document_title: Greco-Persian Wars

question_text: who recorded the events of the greco-persian war

question_tokens: who recorded the events of the greco-persian war

text: Greco-Persian Wars

text: Sources[edit]

text: Almost all the primary sources for the Greco-Persian Wars are Greek; there are no surviving historical accounts from the Persian side. By some distance, the main source for the Greco-Persian Wars is the Greek historian Herodotus. Herodotus, who has been called the "Father of History",[5] was born in 484 BC in Halicarnassus, Asia Minor (then part of the Persian empire). He wrote his 'Enquiries' (Greek Historia, English (The) Histories) around 440–430 BC, trying to trace the origins of the Greco-Persian Wars, which would still have been recent history.[6] Herodotus's approach was novel and, at least in Western society, he invented 'history' as a discipline.[6] As historian Tom Holland has it, "For the first time, a chronicler set himself to trace the origins of a conflict not to a past so remote so as to be utterly fabulous, nor to the whims and wishes of some god, nor to a people's claim to manifest destiny, but rather explanations he could verify personally."[6]

text: Some later ancient historians, starting with Thucydides, criticised Herodotus and his methods.[7][8] Nevertheless, Thucydides chose to begin his history where Herodotus left off (at the Siege of Sestos) and felt Herodotus's history was accurate enough not to need re-writing or correcting.[8] Plutarch criticised Herodotus in his essay "On The Malignity of Herodotus", describing Herodotus as "Philobarbaros" (barbarian-lover) for not being pro-Greek enough, which suggests that Herodotus might actually have done a reasonable job of being even-handed.[9] A negative view of Herodotus was passed on to Renaissance Europe, though he remained well read. However, since the 19th century his reputation has been dramatically rehabilitated by archaeological finds that have repeatedly confirmed his version of events.[10] The prevailing modern view is that Herodotus did a remarkable job in his Historia, but that some of his specific details (particularly troop numbers and dates) should be viewed with skepticism.[10] Nevertheless, there are still some historians who believe Herodotus made up much of his story.[11]

text: The military history of Greece between the end of the second Persian invasion of Greece and the Peloponnesian War (479–431 BC) is not well supported by surviving ancient sources. This period, sometimes referred to as the pentekontaetia (πεντηκονταετία, the Fifty Years) by ancient writers, was a period of relative peace and prosperity within Greece.[12][13] The richest source for the period, and also the most contemporaneous, is Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War, which is generally considered by modern historians to be a reliable primary account.[14][15][16] Thucydides only mentions this period in a digression on the growth of Athenian power in the run up to the Peloponnesian War, and the account is brief, probably selective and lacks any dates.[17][18] Nevertheless, Thucydides's account can be, and is, used by historians to draw up a skeleton chronology for the period, on to which details from archaeological records and other writers can be superimposed.[17]

text: More detail for the whole period is provided by Plutarch, in his biographies of Themistocles, Aristides and especially Cimon. Plutarch was writing some 600 years after the events in question, and is therefore a secondary source, but he often names his sources, which allows some degree of verification of his statements.[19] In his biographies, he draws directly from many ancient histories that have not survived, and thus often preserves details of the period that are omitted in Herodotus and Thucydides's accounts. The final major existing source for the period is the universal history (Bibliotheca historica) of the 1st century BC Sicilian, Diodorus Siculus. Much of Diodorus's writing about this period is drawn from the much earlier Greek historian Ephorus, who also wrote a universal history.[20] Diodorus is also a secondary source and often derided by modern historians for his style and inaccuracies, but he preserves many details of the ancient period found nowhere else.[21]

text: Further scattered details can be found in Pausanias's Description of Greece, while the Byzantine Suda dictionary of the 10th century AD preserves some anecdotes found nowhere else. Minor sources for the period include the works of Pompeius Trogus (epitomized by Justinus), Cornelius Nepos and Ctesias of Cnidus (epitomized by Photius), which are not in their original textual form. These works are not considered reliable (especially Ctesias), and are not particularly useful for reconstructing the history of this period.[22][23]

text: Origins of the conflict[edit]

text: The Greeks of the classical period believed that, in the dark age that followed the collapse of the Mycenaean civilization, significant numbers of Greeks fled and had emigrated to Asia Minor and settled there.[24][25] Modern historians generally accept this migration as historic (but separate from the later colonization of the Mediterranean by the Greeks).[26][27] There are, however, those who believe the Ionian migration cannot be explained as simply as the classical Greeks claimed.[28] These settlers were from three tribal groups: the Aeolians, Dorians and Ionians.[24] The Ionians had settled about the coasts of Lydia and Caria, founding the twelve cities that made up Ionia.[24] These cities were Miletus, Myus and Priene in Caria; Ephesus, Colophon, Lebedos, Teos, Clazomenae, Phocaea and Erythrae in Lydia; and the islands of Samos and Chios.[29] Although the Ionian cities were independent of one another, they recognized their shared heritage and supposedly had a common temple and meeting place, the Panionion.ii[›] They thus formed a 'cultural league', to which they would admit no other cities, or even other tribal Ionians.[30][31]

text: The cities of Ionia remained independent until they were conquered by the Lydians of western Asia Minor. The Lydian king Alyattes II attacked Miletus, a conflict that ended with a treaty of alliance between Miletus and Lydia, that meant that Miletus would have internal autonomy but follow Lydia in foreign affairs.[32] At this time, the Lydians were also in conflict with the Median Empire, and the Milesians sent an army to aid the Lydians in this conflict. Eventually a peaceable settlement was established between the Medes and the Lydians, with the Halys River set up as the border between the kingdoms.[33] The famous Lydian king Croesus succeeded his father Alyattes in around 560 BC and set about conquering the other Greek city states of Asia Minor.[34]

text: The Persian prince Cyrus led a rebellion against the last Median king Astyages in 553 BC. Cyrus was a grandson of Astyages and was supported by part of the Median aristocracy.[35] By 550 BC, the rebellion was over, and Cyrus had emerged victorious, founding the Achaemenid Empire in place of the Median kingdom in the process.[35] Croesus saw the disruption in the Median Empire and Persia as an opportunity to extend his realm and asked the oracle of Delphi whether he should attack them. The Oracle supposedly replied the famously ambiguous answer that "if Croesus was to cross the Halys he would destroy a great empire".[36] Blind to the ambiguity of this prophecy, Croesus attacked the Persians, but was eventually defeated and Lydia fell to Cyrus.[37] By crossing the Halys, Croesus had indeed destroyed a great empire – his own.

text: While fighting the Lydians, Cyrus had sent messages to the Ionians asking them to revolt against Lydian rule, which the Ionians had refused to do.[38] After Cyrus finished the conquest of Lydia, the Ionian cities now offered to be his subjects under the same terms as they had been subjects of Croesus.[38] Cyrus refused, citing the Ionians' unwillingness to help him previously. The Ionians thus prepared to defend themselves, and Cyrus sent the Median general Harpagus to conquer them.[39] He first attacked Phocaea; the Phocaeans decided to abandon their city entirely and sail into exile in Sicily, rather than become Persian subjects (although many later returned).[40] Some Teians also chose to emigrate when Harpagus attacked Teos, but the rest of the Ionians remained, and were each in turn conquered.[41]

text: In the years following their conquest, the Persians found the Ionians difficult to rule. Elsewhere in the empire, Cyrus identified elite native groups such as the priesthood of Judea – to help him rule his new subjects.[42] No such group existed in Greek cities at this time; while there was usually an aristocracy, this was inevitably divided into feuding factions.[42] The Persians thus settled for sponsoring a tyrant in each Ionian city, even though this drew them into the Ionians' internal conflicts. Furthermore, certain tyrants might develop an independent streak and have to be replaced.[42] The tyrants themselves faced a difficult task; they had to deflect the worst of their fellow citizens' hatred, while staying in the favour of the Persians.[42] In the past, Greek states had often been ruled by tyrants, but that form of government was on the decline.[43] Past tyrants had also tended and needed to be strong and able leaders, whereas the rulers appointed by the Persians were simply place-men. Backed by Persian military might, these tyrants did not need the support of the population, and could thus rule absolutely.[43] On the eve of the Greco-Persian wars, it is probable that the Ionian population had become discontented and was ready for rebellion.[44]

text: Warfare in the ancient Mediterranean[edit]

text: In the Greco-Persian wars both sides made use of spear-armed infantry and light missile troops. Greek armies placed the emphasis on heavier infantry, while Persian armies favoured lighter troop types.[45][46]

text: Persia[edit]

text: The Persian military consisted of a diverse group of men drawn across the various nations of the empire. However, according to Herodotus, there was at least a general conformity in armour and style of fighting.[45] The troops were usually armed with a bow, a 'short spear' and a sword or axe, carried a wicker shield. They wore a leather jerkin,[45][47] although individuals of high stature wore high quality metal armor. The Persians most likely used their bows to wear down the enemy, then closed in to deliver the final blow with spears and swords.[45] The first rank of Persian infantry formations, the so-called 'sparabara', had no bows, carried larger wicker shields and were sometimes armed with longer spears. Their role was to protect the back ranks of the formation.[48] The cavalry probably fought as lightly armed missile cavalry.[45][49]

text: Greece[edit]

text: The style of warfare between the Greek city-states, which dates back until at least 650 BC (as dated by the 'Chigi vase'), was based around the hoplite phalanx supported by missile troops.[46][50] The 'hoplites' were foot soldiers usually drawn from the members of the middle-classes (in Athens called the zeugites), who could afford the equipment necessary to fight in this manner.[51] The heavy armour usually included a breastplate or a linothorax, greaves, a helmet, and a large round, concave shield (the aspis or hoplon).[46] Hoplites were armed with long spears (the dory), which were significantly longer than Persian spears, and a sword (the xiphos).[46] The heavy armour and longer spears made them superior in hand-to-hand combat[46] and gave them significant protection against ranged attacks.[46] Lightly armed skirmishers, the psiloi also comprised a part of Greek armies growing in importance during the conflict; at the Battle of Plataea, for instance, they may have formed over half the Greek army.[52] Use of cavalry in Greek armies is not reported in the battles of the Greco-Persian Wars.

text: Naval warfare[edit]

text: At the beginning of the conflict, all naval forces in the eastern Mediterranean had switched to the trireme, a warship powered by three banks of oars. The most common naval tactics during the period were ramming (Greek triremes were equipped with a cast-bronze ram at the bows), or boarding by ship-borne marines.[53] More experienced naval powers had by this time also begun to use a manoeuver known as diekplous. It is not clear what this was, but it probably involved sailing into gaps between enemy ships and then ramming them in the side.[53]

text: The Persian naval forces were primarily provided by the seafaring people of the empire: Phoenicians, Egyptians, Cilicians and Cypriots.[54][55] Other coastal regions of the Persian Empire would contribute ships throughout the course of the wars.[54]

text: Ionian Revolt (499–493 BC)[edit]

text:
show

v
t
e

Ionian Revolt

Naxos
Sardis
Ephesus
Cyprus
Marsyas
Labraunda
Pedasus
Lade
Miletus
Chios
Malene

text: The Ionian Revolt and associated revolts in Aeolis, Doris, Cyprus, and Caria were military rebellions by several regions of Asia Minor against Persian rule, lasting from 499 to 493 BC. At the heart of the rebellion was the dissatisfaction of the Greek cities of Asia Minor with the tyrants appointed by Persia to rule them, along with opposition to the individual actions of two Milesian tyrants, Histiaeus and Aristagoras.[42][56] In 499 BC the then tyrant of Miletus, Aristagoras, launched a joint expedition with the Persian satrap Artaphernes to conquer Naxos, in an attempt to bolster his position in Miletus (both financially and in terms of prestige).[56][57] The mission was a debacle,[58] and sensing his imminent removal as tyrant, Aristagoras chose to incite the whole of Ionia into rebellion against the Persian king Darius the Great.[44]

text: Struggling to rule the independent-minded cities of Ionia, the Persians appointed local tyrants to rule each of them. This would prove to be the source of much trouble for the Greeks and Persians alike. In 498 BC, supported by troops from Athens and Eretria, the Ionians marched on, captured, and burnt Sardis.[59] However, on their return journey to Ionia, they were followed by Persian troops, and decisively beaten at the Battle of Ephesus.[60] This campaign was the only offensive action taken by the Ionians, who subsequently went on the defensive. The Persians responded in 497 BC with a three-pronged attack aimed at recapturing the outlying areas of the rebellious territory,[61] but the spread of the revolt to Caria meant the largest army, under Darius, moved there instead.[62] While at first campaigning successfully in Caria, this army was wiped out in an ambush at the Battle of Pedasus.[63] This resulted in a stalemate for the rest of 496 and 495 BC.[64]

text: By 494 BC the Persian army and navy had regrouped, and they made straight for the epicentre of the rebellion at Miletus.[65] The Ionian fleet sought to defend Miletus by sea, but was defeated decisively at the Battle of Lade, after the Samians had defected.[66] Miletus was then besieged, captured, and its population was enslaved.[67] This double defeat effectively ended the revolt, and the Carians surrendered to the Persians as a result.[68] The Persians spent 493 BC reducing the cities along the west coast that still held out against them,[69] before finally imposing a peace settlement on Ionia that was considered[by whom?] to be both just and fair.[70]

text: The Ionian Revolt constituted the first major conflict between Greece and the Achaemenid Empire and represents the first phase of the Greco-Persian Wars. Asia Minor had been brought back into the Persian fold, but Darius had vowed to punish Athens and Eretria for their support for the revolt.[70] Moreover, seeing that the political situation in Greece posed a continued threat to the stability of his Empire, he decided to embark on the conquest of all Greece.[70]

text: First invasion of Greece (492–490 BC)[edit]

text:
show

v
t
e

First Persian invasion
of Greece

Lindos
Naxos
Karystos
Eretria
Marathon

text: After having reconquered Ionia, the Persians began to plan their next moves of extinguishing the threat to their empire from Greece; and punishing Athens and Eretria.[71] The resultant first Persian invasion of Greece consisted of two main campaigns.[71]

text: 492 BC: Mardonius's campaign[edit]

text: The first campaign, in 492 BC, was led by Darius's son-in-law Mardonius,[72] who re-subjugated Thrace, which had nominally been part of the Persian empire since 513 BC.[73] Mardonius was also able to force Macedon to become a fully subordinate client kingdom of Persia; it had previously been a vassal, but retained a broad degree of autonomy.[74][75] However, further progress in this campaign was prevented when Mardonius's fleet was wrecked in a storm off the coast of Mount Athos. Mardonius himself was then injured in a raid on his camp by a Thracian tribe, and after this he returned with the rest of the expedition to Asia.[74][76]

text: The following year, having given clear warning of his plans, Darius sent ambassadors to all the cities of Greece, demanding their submission.[77] He received it from almost all of them, except Athens and Sparta, both of whom instead executed the ambassadors.[77] With Athens still defiant, and Sparta now also effectively at war with him, Darius ordered a further military campaign for the following year.[78]

text: 490 BC: Datis and Artaphernes' campaign[edit]

text: In 490 BC, Datis and Artaphernes (son of the satrap Artaphernes) were given command of an amphibious invasion force, and set sail from Cilicia.[78] The Persian force sailed first to the island of Rhodes, where a Lindian Temple Chronicle records that Datis besieged the city of Lindos, but was unsuccessful.[79] The fleet sailed next to Naxos, to punish the Naxians for their resistance to the failed expedition the Persians had mounted there a decade earlier.[80] Many of the inhabitants fled to the mountains; those that the Persians caught were enslaved.[81] The Persians then burnt the city and temples of the Naxians.[81] The fleet then proceeded to island-hop across the rest of the Aegean on its way to Eretria, taking hostages and troops from each island.[80]

text: The task force sailed on to Euboea, and to the first major target, Eretria.[82] The Eretrians made no attempt to stop the Persians from landing or advancing and thus allowed themselves to be besieged.[83] For six days, the Persians attacked the walls, with losses on both sides;[83] however, on the seventh day two reputable Eretrians opened the gates and betrayed the city to the Persians.[83] The city was razed, and temples and shrines were looted and burned. Furthermore, according to Darius's commands, the Persians enslaved all the remaining townspeople.[83]

text: Battle of Marathon[edit]

text: The Persian fleet next headed south down the coast of Attica, landing at the bay of Marathon, roughly 40 kilometres (25 mi) from Athens.[84] Under the guidance of Miltiades, the general with the greatest experience of fighting the Persians, the Athenian army marched to block the two exits from the plain of Marathon. Stalemate ensued for five days, before the Persians decided to continue onward to Athens, and began to load their troops back onto the ships. After the Persians had loaded their cavalry (their strongest soldiers) on the ships, the 10,000 Athenian soldiers descended from the hills around the plain. The Greeks crushed the weaker Persian foot soldiers by routing the wings before turning towards the centre of the Persian line. The remnants of the Persian army fled to their ships and left the battle.[85] Herodotus records that 6,400 Persian bodies were counted on the battlefield; the Athenians lost only 192 men.[86]

text: As soon as the Persian survivors had put to sea, the Athenians marched as quickly as possible to Athens.[87] They arrived in time to prevent Artaphernes from securing a landing in Athens. Seeing his opportunity lost, Artaphernes ended the year's campaign and returned to Asia.[88]

text: The Battle of Marathon was a watershed in the Greco-Persian wars, showing the Greeks that the Persians could be beaten. It also highlighted the superiority of the more heavily armoured Greek hoplites, and showed their potential when used wisely.[85]

text: Interbellum (490–480 BC)[edit]

text: Achaemenid Empire[edit]

text: After the failure of the first invasion, Darius began raising a huge new army with which he intended to subjugate Greece completely. However, in 486 BC, his Egyptian subjects revolted, and the revolt forced an indefinite postponement of any Greek expedition.[89] Darius died while preparing to march on Egypt, and the throne of Persia passed to his son Xerxes I.[90] Xerxes crushed the Egyptian revolt, and very quickly resumed the preparations for the invasion of Greece.[91] Since this was to be a full-scale invasion, it needed longterm planning, stockpiling and conscription. Xerxes decided that the Hellespont would be bridged to allow his army to cross to Europe, and that a canal should be dug across the isthmus of Mount Athos (a Persian fleet had been destroyed in 492 BC while rounding this coastline). These were both feats of exceptional ambition that would have been beyond the capabilities of any other contemporary state.[92] However, the campaign was delayed by one year because of another revolt in Egypt and Babylonia.[93]

text: The Persians had the sympathy of several Greek city-states, including Argos, which had pledged to defect when the Persians reached their borders.[94] The Aleuadae family, who ruled Larissa in Thessaly, saw the invasion as an opportunity to extend their power.[95] Thebes, though not explicitly 'Medising', was suspected of being willing to aid the Persians once the invasion force arrived.[96][97]

text: In 481 BC, after roughly four years of preparation, Xerxes began to muster the troops to invade Europe. Herodotus gives the names of 46 nations from which troops were drafted.[98] The Persian army was gathered in Asia Minor in the summer and autumn of 481 BC. The armies from the Eastern satrapies were gathered in Kritala, Cappadocia and were led by Xerxes to Sardis where they passed the winter.[99] Early in spring, it moved to Abydos where it was joined with the armies of the western satrapies.[100] Then the army that Xerxes had mustered marched towards Europe, crossing the Hellespont on two pontoon bridges.[101]

text: Size of the Persian forces[edit]

text: The numbers of troops that Xerxes mustered for the second invasion of Greece have been the subject of endless dispute. Most modern scholars reject as unrealistic the figures of 2.5 million given by Herodotus and other ancient sources because the victors likely miscalculated or exaggerated. The topic has been hotly debated, but the consensus revolves around the figure of 200,000.[102]

text: The size of the Persian fleet is also disputed, although perhaps less so. Other ancient authors agree with Herodotus' number of 1,207. These numbers are by ancient standards consistent, and this could be interpreted that a number around 1,200 is correct. Among modern scholars, some have accepted this number, although suggesting the number must have been lower by the Battle of Salamis.[103][104][105] Other recent works on the Persian Wars reject this number, viewing 1,207 as more of a reference to the combined Greek fleet in the Iliad. These works generally claim that the Persians could have launched no more than around 600 warships into the Aegean.[105][106][107]

text: Greek city states[edit]

text: Athens[edit]

text: A year after Marathon, Miltiades, the hero of Marathon, was injured in a military campaign to Paros. Taking advantage of his incapacitation, the powerful Alcmaeonid family arranged for him to be prosecuted for the failure of the campaign.[108] A huge fine was imposed on Miltiades for the crime of 'deceiving the Athenian people', but he died weeks later from his wound.[108]

text: The politician Themistocles, with a power base firmly established amongst the poor, filled the vacuum left by Miltiades's death, and in the following decade became the most influential politician in Athens.[108] During this period, Themistocles continued to support the expansion of Athens' naval power.[108] The Athenians were aware throughout this period that the Persian interest in Greece had not ended,[91] and Themistocles's naval policies may be seen in the light of the potential threat from Persia.[108] Aristides, Themistocles's great rival, and champion of the zeugites (the 'upper hoplite-class') vigorously opposed such a policy.[109]

text: In 483 BC, a vast new seam of silver was found in the Athenian mines at Laurium.[110] Themistocles proposed that the silver should be used to build a new fleet of triremes, ostensibly to assist in a long running war with Aegina.[111] Plutarch suggests that Themistocles deliberately avoided mentioning Persia, believing that it was too distant a threat for the Athenians to act on, but that countering Persia was the fleet's aim.[110] Fine suggests that many Athenians must have admitted that such a fleet would be needed to resist the Persians, whose preparations for the coming campaign were known.[112] Themistocles's motion was passed easily, despite strong opposition from Aristides. Its passage was probably due to the desire of many of the poorer Athenians for paid employment as rowers in the fleet.[112] It is unclear from the ancient sources whether 100 or 200 ships were initially authorised; both Fine and Holland suggest that at first 100 ships were authorised and that a second vote increased this number to the levels seen during the second invasion.[111][112] Aristides continued to oppose Themistocles's policy, and tension between the two camps built over the winter, so the ostracism of 482 BC became a direct contest between Themistocles and Aristides.[111] In what Holland characterises as, in essence, the world's first referendum, Aristides was ostracised, and Themistocles's policies were endorsed.[111] Indeed, becoming aware of the Persian preparations for the coming invasion, the Athenians voted to build more ships than those for which Themistocles had asked.[111] Thus, during the preparations for the Persian invasion, Themistocles had become the leading politician in Athens.[113]

text: Sparta[edit]

text: The Spartan king Demaratus had been stripped of his kingship in 491 BC, and replaced with his cousin Leotychides. Sometime after 490 BC, the humiliated Demaratus had chosen to go into exile, and had made his way to Darius's court in Susa.[89] Demaratus would from then on act as an advisor to Darius, and later Xerxes, on Greek affairs, and accompanied Xerxes during the second Persian invasion.[114] At the end of Herodotus's book 7, there is an anecdote relating that prior to the second invasion, Demaratus sent an apparently blank wax tablet to Sparta. When the wax was removed, a message was found scratched on the wooden backing, warning the Spartans of Xerxes's plans.[115] However, many historians believe that this chapter was inserted into the text by a later author, possibly to fill a gap between the end of book 7 and the start of book 8. The veracity of this anecdote is therefore unclear.[116]

text: Hellenic alliance[edit]

text: In 481 BC, Xerxes sent ambassadors to city states throughout Greece, asking for food, land, and water as tokens of their submission to Persia. However, Xerxes' ambassadors deliberately avoided Athens and Sparta, hoping thereby that those states would not learn of the Persians' plans.[117] States that were opposed to Persia thus began to coalesce around these two city states. A congress of states met at Corinth in late autumn of 481 BC, and a confederate alliance of Greek city-states was formed.[118] This confederation had powers both to send envoys to ask for assistance and to dispatch troops from the member states to defensive points after joint consultation. Herodotus does not formulate an abstract name for the union but simply calls them "οἱ Ἕλληνες" (the Greeks) and "the Greeks who had sworn alliance" (Godley translation) or "the Greeks who had banded themselves together" (Rawlinson translation).[119] From now on, they will be referred to as the 'Allies'. Sparta and Athens had a leading role in the congress but the interests of all the states influenced defensive strategy.[120] Little is known about the internal workings of the congress or the discussions during its meetings. Only 70 of the nearly 700 Greek city-states sent representatives. Nevertheless, this was remarkable for the disjointed Greek world, especially since many of the city-states present were still technically at war with one another.[121]

text: Second invasion of Greece (480–479 BC)[edit]

text:
show

v
t
e

Second Persian
invasion of Greece

Thermopylae
Artemisium
Salamis
Potidea
Olynthus
Plataea
Mycale

text: Early 480 BC: Thrace, Macedonia, and Thessaly[edit]

text: Having crossed into Europe in April 480 BC, the Persian army began its march to Greece, taking 3 months to travel unopposed from the Hellespont to Therme. It paused at Doriskos where it was joined by the fleet. Xerxes reorganized the troops into tactical units replacing the national formations used earlier for the march.[122]

text: The Allied 'congress' met again in the spring of 480 BC and agreed to defend the narrow Vale of Tempe on the borders of Thessaly and block Xerxes's advance.[123] However, once there, they were warned by Alexander I of Macedon that the vale could be bypassed and that the army of Xerxes was overwhelmingly large, thus the Greeks retreated.[124] Shortly afterwards, they received the news that Xerxes had crossed the Hellespont.[124] At this point, a second strategy was suggested by Themistocles to the allies. The route to southern Greece (Boeotia, Attica and the Peloponnesus) would require the army of Xerxes to travel through the narrow pass of Thermopylae. This could easily be blocked by the Greek hoplites, despite the overwhelming numbers of Persians. Furthermore, to prevent the Persians bypassing Thermopylae by sea, the Athenian and allied navies could block the straits of Artemisium. This dual strategy was adopted by the congress.[125] However, the Peloponnesian cities made fall-back plans to defend the Isthmus of Corinth should it come to it, while the women and children of Athens were evacuated to the Peloponnesian city of Troezen.[126]

text: August 480 BC: Battles of Thermopylae and Artemisium[edit]

text: Xerxes's estimated time of arrival at Thermopylae coincided with both the Olympic Games and the festival of Carneia. For the Spartans, warfare during these periods was considered sacrilegious.[127] Despite the uncomfortable timing, the Spartans considered the threat so grave that they dispatched their king Leonidas I with his personal bodyguard (the Hippeis) of 300 men. The customary elite young men in the Hippeis were replaced by veterans who already had children.[127] Leonidas was supported by contingents from the Allied Peloponnesian cities, and other forces that the Allies picked up on the way to Thermopylae.[127] The Allies proceeded to occupy the pass, rebuilt the wall the Phocians had built at the narrowest point of the pass, and waited for Xerxes's arrival.[128]

text: When the Persians arrived at Thermopylae in mid-August, they initially waited for three days for the Allies to disperse. When Xerxes was eventually persuaded that the Allies intended to contest the pass, he sent his troops to attack.[129] However, the Allied position was ideally suited to hoplite warfare, the Persian contingents being forced to attack the Greek phalanx head on.[130] The Allies withstood two full days of Persian attacks, including those by the elite Persian Immortals. However, towards the end of the second day, they were betrayed by a local resident named Ephialtes who revealed to Xerxes a mountain path that led behind the Allied lines. Made aware by scouts that they were being outflanked, Leonidas dismissed most of the Allied army, remaining to guard the rear with perhaps 2,000 men. On the final day of the battle, the remaining Allies sallied forth from the wall to meet the Persians in the wider part of the pass to slaughter as many Persians as they could, but eventually they were all killed or captured.[131]

text: Simultaneous with the battle at Thermopylae, an Allied naval force of 271 triremes defended the Straits of Artemisium against the Persians, thus protecting the flank of the forces at Thermopylae.[132] Here the Allied fleet held off the Persians for three days; however, on the third evening the Allies received news of the fate of Leonidas and the Allied troops at Thermopylae. Since the Allied fleet was badly damaged, and since it no longer needed to defend the flank of Thermopylae, the Allies retreated from Artemisium to the island of Salamis.[133]

text: September 480 BC: Battle of Salamis[edit]

text: Victory at Thermopylae meant that all Boeotia fell to Xerxes; Attica was then open to invasion. The remaining population of Athens was evacuated, with the aid of the Allied fleet, to Salamis.[134] The Peloponnesian Allies began to prepare a defensive line across the Isthmus of Corinth, building a wall, and demolishing the road from Megara, abandoning Athens to the Persians.[135] Athens thus fell to the Persians; the small number of Athenians who had barricaded themselves on the Acropolis were eventually defeated, and Xerxes then ordered Athens to be razed.[136]

text: The Persians had now captured most of Greece, but Xerxes had perhaps not expected such defiance; his priority was now to complete the war as quickly as possible.[137] If Xerxes could destroy the Allied navy, he would be in a strong position to force an Allied surrender;[138] conversely by avoiding destruction, or as Themistocles hoped, by destroying the Persian fleet, the Allies could prevent conquest from being completed.[139] The Allied fleet thus remained off the coast of Salamis into September, despite the imminent arrival of the Persians. Even after Athens fell, the Allied fleet remained off the coast of Salamis, trying to lure the Persian fleet to battle.[140] Partly because of deception by Themistocles, the navies met in the cramped Straits of Salamis.[141] There, the Persian numbers became a hindrance, as ships struggled to maneuver and became disorganised.[142] Seizing the opportunity, the Allied fleet attacked, and scored a decisive victory, sinking or capturing at least 200 Persian ships, therefore ensuring the safety of the Peloponnessus.[143]

text: According to Herodotus, after the loss of the battle Xerxes attempted to build a causeway across the channel to attack the Athenian evacuees on Salamis, but this project was soon abandoned. With the Persians' naval superiority removed, Xerxes feared that the Allies might sail to the Hellespont and destroy the pontoon bridges.[144] His general Mardonius volunteered to remain in Greece and complete the conquest with a hand-picked group of troops, while Xerxes retreated to Asia with the bulk of the army.[145] Mardonius over-wintered in Boeotia and Thessaly; the Athenians were thus able to return to their burnt-out city for the winter.[137]

text: June 479 BC: Battles of Plataea and Mycale[edit]

text: Over the winter, there was some tension among the Allies. In particular, the Athenians, who were not protected by the Isthmus, but whose fleet was the key to the security of the Peloponnesus, felt that they had been treated unfairly, and so they refused to join the Allied navy in the spring.[146] Mardonius remained in Thessaly, knowing an attack on the Isthmus was pointless, while the Allies refused to send an army outside the Peloponessus.[146] Mardonius moved to break the stalemate, by offering peace to the Athenians, using Alexander I of Macedon as an intermediate.[147] The Athenians made sure that a Spartan delegation was on hand to hear the Athenians reject the Persians' offer.[147] Athens was thus evacuated again, and the Persians marched south and re-took possession of it. Mardonius now repeated his offer of peace to the Athenian refugees on Salamis. Athens, with Megara and Plataea, sent emissaries to Sparta demanding assistance, and threatening to accept the Persian terms if they were not aided.[148] In response, the Spartans summoned a large army from the Peloponnese cities and marched to meet the Persians.[149]

text: When Mardonius heard the Allied army was on the march, he retreated into Boeotia, near Plataea, trying to draw the Allies into open terrain where he could use his cavalry.[150] The Allied army, under the command of the regent Pausanias, stayed on high ground above Plataea to protect themselves against such tactics.[151] After several days of maneuver and stalemate, Pausanias ordered a night-time retreat towards the Allies' original positions.[151] This maneuver went awry, leaving the Athenians, and Spartans and Tegeans isolated on separate hills, with the other contingents scattered further away near Plataea.[151] Seeing that the Persians might never have a better opportunity to attack, Mardonius ordered his whole army forward.[152] However, the Persian infantry proved no match for the heavily armoured Greek hoplites,[153] and the Spartans broke through to Mardonius's bodyguard and killed him.[154] After this the Persian force dissolved in rout; 40,000 troops managed to escape via the road to Thessaly,[155] but the rest fled to the Persian camp where they were trapped and slaughtered by the Greeks, finalising the Greek victory.[156][157]

text: Herodotus recounts that, on the afternoon of the Battle of Plataea, a rumour of their victory at that battle reached the Allies' navy, at that time off the coast of Mount Mycale in Ionia.[158] Their morale boosted, the Allied marines fought and won a decisive victory at the Battle of Mycale that same day, destroying the remnants of the Persian fleet, crippling Xerxes's sea power, and marking the ascendancy of the Greek fleet.[159] Whilst many modern historians doubt that Mycale took place on the same day as Plataea, the battle may well only have occurred once the Allies received news of the events unfolding in Greece.[160]

text: Greek counterattack (479–478 BC)[edit]

text:
show

v
t
e

Greek counterattack

Mycale
Sestos
Cyprus
Byzantium

text: Mycale and Ionia[edit]

text: Mycale was, in many ways, the beginning of a new phase in the conflict, in which the Greeks would go on the offensive against the Persians.[161] The immediate result of the victory at Mycale was a second revolt amongst the Greek cities of Asia Minor. The Samians and Milesians had actively fought against the Persians at Mycale, thus openly declaring their rebellion, and the other cities followed in their example.[162][163]

text: Sestos[edit]

text: Shortly after Mycale, the Allied fleet sailed to the Hellespont to break down the pontoon bridges, but found that this had already been done.[164] The Peloponnesians sailed home, but the Athenians remained to attack the Chersonesos, still held by the Persians.[164] The Persians and their allies made for Sestos, the strongest town in the region. Amongst them was one Oeobazus of Cardia, who had with him the cables and other equipment from the pontoon bridges.[165] The Persian governor, Artayctes had not prepared for a siege, not believing that the Allies would attack.[166] The Athenians therefore were able to lay a siege around Sestos.[164] The siege dragged on for several months, causing some discontent amongst the Athenian troops,[167] but eventually, when the food ran out in the city, the Persians fled at night from the least guarded area of the city.[168] The Athenians were thus able to take possession of the city the next day.[168]

text: Most of the Athenian troops were sent straight away to pursue the Persians.[168] The party of Oeobazus was captured by a Thracian tribe, and Oeobazus was sacrificed to the god Plistorus.[169] The Athenians eventually caught Artayctes, killing some of the Persians with him but taking most of them, including Artayctes, captive.[169] Artayctes was crucified at the request of the people of Elaeus, a town which Artayctes had plundered while governor of the Chersonesos.[170] The Athenians, having pacified the region, then sailed back to Athens, taking the cables from the pontoon bridges with them as trophies.[171]

text: Cyprus[edit]

text: In 478 BC, still operating under the terms of the Hellenic alliance, the Allies sent out a fleet composed of 20 Peloponnesian and 30 Athenian ships supported by an unspecified number of allies, under the overall command of Pausanias. According to Thucydides, this fleet sailed to Cyprus and "subdued most of the island".[172] Exactly what Thucydides means by this is unclear. Sealey suggests that this was essentially a raid to gather as much treasure as possible from the Persian garrisons on Cyprus.[173] There is no indication that the Allies attempted to take possession of the island, and, shortly after, they sailed to Byzantium.[172] Certainly, the fact that the Delian League repeatedly campaigned in Cyprus suggests either that the island was not garrisoned by the Allies in 478 BC, or that the garrisons were quickly expelled.

text: Byzantium[edit]

text: The Greek fleet then sailed to Byzantium, which they besieged and eventually captured.[172] Control of both Sestos and Byzantium gave the allies command of the straits between Europe and Asia (over which the Persians had crossed), and allowed them access to the merchant trade of the Black Sea.[174]

text: The aftermath of the siege was to prove troublesome for Pausanias. Exactly what happened is unclear; Thucydides gives few details, although later writers added plenty of lurid insinuations.[174] Through his arrogance and arbitrary actions (Thucydides says "violence"), Pausanias managed to alienate many of the Allied contingents, particularly those that had just been freed from Persian overlordship.[173][174][175] The Ionians and others asked the Athenians to take leadership of the campaign, to which they agreed.[175] The Spartans, hearing of his behaviour, recalled Pausanias and tried him on charges of collaborating with the enemy. Although he was acquitted, his reputation was tarnished and he was not restored to his command.[175]

text: Pausanias returned to Byzantium as a private citizen in 477 BC, and took command of the city until he was expelled by the Athenians. He then crossed the Bosporus and settled in Kolonai in the Troad, until he was again accused of collaborating with the Persians and was recalled by the Spartans for a trial after which he starved himself to death.[176] The timescale is unclear, but Pausanias may have remained in possession of Byzantium until 470 BC.[176]

text: In the meantime, the Spartans had sent Dorkis to Byzantium with a small force, to take command of the Allied force. However, he found that the rest of the Allies were no longer prepared to accept Spartan leadership, and therefore returned home.[175]

text: Wars of the Delian League (477–449 BC)[edit]

text:
show

v
t
e

Wars of the
Delian League

Eion
Skyros
Karystos
3rd Naxos
Eurymedon
Thasos
Chersonesos
Pampremis
Memphis
Prosopitis
Mendisium
Kition
Salamis in Cyprus

text: Delian League[edit]

text: After Byzantium, the Spartans were allegedly eager to end their involvement in the war. The Spartans were supposedly of the view that, with the liberation of mainland Greece and the Greek cities of Asia Minor, the war's purpose had already been reached. There was also perhaps a feeling that securing long-term security for the Asian Greeks would prove impossible.[177] In the aftermath of Mycale, the Spartan king Leotychides had proposed transplanting all the Greeks from Asia Minor to Europe as the only method of permanently freeing them from Persian dominion. Xanthippus, the Athenian commander at Mycale, had furiously rejected this; the Ionian cities were originally Athenian colonies, and the Athenians, if no-one else, would protect the Ionians.[177] This marks the point at which the leadership of the Greek Alliance effectively passed to the Athenians.[177] With the Spartan withdrawal after Byzantium, the leadership of the Athenians became explicit.

text: The loose alliance of city-states that had fought against Xerxes's invasion had been dominated by Sparta and the Peloponnesian league. With the withdrawal of these states, a congress was called on the holy island of Delos to institute a new alliance to continue the fight against the Persians. This alliance, now including many of the Aegean islands, was formally constituted as the 'First Athenian Alliance', commonly known as the Delian League. According to Thucydides, the official aim of the League was to "avenge the wrongs they suffered by ravaging the territory of the king".[178] In reality, this goal was divided into three main efforts—to prepare for future invasion, to seek revenge against Persia, and to organize a means of dividing spoils of war. The members were given a choice of either supplying armed forces or paying a tax to the joint treasury; most states chose the tax.[178]

text: Campaigns against Persia[edit]

text: Throughout the 470s BC, the Delian League campaigned in Thrace and the Aegean to remove the remaining Persian garrisons from the region, primarily under the command of the Athenian politician Cimon.[179] In the early part of the next decade, Cimon began campaigning in Asia Minor, seeking to strengthen the Greek position there.[180] At the Battle of the Eurymedon in Pamphylia, the Athenians and allied fleet achieved a stunning double victory, destroying a Persian fleet and then landing the ships' marines to attack and rout the Persian army. After this battle, the Persians took an essentially passive role in the conflict, anxious not to risk battle if possible.[181]

text: Towards the end of the 460s BC, the Athenians took the ambitious decision to support a revolt in the Egyptian satrapy of the Persian empire. Although the Greek task force achieved initial successes, they were unable to capture the Persian garrison in Memphis, despite a 3-year long siege.[182] The Persians then counterattacked, and the Athenian force was itself besieged for 18 months, before being wiped out.[183] This disaster, coupled with ongoing warfare in Greece, dissuaded the Athenians from resuming conflict with Persia.[184] In 451 BC however, a truce was agreed in Greece, and Cimon was then able to lead an expedition to Cyprus. However, while besieging Kition, Cimon died, and the Athenian force decided to withdraw, winning another double victory at the Battle of Salamis-in-Cyprus in order to extricate themselves.[185] This campaign marked the end of hostilities between the Delian League and Persia, and therefore the end of the Greco-Persian Wars.[186]

text: Peace with Persia[edit]

text: After the Battle of Salamis-in-Cyprus, Thucydides makes no further mention of conflict with the Persians, saying that the Greeks simply returned home.[185] Diodorus, on the other hand, claims that in the aftermath of Salamis, a full-blown peace treaty (the "Peace of Callias") was agreed with the Persians.[187] Diodorus was probably following the history of Ephorus at this point, who in turn was presumably influenced by his teacher Isocrates—from whom there is the earliest reference to the supposed peace, in 380 BC.[20] Even during the 4th century BC, the idea of the treaty was controversial, and two authors from that period, Callisthenes and Theopompus, appear to reject its existence.[188]

text: It is possible that the Athenians had attempted to negotiate with the Persians previously. Plutarch suggests that in the aftermath of the victory at the Eurymedon, Artaxerxes had agreed a peace treaty with the Greeks, even naming Callias as the Athenian ambassador involved. However, as Plutarch admits, Callisthenes denied that such a peace was made at this point (c. 466 BC).[181] Herodotus also mentions, in passing, an Athenian embassy headed by Callias, which was sent to Susa to negotiate with Artaxerxes.[189] This embassy included some Argive representatives and can probably be therefore dated to c. 461 BC (after an alliance was agreed between Athens and Argos).[20] This embassy may have been an attempt to reach some kind of peace agreement, and it has even been suggested that the failure of these hypothetical negotiations led to the Athenian decision to support the Egyptian revolt.[190] The ancient sources therefore disagree as to whether there was an official peace or not, and, if there was, when it was agreed.

text: Opinion amongst modern historians is also split; for instance, Fine accepts the concept of the Peace of Callias,[20] whereas Sealey effectively rejects it.[191] Holland accepts that some kind of accommodation was made between Athens and Persia, but no actual treaty.[192] Fine argues that Callisthenes's denial that a treaty was made after the Eurymedon does not preclude a peace being made at another point. Further, he suggests that Theopompus was actually referring to a treaty that had allegedly been negotiated with Persia in 423 BC.[20] If these views are correct, it would remove one major obstacle to the acceptance of the treaty's existence. A further argument for the existence of the treaty is the sudden withdrawal of the Athenians from Cyprus in 449 BC, which Fine suggests makes most sense in the light of some kind of peace agreement.[193] On the other hand, if there was indeed some kind of accommodation, Thucydides's failure to mention it is odd. In his digression on the pentekontaetia, his aim is to explain the growth of Athenian power, and such a treaty, and the fact that the Delian allies were not released from their obligations after it, would have marked a major step in the Athenian ascendancy.[194] Conversely, it has been suggested that certain passages elsewhere in Thucydides's history are best interpreted as referring to a peace agreement.[20] There is thus no clear consensus amongst modern historians as to the treaty's existence.

text: The ancient sources that give details of the treaty are reasonably consistent in their description of the terms:[20][187][188]

text:
All Greek cities of Asia were to 'live by their own laws' or 'be autonomous' (depending on translation).
Persian satraps (and presumably their armies) were not to travel west of the Halys River (Isocrates) or closer than a day's journey on horseback to the Aegean Sea (Callisthenes) or closer than three days' journey on foot to the Aegean Sea (Ephorus and Diodorus).
No Persian warship was to sail west of Phaselis (on the southern coast of Asia Minor), nor west of the Cyanaean rocks (probably at the eastern end of the Bosporus, on the north coast).
If the terms were observed by the king and his generals, then the Athenians were not to send troops to lands ruled by Persia.

text: From the Persian perspective, such terms would not be so humiliating as they might at first seem. The Persians already allowed the Greek cities of Asia to be governed under their own laws (under the reorganization conducted by Artaphernes, following the Ionian Revolt). By these terms, the Ionians were still Persian subjects, as they had been. Furthermore, Athens had already demonstrated their superiority at sea at the Eurymedon and Salamis-in-Cyprus, so any legal limitations for the Persian fleet were nothing more than "de jure" recognition of military realities. In exchange for limiting the movement of Persian troops in one region of the realm, Artaxerxes secured a promise from the Athenians to stay out of his entire realm.

text: Aftermath and later conflicts[edit]

text: Towards the end of the conflict with Persia, the process by which the Delian League became the Athenian Empire reached its conclusion.[195] The allies of Athens were not released from their obligations to provide either money or ships, despite the cessation of hostilities.[194] In Greece, the First Peloponnesian War between the power-blocs of Athens and Sparta, which had continued on/off since 460 BC, finally ended in 445 BC, with the agreement of a thirty-year truce.[196] However, the growing enmity between Sparta and Athens would lead, just 14 years later, into the outbreak of the Second Peloponnesian War.[197] This disastrous conflict, which dragged on for 27 years, would eventually result in the utter destruction of Athenian power, the dismemberment of the Athenian empire, and the establishment of a Spartan hegemony over Greece.[198] However, not just Athens suffered—the conflict would significantly weaken the whole of Greece.[199]

text: Repeatedly defeated in battle by the Greeks, and plagued by internal rebellions that hindered their ability to fight the Greeks, after 449 BC, Artaxerxes I and his successors instead adopted a policy of divide-and-rule.[199] Avoiding fighting the Greeks themselves, the Persians instead attempted to set Athens against Sparta, regularly bribing politicians to achieve their aims. In this way, they ensured that the Greeks remained distracted by internal conflicts, and were unable to turn their attentions to Persia.[199] There was no open conflict between the Greeks and Persia until 396 BC, when the Spartan king Agesilaus briefly invaded Asia Minor; as Plutarch points out, the Greeks were far too busy overseeing the destruction of their own power to fight against the "barbarians".[186]

text: If the wars of the Delian League shifted the balance of power between Greece and Persia in favour of the Greeks, then the subsequent half-century of internecine conflict in Greece did much to restore the balance of power to Persia. The Persians entered the Peloponnesian War in 411 BC forming a mutual-defence pact with Sparta and combining their naval resources against Athens in exchange for sole Persian control of Ionia.[200] In 404 BC when Cyrus the Younger attempted to seize the Persian throne, he recruited 13,000 Greek mercenaries from all over the Greek world, of which Sparta sent 700–800, believing they were following the terms of the defence pact and unaware of the army's true purpose.[201] After the failure of Cyrus, Persia tried to regain control of the Ionian city-states, which had rebelled during the conflict. The Ionians refused to capitulate and called upon Sparta for assistance, which she provided, in 396–395 BC.[202] Athens, however, sided with the Persians, which led in turn to another large-scale conflict in Greece, the Corinthian War. Towards the end of that conflict, in 387 BC, Sparta sought the aid of Persia to shore up her position. Under the so-called "King's Peace" that brought the war to an end, Artaxerxes II demanded and received the return of the cities of Asia Minor from the Spartans, in return for which the Persians threatened to make war on any Greek state that did not make peace.[203] This humiliating treaty, which undid all the Greek gains of the previous century, sacrificed the Greeks of Asia Minor so that the Spartans could maintain their hegemony over Greece.[204] It is in the aftermath of this treaty that Greek orators began to refer to the Peace of Callias (whether fictional or not), as a counterpoint to the shame of the King's Peace, and a glorious example of the "good old days" when the Greeks of the Aegean had been freed from Persian rule by the Delian League.[20]


document_title: Dil Diya Dard Liya

question_text: all songs of film dil diya dard liya

question_tokens: all songs of film dil diya dard liya

root

text: Dil Diya Dard Liya

text: Plot[edit]

text: Film starts with a storm in sea. There is a ship which get sink in sea but a small child survives and then taken by villagers. In another scene a king is shown who is waiting for his child . He died waiting for his child and said to his ministers that his whole property will go to his grandson (Shankar). A kind-hearted, widowed landlord, Thakur, lives a wealthy lifestyle with his son, Ramesh; daughter, Roopa; and an adopted child, Shankar. Ramesh hates Shankar and often abuses him.

tag: p

text: Years pass by. Thakur dies, and all three children have grown up. Ramesh (Pran) frequents a beautiful courtesan, drinks alcohol, and continues to abuse and mercilessly beat Shankar (Dilip Kumar), who bears this in silence, as he and Roopa (Waheeda Rehman) are in love with each other. When Ramesh finds out that Roopa wants to wed Shankar, he has him severely beaten and thrown off a cliff. Ramesh then arranges Roopa's marriage to another wealthy man, Satish (Rehman), while he continues to romance Tarabai (Rani) and even signs over his entire estate and home to her.

text: A few years later, Shankar returns as the wealthy Raja of Belapur. He is fully prepared to compromise with Ramesh and propose to Roopa. He finds out that nothing has changed, however. Ramesh, though rendered penniless by Tara, still hates Shankar. Satish is engaged to Roopa and a marriage date has been fixed. Shankar's love is now replaced by vengeance and hate, and all he can think of is destroying the lives of Ramesh, Roopa, Satish and his sister, Mala (Shyama), and he devises several plans to destroy his opponents' lives. He abuses and insults Roopa, attempting to avenge himself upon her for her apparent unfaithfulness by romancing Mala, but love conquers all in the end.

text: Cast[edit]

text:
Dilip Kumar as Shankar / Rajasahab
Waheeda Rehman as Roopa
Pran as Thakur Ramesh
Rehman as Satish
Shyama as Mala
Rani as Tarabai
Johnny Walker as Murlidhar
S. Nazir
D.K. Sapru as Ramesh's Father
Dulari as Basanti
Murad as Maharaja of Belapur
Tun Tun as. Mrs. Murlidhar

tag: ul

text: Music[edit]

text:
Dil Diya Dard Liya

Soundtrack album by Naushad

Released
1966

Genre
Feature film soundtrack

Label
Sa Re Ga Ma

Naushad chronology

Leader
(1964)
Dil Diya Dard Liya
(1966)
'Saaz Aur Awaaz'
(1966)

tag: table

text: The soundtrack for the movie was composed by Naushad and lyrics penned by Shakeel Badayuni. The soundtrack consists of 9 songs, featuring vocals by Mohammed Rafi, Asha Bhonsle and Lata Mangeshkar.

text: Track listing[edit]

text:
No.
Title
Lyrics
Singer(s)
Length

1.
"Koi Saagar Dil Ko Behlata Nahin"
Shakeel Badayuni
Mohammed Rafi
03:35

2.
"Phir Teri Kahani Yaad Aayi"
Shakeel Badayuni
Lata Mangeshkar
03:30

3.
"Saawan Aaye Ya Na Aaye"
Shakeel Badayuni
Mohammed Rafi, Asha Bhonsle
03:53

4.
"Dilruba Maine Tere Pyar Mein"
Shakeel Badayuni
Mohammed Rafi
04:06

5.
"Guzren Hain Aaj Ishq Mein"
Shakeel Badayuni
Mohammed Rafi
03:49

6.
"Dil Harnewale Aur Bhi Hai"
Shakeel Badayuni
Asha Bhonsle
05:23

7.
"Haay Rasiya Tu Bada Bedardi"
Shakeel Badayuni
Asha Bhonsle

8.
"'Kya Range Mehfil Hai Dildaram O Jane Yaram"
Shakeel Badayuni
Lata Mangeshkar
03:44

text: Awards and nominations[edit]

text:
Best Actor - Dilip Kumar
Best Supporting Actor - Pran


document_title: List of airlines of India

question_text: what is the name of national airlines of india

text: List of airlines of India

text: By airline companies market share[edit]

text:
Largest Indian Airlines Market Share

Source

Period

IndiGo

Jet Airways& JetLite

Air India

Spice Jet

Go Air

Others

Reference

DGCA
April 2018
39.8%
16.2%
13.3%
12.4%
8.8%
9.5%
[1]

text: Type of Airlines[edit]

text:
PSU: The PSU in Aviation sector are Air India and Pawan Hans.
Listed: Listed companies in India's aviation sector are Jet Airways, IndiGo, and SpiceJet. GoAir is currently planning for an IPO
Private: Major private players are IndiGo, SpiceJet, GoAir, Air Asia and Vistara.

text: Operational[edit]

text:
Airline

IATA

ICAO

Call Sign

Commenced

Headquarters

Type

Image

Air India
AI
AIC
AIRINDIA
1932
Delhi
Flag CarrierFull Service

Jet Airways
9W
JAI
JETAIRWAYS
1993
Mumbai
Full Service

IndiGo
6E
IGO
IFLY
2006
Gurgaon
Low Cost

Air India Express
IX
AXB
EXPRESS INDIA
2005
Kochi
Low Cost

SpiceJet
SG
SEJ
SPICEJET
2005
Gurgaon
Low Cost

GoAir
G8
GOW
GOAIR
2005
Mumbai
Low Cost

AirAsia India
I5
IAD
RED KNIGHT
2014
Bengaluru
Low Cost

Vistara
UK
VTI
VISTARA
2015
Gurgaon
Full Service

Alliance Air
9I
LLR
ALLIED
1996
Delhi
Regional

TruJet
2T
TRJ
TRUJET
2015
Hyderabad
Regional

Air Deccan
DN
DKN
DECCAN
2017
Mumbai
Regional

Air Odisha
6X
-
—
2012
Bhubaneswar
Regional

Luwang Air
—
—
—
2018
Kolkata
Regional

Zoom Air
ZO
ZOM
—
2013
Gurgaon
Regional

Blue Dart Aviation
BZ
BDA
BLUE DART
1995
Chennai
Cargo

Quikjet Airlines
QO
FQA
QUIK LIFT
2016
Bangalore
Cargo | Charter

Chhattisgarh Air Link
—
—
—
2012
Raipur
Charter

Club One Air
—
—
—
2005
Delhi
Charter

 Confident Airlines[2]
—
—
—
2005
Bangalore
Charter

Deccan Charters
DN
DKN
DECCAN
1997
Bangalore
Charter

Dove Airlines
—
—
—
2007
Kolkata
Charter

Fly Divine
—
—
—
2017
Indore
Charter

Ghodawat Aviation
—
—
—
2014
Kolhapur
Charter

Global Vectra Helicorp
—
—
—
1997
Mumbai
Charter

Jagson Airlines
—
JGN
JAGSON
2005
Delhi
Charter

Jal Hans
—
—
—
2010
Port Blair
Charter

Pawan Hans
—
—
—
1985
Delhi
Charter

Pinnacle Air
—
—
—
2004
Delhi
Regional[3]

Spirit Air
—
—
—
2012
Bangalore
Charter

Supreme Airlines
—
—
—
1993
Mumbai
Charter

TajAir
—
—
—
1993
Mumbai
Charter

 Titan Aviation
—
—
—
2010
Bangalore
Charter

Ventura AirConnect
—
—
—
2011
Surat
Charter

VRL Air[4]
—
—
—
2008
Hubli
Charter

Safefly Aviation
—
—
—
2010
New Delhi
Charter

text: Planned[edit]

text:
Airlines

ICAO

IATA

Call Sign

Commencement

Headquarters

Type

Air Kerala
—
—
—
TBA
Kochi
TBA

Fly Hornbill[5]
—
—
—
TBA
Guwahati
Regional

Star Air
—
—
—
2018
 Bengaluru
Regional

text: Defunct[edit]

text: This is a list of Defunct Airlines:

text:
Airline

Commenced operations

Ceased operations

Headquarters

IATA

ICAO

Air Carnival
2016
2017
Coimbatore

2S

ACV

Air Costa
2013
2017
Vijayawada

LB

LEP

Air Pegasus
2015
2016
Bangalore

OP

PPL

Easy Air
2015
2015
Chennai

JetKonnect
2012
2014
Mumbai

S2

JLL

Air Mantra
2012
2013
Delhi

M9

Air India Cargo
1954
2012
Mumbai

AI

AIC

JetLite
2007
2012
Mumbai

S2

JLL

Kingfisher Airlines
2003
2012
Bangalore

IT

KFR

Kingfisher Red
2008
2012
Bangalore

IT

KFR

Deccan 360[6]
2009
2011
Bangalore

3C

DEC

Indian
2007
2011
Delhi

IC

IAC

Aryan Cargo Express
2005
2010
Delhi

YE

ACQ

Paramount Airways
2005
2010
Chennai

I7

PMW

MDLR Airlines
2007
2009
Delhi

9H

MDL

Simplifly Deccan
2003
2008
Bangalore

DN

DKN

Air Dravida
2004
2008
Chennai

Air Sahara
2000
2007
Delhi

S2

JLL

Indian Airlines
1953
2007
Delhi

IC

IAC

Indus Air
2006
2007
Delhi

Crescent Air Cargo
2000
2006
Chennai

C8

CAC

Gujarat Airways[7]
1995
2001
Vadodara

G8[8]

GBU

Sahara Airlines
1993
2000
Delhi

S2

JLL

Archana Airways[9]
1991
1999
Delhi

ACY

Bharat Airways
1995
1999
Mumbai

Elbee Airlines
1994
1998
Mumbai

LBE

NEPC Airlines
1993
1997
Chennai

D5

NEP

Damania Airways[10]
1993
1997
Mumbai

D2

DMQ

Vayudoot
1981
1997
Delhi

V5

VDA

Vijay Airlines
1981
1997
Chennai

VIF Airways
1993
1996
Hyderabad

V2

VIF

ModiLuft
1994
1996
Mumbai

M9

MOD

East-West Airlines
1992
1995
Mumbai

W2

EWT

Pushpaka Aviation
1979
1983
Mumbai

Jamair
1946
1977
Kolkata

Kalinga Airlines
1946
1965
Kolkata

Darbhanga Aviations
1950
1962
Kolkata

Transportes Aéreos da Índia Portuguesa
1955
1961
Goa

Airways (India)[11]
1945
1955
Kolkata

Orient Airways
1946
1955
Kolkata

Jupiter Airways[12]
1948
1953
Chennai

Air Services of India
1936
1953
Mumbai

Himalayan Aviation
1948
1953
Kolkata

Deccan Airways[11]
1945
1953
Hyderabad

Indian Overseas Airlines
1947
1950
Mumbai

Ambica Airlines
1947
1949
Bombay

Indian Transcontinental Airlines
1933
1948
Kolkata

Tata Airlines
1932
1946
Mumbai

Indian National Airways
1925
1945
Delhi

Irawaddy Flotilla & Airways[13]
1934
1939
Chennai

Himalayan Air Transport & Survey[14]
1934
1935
Kolkata

Indian State Air Service
1929
1931
Kolkata


document_title: Centrifugal force

question_text: what is the centrifugal force of the earth

text: Centrifugal force

text: Introduction[edit]

text: The centrifugal force is an outward force apparent in a rotating reference frame; it does not exist when a system is described relative to an inertial frame of reference.[1] All measurements of position and velocity must be made relative to some frame of reference. For example, an analysis of the motion of an object in an airliner in flight could be made relative to the airliner, to the surface of the Earth, or even to the Sun.[2] A reference frame that is at rest (or one that moves with no rotation and at constant velocity) relative to the "fixed stars" is generally taken to be an inertial frame. Any system can be analyzed in an inertial frame (and so with no centrifugal force). However, it is often more convenient to describe a rotating system by using a rotating frame--the calculations are simpler, and descriptions more intuitive. When this choice is made, fictitious forces, including the centrifugal force, arise.

text: In a rotating reference frame, all objects, regardless of their state of motion, appear to be under the influence of a radially (from the axis of rotation) outward force that is proportional to their mass, to the distance from the axis of rotation of the frame, and to the square of the angular velocity of the frame.[3][4] This is the centrifugal force.

text: Motion relative to a rotating frame results in another fictitious force: the Coriolis force. If the rate of rotation of the frame changes, a third fictitious force (the Euler force) is required. These fictitious forces are necessary for the formulation of correct equations of motion in a rotating reference frame[5][6] and allow Newton's laws to be used in their normal form in such a frame (with one exception: the fictitious forces do not obey Newton's third law: they have no equal and opposite counterparts).[5]

text: Examples[edit]

text: Vehicle driving round a curve[edit]

text: A common experience that gives rise to the idea of a centrifugal force is encountered by passengers riding in a vehicle, such as a car, that is changing direction. If a car is traveling at a constant speed along a straight road, then a passenger inside is not accelerating and, according to Newton's second law of motion, the net force acting on him is therefore zero (all forces acting on him cancel each other out). If the car enters a curve that bends to the left, the passenger experiences an apparent force that seems to be pulling him towards the right. This is the fictitious centrifugal force. It is needed within the passenger's local frame of reference to explain his sudden tendency to start accelerating to the right relative to the car—a tendency which he must resist by applying a rightward force to the car (for instance, a frictional force against the seat) in order to remain in a fixed position inside. Since he pushes the seat toward the right, Newton's third law says that the seat pushes him toward the left. The centrifugal force must be included in the passenger's reference frame (in which the passenger remains at rest): it counteracts the leftward force applied to the passenger by the seat, and explains why this otherwise unbalanced force does not cause him to accelerate.[7] However, it would be apparent to a stationary observer watching from an overpass above that the frictional force exerted on the passenger by the seat is not being balanced; it constitutes a net force to the left, causing the passenger to accelerate toward the inside of the curve, as he must in order to keep moving with the car rather than proceeding in a straight line as he otherwise would. Thus the "centrifugal force" he feels is the result of a "centrifugal tendency" caused by inertia.[8] Similar effects are encountered in aeroplanes and roller coasters where the magnitude of the apparent force is often reported in "G's".

text: Stone on a string[edit]

text: If a stone is whirled round on a string, in a horizontal plane, the only real force acting on the stone in the horizontal plane is applied by the string (gravity acts vertically). No other force acts on the stone so there is a net force on the stone in the horizontal plane.

text: In an inertial frame of reference, were it not for this net force acting on the stone, the stone would travel in a straight line, according to Newton's first law of motion. In order to keep the stone moving in a circular path, a centripetal force, in this case provided by the string, must be continuously applied to the stone. As soon as it is removed (for example if the string breaks) the stone moves in a straight line. In this inertial frame, the concept of centrifugal force is not required as all motion can be properly described using only real forces and Newton's laws of motion.

text: In a frame of reference rotating with the stone around the same axis as the stone, the stone is stationary. However, the force applied by the string is still acting on the stone. If one were to apply Newton's laws in their usual (inertial frame) form, one would conclude that the stone should accelerate in the direction of the net applied force--towards the axis of rotation--which it does not do. The centrifugal force and other fictitious forces must be included along with the real forces in order to apply Newton's laws of motion in the rotating frame.

text: Earth[edit]

text: The Earth, because it rotates once a day on its axis, constitutes a rotating reference frame. Because the rotation is slow, the fictitious forces it produces are small, and in everyday situations can generally be neglected. Even in calculations requiring high precision, the centrifugal force is generally not explicitly included, but rather lumped in with the gravitational force: the strength and direction of the local "gravity" at any point on the Earth's surface is actually a combination of gravitational and centrifugal forces.

text: Weight of an object at the poles and on the equator[edit]

text: If an object is weighed with a simple spring balance at one of the Earth's poles, there are two forces acting on the object: the Earth's gravity, which acts in a downward direction, and the equal and opposite tension in the spring, acting upward. There is no net force acting on the object and the spring balance so the object does not accelerate and remains stationary. The balance shows the value of the force of gravity on the object.

text: When the same object is weighed on the equator the same two real forces act upon the object. However, the object is moving in a circular path as the Earth rotates. When considered in an inertial frame (that is to say, one that is not rotating with the Earth), some of the force of gravity is expended just to keep the object in its circular path (centripetal force). Less tension in the spring is required to counteract the 'remaining' force of gravity. Less tension in the spring would be reflected on a scale as less weight — about 0.3% less at the equator than at the poles.[9] In the Earth reference frame (in which the object being weighed is at rest), this difference is explained by the centrifugal force.

text: Note: In fact, the observed weight difference is more — about 0.53%. Earth's gravity is a bit stronger at the poles than at the equator, because the Earth is not a perfect sphere, so an object at the poles is slightly closer to the center of the Earth than one at the equator; this effect combines with the centrifugal force to produce the observed weight difference.[10]

text: Equatorial railway[edit]

text: This thought experiment is more complicated than the previous examples in that it requires the use of the Coriolis force as well as the centrifugal force.

text: If there were a railway line running round the Earth's equator, a train moving westward along it fast enough would remain stationary in a frame moving (but not rotating) with the Earth; it would stand still as the Earth spun beneath it. In this inertial frame the situation is easy to analyze. The only forces acting on the train (assuming no wind resistance or other horizontal forces) are its gravity (downward) and the equal and opposite (upward) force from the track. There is no net force on the train and it therefore remains stationary.

text: In a frame rotating with the Earth the train moves in a circular orbit as it travels round the Earth. In this frame, the upward reaction force from the track and the force of gravity on the train remain the same, as they are real forces. However, in the Earth's (rotating) frame, the train is traveling in a circular path and therefore requires a centripetal (downward) force to keep it on this path. Because this uses a rotating frame, the (fictitious) centrifugal force must be applied to the train. This is equal in value to the required centripetal force but acts in an upward direction — the opposite direction to that required. It would seem that there is a net upward force on the train and it should therefore accelerate upward.

text: The resolution to this paradox lies in the fact that the train is in motion with respect to the rotating frame and is subject to (in addition to the centrifugal force) the Coriolis force, which, in this example, acts downward direction and is twice as strong as centrifugal force.

text: Derivation[edit]

text: For the following formalism, the rotating frame of reference is regarded as a special case of a non-inertial reference frame that is rotating relative to an inertial reference frame denoted the stationary frame.

text: Time derivatives in a rotating frame[edit]

text: In a rotating frame of reference, the time derivatives of any vector function P of time—such as the velocity and acceleration vectors of an object—will differ from its time derivatives in the stationary frame. If P1 P2, P3 are the components of P with respect to unit vectors i, j, k directed along the axes of the rotating frame,[11] then the first time derivative [dP/dt] of P with respect to the rotating frame is, by definition, dP1/dt i + dP2/dt j + dP3/dt k. If the absolute angular velocity of the rotating frame is ω then the derivative dP/dt of P with respect to the stationary frame is related to [dP/dt] by the equation:[12]

text:
where

×

{\displaystyle \times }

 denotes the vector cross product. In other words, the rate of change of P in the stationary frame is the sum of its apparent rate of change in the rotating frame and a rate of rotation

ω

×

P

{\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\omega }}\times {\boldsymbol {P}}}

 attributable to the motion of the rotating frame. The vector ω has magnitude ω equal to the rate of rotation and is directed along the axis of rotation according to the right-hand rule.

text: Acceleration[edit]

text: Newton's law of motion for a particle of mass m written in vector form is:

text: where F is the vector sum of the physical forces applied to the particle and a is the absolute acceleration (that is, acceleration in an inertial frame) of the particle, given by:

text: where r is the position vector of the particle.

text: By applying the transformation above from the stationary to the rotating frame three times,[13] the absolute acceleration of the particle can be written as:

text: Force[edit]

text: The apparent acceleration in the rotating frame is [d2r/dt2]. An observer unaware of the rotation would expect this to be zero in the absence of outside forces. However, Newton's laws of motion apply only in the inertial frame and describe dynamics in terms of the absolute acceleration d2r/dt2. Therefore, the observer perceives the extra terms as contributions due to fictitious forces. These terms in the apparent acceleration are independent of mass; so it appears that each of these fictitious forces, like gravity, pulls on an object in proportion to its mass. When these forces are added, the equation of motion has the form:[14][15][16]

text:
From the perspective of the rotating frame, the additional force terms are experienced just like the real external forces and contribute to the apparent acceleration.[17][18] The additional terms on the force side of the equation can be recognized as, reading from left to right, the Euler force

−
m
d

ω

/

d

t
×

r

{\displaystyle -m\operatorname {d} {\boldsymbol {\omega }}/\operatorname {d} t\times {\boldsymbol {r}}}

, the Coriolis force

−
2
m

ω

×

[
d

r

/

d

t
]

{\displaystyle -2m{\boldsymbol {\omega }}\times \left[\operatorname {d} {\boldsymbol {r}}/\operatorname {d} t\right]}

, and the centrifugal force

−
m

ω

×
(

ω

×

r

)

{\displaystyle -m{\boldsymbol {\omega }}\times ({\boldsymbol {\omega }}\times {\boldsymbol {r}})}

, respectively.[19] Unlike the other two fictitious forces, the centrifugal force always points radially outward from the axis of rotation of the rotating frame, with magnitude mω2r, and unlike the Coriolis force in particular, it is independent of the motion of the particle in the rotating frame. As expected, for a non-rotating inertial frame of reference

(

ω

=
0
)

{\displaystyle ({\boldsymbol {\omega }}=0)}

 the centrifugal force and all other fictitious forces disappear.[20]

text: Absolute rotation[edit]

text: Three scenarios were suggested by Newton to answer the question of whether the absolute rotation of a local frame can be detected; that is, if an observer can decide whether an observed object is rotating or if the observer is rotating.[21][22]

text:
The shape of the surface of water rotating in a bucket. The shape of the surface becomes concave to balance the centrifugal force against the other forces upon the liquid.
The tension in a string joining two spheres rotating about their center of mass. The tension in the string will be proportional to the centrifugal force on each sphere as it rotates around the common center of mass.

text: In these scenarios, the effects attributed to centrifugal force are only observed in the local frame (the frame in which the object is stationary) if the object is undergoing absolute rotation relative to an inertial frame. By contrast, in an inertial frame, the observed effects arise as a consequence of the inertia and the known forces without the need to introduce a centrifugal force. Based on this argument, the privileged frame, wherein the laws of physics take on the simplest form, is a stationary frame in which no fictitious forces need to be invoked.

text: Within this view of physics, any other phenomenon that is usually attributed to centrifugal force can be used to identify absolute rotation. For example, the oblateness of a sphere of freely flowing material is often explained in terms of centrifugal force. The oblate spheroid shape reflects, following Clairaut's theorem, the balance between containment by gravitational attraction and dispersal by centrifugal force. That the Earth is itself an oblate spheroid, bulging at the equator where the radial distance and hence the centrifugal force is larger, is taken as one of the evidences for its absolute rotation.[23]

text: Applications[edit]

text: The operations of numerous common rotating mechanical systems are most easily conceptualized in terms of centrifugal force. For example:

text:
A centrifugal governor regulates the speed of an engine by using spinning masses that move radially, adjusting the throttle, as the engine changes speed. In the reference frame of the spinning masses, centrifugal force causes the radial movement.
A centrifugal clutch is used in small engine-powered devices such as chain saws, go-karts and model helicopters. It allows the engine to start and idle without driving the device but automatically and smoothly engages the drive as the engine speed rises. Inertial drum brake ascenders used in rock climbing and the inertia reels used in many automobile seat belts operate on the same principle.
Centrifugal forces can be used to generate artificial gravity, as in proposed designs for rotating space stations. The Mars Gravity Biosatellite would have studied the effects of Mars-level gravity on mice with gravity simulated in this way.
Spin casting and centrifugal casting are production methods that uses centrifugal force to disperse liquid metal or plastic throughout the negative space of a mold.
Centrifuges are used in science and industry to separate substances. In the reference frame spinning with the centrifuge, the centrifugal force induces a hydrostatic pressure gradient in fluid-filled tubes oriented perpendicular to the axis of rotation, giving rise to large buoyant forces which push low-density particles inward. Elements or particles denser than the fluid move outward under the influence of the centrifugal force. This is effectively Archimedes' principle as generated by centrifugal force as opposed to being generated by gravity.
Some amusement rides make use of centrifugal forces. For instance, a Gravitron's spin forces riders against a wall and allows riders to be elevated above the machine's floor in defiance of Earth's gravity.[24]

text: Nevertheless, all of these systems can also be described without requiring the concept of centrifugal force, in terms of motions and forces in a stationary frame, at the cost of taking somewhat more care in the consideration of forces and motions within the system.

text: History of conceptions of centrifugal and centripetal forces[edit]

text: The conception of centrifugal force has evolved since the time of Huygens, Newton, Leibniz, and Hooke who expressed early conceptions of it. Its modern conception as a fictitious force arising in a rotating reference frame evolved in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.[citation needed]

text: Centrifugal force has also played a role in debates in classical mechanics about detection of absolute motion. Newton suggested two arguments to answer the question of whether absolute rotation can be detected: the rotating bucket argument, and the rotating spheres argument.[25] According to Newton, in each scenario the centrifugal force would be observed in the object's local frame (the frame where the object is stationary) only if the frame were rotating with respect to absolute space. Nearly two centuries later, Mach's principle was proposed where, instead of absolute rotation, the motion of the distant stars relative to the local inertial frame gives rise through some (hypothetical) physical law to the centrifugal force and other inertia effects. Today's view is based upon the idea of an inertial frame of reference, which privileges observers for which the laws of physics take on their simplest form, and in particular, frames that do not use centrifugal forces in their equations of motion in order to describe motions correctly.

text: The analogy between centrifugal force (sometimes used to create artificial gravity) and gravitational forces led to the equivalence principle of general relativity.[26][27]

text: Other uses of the term[edit]

text:
While the majority of the scientific literature uses the term centrifugal force to refer to the particular fictitious force that arises in rotating frames, there are a few limited instances in the literature of the term applied to other distinct physical concepts. One of these instances occurs in Lagrangian mechanics. Lagrangian mechanics formulates mechanics in terms of generalized coordinates {qk}, which can be as simple as the usual polar coordinates

(
r
,

θ
)

{\displaystyle (r,\ \theta )}

 or a much more extensive list of variables.[28][29] Within this formulation the motion is described in terms of generalized forces, using in place of Newton's laws the Euler–Lagrange equations. Among the generalized forces, those involving the square of the time derivatives {(dqk   ⁄ dt )2} are sometimes called centrifugal forces.[30][31][32][33] In the case of motion in a central potential the Lagrangian centrifugal force has the same form as the fictitious centrifugal force derived in a co-rotating frame.[34] However, the Lagrangian use of "centrifugal force" in other, more general cases has only a limited connection to the Newtonian definition.

text: In another instance the term refers to the reaction force to a centripetal force, or reactive centrifugal force. A body undergoing curved motion, such as circular motion, is accelerating toward a center at any particular point in time. This centripetal acceleration is provided by a centripetal force, which is exerted on the body in curved motion by some other body. In accordance with Newton's third law of motion, the body in curved motion exerts an equal and opposite force on the other body. This reactive force is exerted by the body in curved motion on the other body that provides the centripetal force and its direction is from that other body toward the body in curved motion.[35][36] [37][38]

text: This reaction force is sometimes described as a centrifugal inertial reaction,[39][40] that is, a force that is centrifugally directed, which is a reactive force equal and opposite to the centripetal force that is curving the path of the mass.

text: The concept of the reactive centrifugal force is sometimes used in mechanics and engineering. It is sometimes referred to as just centrifugal force rather than as reactive centrifugal force[41][42] although this usage is deprecated in elementary mechanics.[43]