). He had five younger siblings: Alexander (1869–1870), George (1871–1899), Xenia (1875–1960), Michael (1878–1918) and Olga (1882–1960). Nicholas often referred to his father nostalgically in letters after Alexander's death in 1894. He was also very close to his mother, as revealed in their published letters to each other.
His paternal grandparents were Emperor Alexander II and Empress Maria Alexandrovna of Russia (born Princess Marie of Hesse-Darmstadt). His maternal grandparents were King Christian IX and Queen Louise of Denmark. Nicholas was of primarily German, as well as Russian and Danish descent.
Nicholas was related to several monarchs in Europe. His mother's siblings included Kings Frederik VIII of Denmark and George I of Greece as well as the United Kingdom's Queen Alexandra (consort of King Edward VII). Nicholas, his wife, Alexandra, and Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany were all first cousins of King George V of the United Kingdom. Nicholas was also a first cousin of both King Haakon VII and Queen Maud of Norway, as well as King Constantine I of Greece. While not first cousins, Nicholas and Kaiser Wilhelm II were second cousins, once removed, as each descended from King Frederick William III of Prussia, as well as third cousins, as they were both great-great-grandsons of Tsar Paul I of Russia. Nicholas and his wife, Alexandra, were also second cousins, as both descended from Louis II, Grand Duke of Hesse and his wife, Wilhelmine of Baden.
Nicholas II ruled from 1 November 1894 until his forced abdication on 15 March 1917. His reign saw Imperial Russia go from being one of the foremost great powers of the world to economic and military collapse. Political enemies nicknamed him Nicholas the Bloody because of the Khodynka Tragedy, anti-Semitic pogroms, Bloody Sunday, his violent suppression of the 1905 Revolution, his execution of political opponents and his perceived responsibility for the Russo-Japanese War.
Nicholas II; his wife, Alexandra Feodorovna; his son, Alexei Nikolaevich; his four daughters, Olga Nikolaevna, Tatiana Nikolaevna, Maria Nikolaevna and Anastasia Nikolaevna; the family's medical doctor, Evgeny Botkin; the Emperor's footman, Alexei Trupp; the Empress' maidservant, Anna Demidova; and the family's cook, Ivan Kharitonov, were executed in the same room by the Bolsheviks on the night of 16/17 July 1918.
This led to the canonisation of Nicholas II, his wife the Empress Alexandra and their children as passion bearers, a title commemorating believers who face death in a Christ-like manner, on 15 August 2000 by the Russian Orthodox Church within Russia and, in 1981, as martyrs by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, located in New York City.
Empress Alexandra , Wife of Nicholas II
Alexandra Feodorovna (6 June 1872 – 17 July 1918), was Empress consort of Russia as the spouse of Nicholas II, the last Emperor of the Russian Empire. Born as Alix of Hesse and by Rhine, she was a granddaughter of Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom. Upon being received into the Russian Orthodox Church, she was given the name Alexandra Feodorovna and in 2000 she was canonized as Saint Alexandra the Passion Bearer. Alexandra was also a maternal great-aunt of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and first cousin twice-removed to his wife Queen Elizabeth II.
Alexandra is best remembered as the last Tsaritsa of Russia, as one of the most famous royal carriers of the haemophilia disease, and for her support of autocratic control over the country. Her friendship with the Russian mystic and holy man, Grigori Rasputin, was also an important factor in her life.
Grigori Yefimovich Rasputin 21 January [O.S. 9 January] 1869 – 30 December [O.S. 17 December] 1916) was a Russian peasant, mystical faith healer and a trusted friend to the family of Nicholas II, the last Tsar of Russia. He became an influential figure in Saint Petersburg, especially after August 1915 when Nicholas took command of the army at the front.
There is much uncertainty over Rasputin's life and the degree of influence he exerted over the shy and irresolute Tsar and Alexandra Feodorovna, his nervous and depressed wife. Accounts are often based on dubious memoirs, hearsay and legend.Before 1915, however, Rasputin's sway was sporadic rather than permanent.While his influence and position may have been exaggerated—he had become synonymous with power, debauchery and lust—historians agree that his presence played a significant role in the increasing unpopularity of the Imperial couple.
Rasputin is connected with the downfall of the Russian monarchy; his disappearance would strengthen the throne. Rasputin was murdered by Felix Yusupov (the only niece of the Tsar) as he was seen by both the left and right to be the root cause of Russia's despair during World War I.
Reference: NCERT Text book India and the Contempoarary World-I class-9 History.com http://www.bl.uk/learning/timeline/item107422.html http://www.reformation.org/russian-branch-of-british-secret-service.html http://oyc.yale.edu/history/hist-202/lecture-19#transcript
Socialists were against private
property, and saw it as the root of all social ills of the time.
Individuals owned the property that gave employment but the
propertied were concerned only with personal gain and not with the welfare of
those who made the property productive. So if society as a whole rather than
individuals controlled property, more attention would be paid to collective
social interests. Socialists wanted this change and campaigned for it.
How could a society without property
operate? What would be the basis of socialist society?
Socialists had different visions of
the future. Some believed in the idea of cooperatives.
Robert Owen , a leading English manufacturer, sought to build a
cooperative community called New Harmony in Indiana (USA). Other socialists
felt that cooperatives could not be built on a wide scale only through
individual initiative: they demanded that governments encourage cooperatives.
In France, for instance, Louis Blanc wanted the government
to encourage cooperatives and replace capitalist enterprises. These cooperatives
were to be associations of people who produced goods together and divided the
profits according to the work done by members.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels added other ideas to this body of arguments. Marx argued that industrial society was ‘capitalist’. Capitalists owned the capital invested in factories, and the profit of capitalists was produced by workers. The conditions of workers could not improve as long as this profit was accumulated by private capitalists. Workers had to overthrow capitalism and the rule of private property. Marx believed that to free themselves from capitalist exploitation, workers had to construct a radically socialist society where all property was socially controlled. This would be a communist society. He was convinced that workers would triumph in their conflict with capitalists. A communist society was the natural society of the future.
Support for Socialism:
By the 1870s, socialist ideas spread
through Europe. To coordinate their efforts, socialists formed an international
body . namely, the Second International. By the 1870s, socialist ideas spread
through Europe. To coordinate their efforts, socialists formed an international
body namely, the Second International. ..............Read More
The French Revolution opened up the possibility of
creating a dramatic change in the way in which society was structured.In many parts of
the world including Europe and Asia, new ideas about individual rights and who
controlled social power began to be discussed. In India, Raja Rammohan Roy and
Derozio talked of the significance of the French Revolution, and many others
debated the ideas of post-revolutionary Europe. The developments in the
colonies, in turn, reshaped these ideas of societal change.
Not everyone in Europe, however, wanted a complete
transformation of society. Responses varied from those who accepted that some
change was necessary but wished for a gradual shift, to those who wanted to
restructure society radically. Some were 'conservatives', others were 'liberals' or 'radicals' What did these terms really mean in the context of
the time? What separated these strands of politics and what linked them
together? We must remember that these terms do not mean the same thing in all
contexts or at all times.
Liberals,
Radicals and Conservatives:
One of the groups which looked to change society
were the liberals. Liberals wanted a nation which tolerated all religions. We should
remember that at this time European states usually discriminated in favour of
one religion or another (Britain favoured the Church of England, Austria and
Spain favoured the Catholic Church). Liberals also opposed the uncontrolled
power of dynastic rulers. They wanted to safeguard the rights of individuals
against governments. They argued for a representative, elected parliamentary
government, subject to laws interpreted by a well-trained judiciary that was
independent of rulers and officials. However, they were not ‘democrats’. They
did not believe in universal adult franchise, that is, the right of every
citizen to vote. They felt men of property mainly should have the vote. They
also did not want the vote for women.
In contrast, radicals wanted a nation in which
government was based on the majority of a country’s population. Many supported
women’s suffragette (A movement to give women the right to vote)
movements. Unlike liberals, they opposed the privileges of great landowners and
wealthy factory owners. They were not against the existence of private property
but disliked concentration of property in the hands of a few.
Conservatives were opposed to radicals and liberals.
After the French Revolution, however, even conservatives had opened their minds
to the need for change. Earlier, in the eighteenth century, conservatives had
been generally opposed to the idea of change. By the nineteenth century, they
accepted that some change was inevitable but believed that the past had to be
respected and change had to be brought about through a slow process.
Industrial Society and Social Change:
Industrialisation brought men, women and children to
factories. Work hours were often long and wages were poor. Unemployment was common,
particularly during times of low demand for industrial goods. Housing and
sanitation were problems since towns were growing rapidly. Liberals and
radicals searched for solutions to these issues.
Almost all industries were the property of
individuals. Liberals and radicals themselves were often property owners and
employers. Having made their wealth through trade or industrial ventures, they felt
that such effort should be encouraged, that its benefits would be achieved if
the workforce in the economy was healthy and citizens were educated. Opposed to
the privileges the old aristocracy had by birth, they firmly believed in the
value of individual effort, labour and enterprise. If freedom of individuals
was ensured, if the poor could labour, and those with capital could operate
without restraint, they believed that societies would develop. Many working men
and women who wanted changes in the world rallied around liberal and radical
groups and parties in the early nineteenth century.
Some nationalists, liberals and radicals wanted
revolutions to put an end to the kind of governments established in Europe in
1815. In France, Italy, Germany and Russia, they became revolutionaries and worked
to overthrow existing monarchs. Nationalists talked of revolutions that would
create ‘nations’ where all citizens would have equal rights.
After 1815,
Giuseppe Mazzini, an Italian nationalist, conspired with others to achieve this
in Italy. Nationalists elsewhere . including India read his writings.
Condition of Poor in London in 19th century by Henry Mayhew:
The War in the Vendée (1793 to 1796; French: Guerre de Vendée) was an uprising in the Vendée region of France during the French Revolution. The Vendée is a coastal region, located immediately south of theLoire River in western France. Initially, the war was similar to the 14th-century Jacquerie peasant uprising, but quickly acquired themes considered by the government in Paris to be counterrevolutionary, andRoyalist. The uprising headed by the self-styled Catholic and Royal Army was comparable to the Chouannerie, which took place in the area north of the Loire.
The departments included in the uprising, called the Vendée Militaire, included the area between the Loire and the Layon rivers: Vendée (Marais, Bocage Vendéen, Collines Vendéennes), part of Maine-et-Loirewest of the Layon, and the portion of Deux Sèvres west of the River Thouet. Having secured their pays, the deficiencies of the Vendean army became more apparent. Lacking a unified strategy (or army) and fighting a defensive campaign, from April onwards the army lost cohesion and its special advantages. Successes continued for some time: Thouars was taken in early May and Saumur in June; there were victories at Châtillon and Vihiers. After this string of victories, the Vendeans turned to a protracted siege ofNantes, for which they were unprepared and which stalled their momentum, giving the government in Paris sufficient time to send more troops and experienced generals.
Tens of thousands of civilians, Republican prisoners, and sympathizers with the revolution were massacred by both armies, leading to modern descriptions of the uprising and its consequences as agenocide. Ultimately, the uprising was suppressed using draconian measures. The historian François Furet concludes that the repression in the Vendee "not only revealed massacre and destruction on an unprecedented scale but also a zeal so violent that it has bestowed as its legacy much of the region's identity ... The war aptly epitomizes the depth of the conflict ... between religious tradition and the revolutionary foundation of democracy."
Genocide controversy:
The popularhistoriographyof the War in the Vendée is deeply rooted in conflicts between different schools of French historiography, and as a result, writings on the uprising are generally highly partisan, coming down strongly in support of the revolutionary government or the Vendéen royalists.This conflict originated in the 19th century between two groups of historians, theBleus, named for their support of the republicans, who based their findings on archives from the uprising and theBlancs, named for their support of the monarchy and the Catholic Church, who based their findings on local oral histories.TheBleusgenerally argued that the Vendée was not a popular uprising, but was the result of noble and clerical manipulation of the peasantry. One of the leaders of this school of thought,Charles-Louis Chassin, published eleven volumes of letters, archives, and other materials supporting this position. TheBlancs, generally members of the former nobility and clergy themselves, argued (frequently using the same documents as Chassin, but also drawing from contemporary mémoirs and oral histories) that the peasants were acting out of a genuine love for the nobility and a desire to protect the Catholic Church.
This focus was popularized in the English-speaking world in 1986, with French historian Reynald Secher'sA French Genocide: The Vendée. Secher argued that the actions of the French republican government during the War in the Vendée was the first moderngenocide.Secher's claims caused a minor uproar in France amongst scholars of modern French history, as mainstream authorities on the period – both French and foreign – published articles rejecting Secher's claims.Claude Langlois (of the Institute of History of the French Revolution) derides Secher's claims as "quasi-mythological".Timothy Tackett of the University of California summarizes the case as such: "In reality ... the Vendée was a tragic civil war with endless horrors committed by both sides – initiated, in fact, by the rebels themselves. The Vendeans were no more blameless than were the republicans. The use of the word genocide is wholly inaccurate and inappropriate."Hugh Gough (Professor of history atUniversity College Dublin) called Secher's book an attempt athistorical revisionismunlikely to have any lasting impact.Peter McPhee roundly criticizes Secher, including the assertion of commonality between the functions of the Republican government and Communist totalitarianism. HistorianPierre Chaunuexpressed support for Secher's views,describing the events as the first "ideological genocide"
Critics of Secher's thesis have alleged that his methodology is flawed. McPhee asserted that these errors are as follows: (1) The war was not fought against Vendeans but Royalist Vendeans, the government relied on the support of Republican Vendeans; (2) the Convention ended the campaign after the Royalist Army was clearly defeated – if the aim was genocide, then they would have continued and easily exterminated the population; (3) Fails to inform the reader of atrocities committed by Royalist against Republicans in the Vendée; (4) Repeats stories now known to be folkloric myths as fact; (5) Does not refer to the wide range of estimates of deaths suffered by both sides, and that casualties were not "one-sided"; and more.
The French Republican Calendar (French: calendrier républicain français) or French Revolutionary Calendar (calendrier révolutionnaire français) was a calendar created and implemented during the French Revolution (During Reign of Terror), and used by the French government for about 12 years from late 1793 to 1805, and for 18 days by the Paris Commune in 1871. The revolutionary system was designed in part to remove all religious and royalist influences from the calendar, and was part of a larger attempt at decimalisation in France (which also included decimal time of day, decimalisation of currency, and metrication).
The new calendar was created by a commission under the direction of the politician Charles-Gilbert Romme seconded by Claude Joseph Ferry and Charles-François Dupuis.
They associated with their work the chemist Louis-Bernard Guyton de Morveau, the mathematician and astronomer Joseph-Louis Lagrange, the astronomer Joseph Jérôme Lefrançois de Lalande, the mathematician Gaspard Monge, the astronomer and naval geographer Alexandre Guy Pingré, and the poet, actor and playwright Fabre d'Églantine, who invented the names of the months, with the help of André Thouin, gardener at the Jardin des Plantes of the Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris. As the rapporteur of the commission, Charles-Gilbert Romme presented the new calendar to the Jacobin-controlled National Convention on 23 September 1793, which adopted it on 24 October 1793 and also extended it proleptically to its epoch of 22 September 1792. It is because of his position as rapporteur of the commission that the creation of the republican calendar is attributed to Romme.
The Republican calendar year began the day the autumnal equinox occurred in Paris, and had twelve months of 30 days each, which were given new names based on nature, principally having to do with the prevailing weather in and around Paris.
Autumn:
Vendémiaire in French (from Latin vindemia, "grape harvest"), starting 22, 23, or 24 September
Brumaire (from French brume, "fog"), starting 22, 23, or 24 October
Frimaire (From French frimas, "frost"), starting 21, 22, or 23 November
Winter:
Nivôse (from Latin nivosus, "snowy"), starting 21, 22, or 23 December
Pluviôse (from Latin pluvius, "rainy"), starting 20, 21, or 22 January
Ventôse (from Latin ventosus, "windy"), starting 19, 20, or 21 February
Spring:
Germinal (from Latin germen, "germination"), starting 20 or 21 March
Floréal (from Latin flos, "flower"), starting 20 or 21 April
Prairial (from French prairie, "pasture"), starting 20 or 21 May
Summer:
Messidor (from Latin messis, "harvest"), starting 19 or 20 June
Thermidor (or Fervidor) (from Greek thermon, "summer heat"), starting 19 or 20 July
Fructidor (from Latin fructus, "fruit"), starting 18 or 19 August
On many printed calendars of Year II (1793–94), the month of Thermidor was named Fervidor. Most of the month names were new words coined from French, Latin, or Greek. The endings of the names are grouped by season. "Dor" means "giving" in Greek.
In Britain, a contemporary wit mocked the Republican Calendar by calling the months: Wheezy, Sneezy and Freezy; Slippy, Drippy and Nippy; Showery, Flowery and Bowery; Hoppy, Croppy and Poppy.
Ten days of the week:
The month is divided into three décades or 'weeks' of ten days each, named simply:
primidi (first day)
duodi (second day)
tridi (third day)
quartidi (fourth day)
quintidi (fifth day)
sextidi (sixth day)
septidi (seventh day)
octidi (eighth day)
nonidi (ninth day)
décadi (tenth day)
Décades were abandoned in Floréal an X (April 1802).
Leap years in the calendar are a point of great dispute, due to the contradicting statements in the establishing decree stating:
