Form For Employers Institution The Main School Of Fire: Fill & Download for Free

Education is not the primary objective of any of these institutions.Rather, there are three unique roles — each which can be thought of as a separate and sometimes conflicting personality — which define the purpose of elite American universities:They are research factories.They are cults of like-minded individuals.They are traditional finishing schools for society’s upper-crust and elite.It should be noted that the first two characteristics apply to all major universities in the United States, and third one is specific only to the most elite universities.I’ll start by explaining that third finishing school characteristic, since the question was specific to elite universities. History is required to make sense of this.Elite universities like Harvard and Yale were historically modeled after the British Oxford/Cambridge system that dates back to the 13th Century, long before the industrial revolution. Historically, the purpose of Oxbridge (as it is often called today) was to maintain the rigid class structure of British society.Thus, there was no such thing as “merit” in that society, because only the upper-class would even be considered for admission.It’s important to remember that the purpose of “education” for those select gentlemen who went to Oxbridge was NOT to help them become employable after graduation — as many Americans today assume the purpose of “higher education” should be. After all, if you were an aristocratic gentleman, who would even have the opportunity to go to Oxbridge, by definition you did not need to work for a living. That definition largely still remains true even in 21st Century America. The very idea of “work” is a commoner’s concern!So rather than teach skills of practical value, the primary purpose of the university was to prepare a gentleman for the well-heeled society they would soon join, and make sure that gentleman would not do anything to embarrass to this society.In other words, the real goal of elite universities was to prevent the emergence of someone like Donald Trump — someone who has the money and pedigree of an elite aristocrat but acts and speaks like a commoner, someone who will be a perpetual blight and embarrassment for that genteel society.I think that British society particularly depended on maintaining these behavioral differences between aristocrats and commoners, as a means of establishing the class barriers. There are plenty of literary social commentaries about that society and its rigid rules, like Pygmallion or Great Expectations. Even to this day, you see that members of the British royal family are very strict in adhering to social rules that establish their class standing.Now contrast that with the United States, which was founded with that noble idea that “all men are created equal”, and which was to become the world’s first successful democratic nation and establish a new world order. That USA still has remnants of the British society that gave birth to it. One of those remnants lies in the Common Law legal system. The other remnant is the idea of elite schools like Harvard and Yale, which trace their lineage to the British Oxbridge system.And if you look at class in America today, it’s morphed very far away from the British ideals. The rich and famous in America don’t have to act in any particular way — they can be foolishly ignorant, they can be rude, whatever. So long as they maintain their wealth and social connections, it doesn’t matter.You see, for all of the promises that America’s “shining light of pride” democracy made about liberating the common folk, the one group that benefited the most from America’s new freedoms is ironically the elites. America’s elites experience more freedom than anyone else in our society. No longer chained by rules of aristocracy, they can do almost whatever they want with impunity. America is a rich person’s playground!Given that fact, one wonders why universities like Harvard, Yale and the rest of the Ivy Leagues are still so popular with America’s elite. These are still people who don’t need to work for a living if they don’t want to. The idea that if you are part of the elite, you are expected to go to one of these institutions, like a finishing school, is nothing more than a vestigial part of aristocratic psychology left over in the minds of America’s elite.Put it another way:In modern society, the Ivy League schools need upper-class rich people far more than the upper-class rich people need the Ivy Leagues. Of course, these schools are going to roll out the red carpet for the children of the elite, and make sure they’re treated like royalty! The moment the elite stop attending these institutions is the moment these “elite universities” cease to be elite. Therefore, America’s elite are not really the customers of elite universities. Rather, they’re now the patrons.Rich people in America continue to support Ivy Leagues mainly out of nostalgia.So who then are the main customers today? America’s upper middle-class. These are people who are one ladder rung below the class that “doesn’t have to work for a living” and are looking for a way to climb to that higher ladder rung. Going to an Ivy League gives them the chance to network with and hopefully join the upper-class.In that sense, even the “finishing school” characteristic of America’s elite universities has morphed into something else — the so-called schooling is now more like part of a Pyramid Scheme for getting wealthy, which incidentally also describes the class structure in America today.The other lineage for all these top universities is that of the research factory, which started around the time of the Industrial Revolution and was put into over-drive during the Cold War in America. This is the main business that all universities, elite or otherwise, are really into.You send your kid to college hoping he or she will get a great education, but you need to understand that the college doesn’t see that as its mission. The mission is to produce great research. When hiring new faculty members, 99% of the hiring criteria is about their ability to do research. Teaching is at more of a side job for academics.Out of the entire population at a university, the undergrads are near the bottom in their importance because they don’t contribute to the research success of the university. Undergrads are viewed as slightly more important than janitors if it makes them feel any better, but at your typical university, hardly anyone really cares about the undergrads.Now, since elite universities also have this mission of catering to rich people, as mentioned above, that does alter the dynamic a little bit. At elite universities, undergrads will get more respect than at state universities (since they might be the daughter of Bill Gates), at least outwardly. This means the university will go out of their way to make them happy and be generous with grading. It does not mean that the university really makes it a high priority to educate these kids. They just want the kids to tell their mama and papa that they’re having a good time.So rest assured that regardless of whether you attend an elite university or a state school, you’re going to get on average a pretty mediocre education. If you don’t understand a word the professor is saying or he expects you to learn everything from the textbook, that’s too bad.Universities are not in the business of educating. They are in the business of producing research. The university may so happen to have some smart knowledgeable faculty, because good researchers tend to also be smart. And occasionally, some of those smart faculty may actually like teaching and care what their students learn. But if that happens, it’s more a coincidence than anything. Universities do not evaluate themselves by how well they teach.The final aspect of the university that bares worth mentioning is the cult like mentality that has developed in the Ivory Tower. While research may be the business of an academic, in many disciplines (particularly those outside of STEM), it is very difficult to objectively assess the quality of research.Sure, you can assess the pragmatic value of a cure for cancer, or building a space ship that can travel to Mars, but how do you evaluate research done in the humanities or even in scientific areas where pragmatic value may be less evident?The peer review system that academia uses to reward careers to people has a tendency to generate like-minded people. I’d say there’s no place outside of academia where group-think is more common.The end result is that many disciplines in academia have become a haven for people who share a specific philosophy, usually one that has little relevance to the outside world.If you absolutely adore Karl Marx, where are you going to go in America’s capitalist society? If you take an ordinary office job, your boss will either laugh at you or fire you if you start saying the workers should own the company. Instead, you could join a Karl Marx club that pays you to worship your icon, aka a university Sociology department.So academia is very attractive to people whose sociopolitical beliefs are on the fringe of society. They form cults with people who share these fringe beliefs. And if these people were outside academia, you wouldn’t take them any more seriously than the people who think that Haley’s Comet will take them to alien paradise. But because they are in academia, they are respected by society and labeled as experts.Once a cult forms in academia, the peer review system makes it very hard to break. Peer review ensures that only members of the community that also subscribe to the cult’s views will be promoted.And of course, like most cults, they want to indoctrinate new members. So that’s why if you do run into any professors that care about education, this may be their motive.

Although the Byzantines suffered many attacks, prolonged sieges, internal rebellions, and even a period of occupation in the 13th century AD by the crusaders in the Fourth Crusade, Constantinoples legendary defences were the most formidable in both the ancient and medieval worlds. It could not, though, resist the mighty cannons of the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II.After being sieged for several weeks, Constantinople, the jewel and bastion of Christendom, was finally conquered, smashed, and looted on Tuesday, May 29, 1453 ending the most renowned empire to have ever lived…the Romans.The Roman empire had lasted over 2,000 years and yet was brought to its knees, how then did they become so powerful?SOLDIERS -The Eastern Roman army was a direct continuation of the Roman army, the Eastern Roman Army was highly organised, showed a very good level of discipline, they were well-versed in advanced tactics, strategic prowess and organization. We must also Consider that the Byzantines lasted almost 1000 years after their western counterparts, so technologies, tactics and weaponry had all advanced, during this period, the nature and type of armour worn by Byzantine soldiers had changed significantly.The Byzantine Army or Eastern Roman Army was the primary military body of the Byzantine armed forces, serving alongside the Byzantine Navy. The Army was among the most effective armies of western Eurasia for much of the Middle Ages. Over time the cavalry arm became more prominent in the Byzantine army as the legion system disappeared in the early 7th century. Later reforms reflected some Germanic and Asian influences– rival forces frequently became sources of mercenary units e.g.; Huns, Cumans, Alans and (following the Battle of Manzikert) Turks, meeting the Empire's demand for light cavalry mercenaries. Since much of the Byzantine military focused on the strategy and skill of generals utilizing milita troops, heavy infantry were recruited from the best of Byzantine Soldiers, Frankish troops and later Varangian mercenaries.From the seventh to the 12th centuries, the Byzantine army was among the most powerful and effective military forces in the world – neither Middle ages Europe nor (following its early successes) the fracturing Caliphate could match the strategies and the efficiency of the Byzantine army. Restricted to a largely defensive role in the 7th to mid-9th centuries, the Byzantines developed the theme-system to counter the more powerful Caliphate. From the mid-9th century, however, they gradually went on the offensive, culminating in the great conquests of the 10th century under a series of soldier-emperors such as Nikephoros II Phokas, John Tzimiskes and Basil II . The army they led was less reliant on the militia of the themes; it was by now a largely professional force, with a strong and well-drilled infantry at its core and augmented by a revived heavy cavalry arm. With one of the most powerful economies in the world at the time, the Empire had the resources to put to the field a powerful host when needed, in order to reclaim its long-lost territories.After the collapse of the theme-system in the 11th century, the Byzantines grew increasingly reliant on professional Tagmata troops, including ever-increasing numbers of foreign mercenaries. The Komnenian emperors made great efforts to re-establish a native army, instituting the pronoia system of land grants in exchange for military service. Nevertheless, mercenaries remained a staple feature of late Byzantine armies since the loss of Asia Minor reduced the Empire's recruiting-ground, while the abuse of the pronoia grants led to a progressive feudalism in the Empire. The Komnenian successes were undone by the subsequent Angeloi dynasty, leading to the dissolution of the Empire at the hands of the Fourth Crusade in 1204.The Emperors of Nicea managed to form a small but effective force using the same structure of light and heavily armed troops, both natives and foreigners. It proved effective in defending what remained of Byzantine Anatolia and reclaiming much of the Balkans and even Constantinople itself in 1261. Another period of neglect of the military followed in the reign of Andronikos II of Palaiologos, which allowed Anatolia to fall prey to an emerging power, the Ottoman Emirate. Successive civil wars in the 14th century further sapped the Empire's strength and destroyed any remaining chance of recovery, while the weakening of central authority and the devolution of power to provincial leaders meant that the Byzantine army was now composed of a collection of militias, personal entourages and mercenary detachments.THE ARMY UNDER JUSTINIAN AND HIS SUCCESSORS -The army of Justinian I was the result of fifth-century reorganizations to meet growing threats to the empire, the most serious from the expanding Persian empire. Gone were the familiar Legions, cohorts and alae of old Rome, and in their place were small infantry battalions or horse regiments called an arithmos, tagma or numerus. A numerus had between 300 and 400 men and was commanded by a tribune. Two or more numeri formed a brigade, or moria; two or more brigades a division, or meros.There were six classifications of troops:The guard troops stationed in the capitol.The comitatenses of the old Roman field armies. In Justinian's day these were more commonly called stratiotai. Regular soldiers of the Roman army, the stratiotai were chiefly recruited from subjects of the empire in the highlands of Thrace, Illyricum and Isauria.The limitanei. The least changed element of the Roman army, limitanei still performed their traditional duties of guarding frontiers and garrisoning border posts. Like how the comitatenses were called stratiotai in the heyday of the Justinians, the limitanei were known as akritai by the mainly Greek speaking subjects of the Eastern Empire. This terming of limitanei as akritai in Greek, led to folktales of the heroism of the limitanei/akritai, especially the popular tale of the hero Diogenes Akritas during the wars between the Byzantines and the various Arab Caliphates.The foederati. They were a relatively new element in the army, recruited from the fifth century onwards from barbarian volunteers. They were formed into cavalry units under Roman officers. A ban on enlistments by Roman subjects was lifted in the sixth century, and their composition became mixed.The Allies. These were bands of barbarians, Huns, Herules, Goths or others who were bound by treaty to provide the empire with military units commanded by their own chiefs, in return for land or yearly subsidy.The bucellarii. The private armed retainers of generals, Praetorian Prefects, officers of lesser rank and the rich, the bucellarii were often a significant portion of a field army's cavalry force. The size of a retinue of bucellarii depended on the wealth of the employer. Their rank and file were called hypaspistai, or shield-bearers, and their officers, doryphoroi or spear-bearers. Doryphoroi took solemn oaths of fidelity to their patron and of loyalty to the emperor. One of the most noted generals of the period, Belisarius, had been a doryphoros in Justinian's retinue before his becoming of emperor. The bucellarii were usually mounted troops, mostly Huns, Goths and mountaineers of Thrace or Asia Minor.The size of Justinian's army is unclear. Bury, writing in the 1920s, accepted the estimate of 150,000 troops of all classes in 559 given by Agathia of Myrina in his History. Modern scholars estimate the total strength of the imperial army under Justinian to be between 300,000 and 350,000 soldiers.Field armies generally had 15,000 to 25,000 soldiers and were formed mainly of comitatenses and foederati, reinforced by the commanders' retinues and barbarian allies. The expeditionary force of Belisarius during his reconquest of Carthage from the Vandals in 533 is illustrative. This army had 10,000 comitatenses and foederati infantry, with 3,000 similarly composed cavalry. There were 600 Huns and 400 Herules, all mounted archers, and 1,400 or 1,500 mounted bucellarii of Belisarius' retinue. The small force of less than 16,000 men voyaged from the Bospherus to North Africa on 500 ships protected by 92 dromons, or war-ships.Tactics, organization and equipment had been largely modified to deal with the Persians. The Romans adopted elaborate defensive armor from Persia, coats of mail, cuirasses, casques and greaves of steel for tagma of elite heavy cavalrymen called cataphracts, who were armed with bow and arrows as well as sword and lance.Large numbers of light infantry were equipped with the bow, to support the heavy infantry known as scutatii (Meaning ″shield men″) or skutatoi These wore a steel helmet and a coat of mail, and carried a spear, axe and dagger. They generally held the centre of a Roman line of battle. Infantry armed with javelines were used for operations in mountain regions.Notable military events during the reign of Justinian included the Battle of Dara in 530, when Belisarius, with a force of 25,000, defeated the Persian Emperor’s army of 40,000. In addition to his reconquest of Carthage, noted above, Belisarius also recaptured Sicily, Naples, Rome and the rest of Italy from the Goths in a war lasting from 535 554. Another famous commander of the time was the imperial eunuch Narses, who defeated a Gothic army at Busta Gallorum on the eastern coast of Italy in 552.Towards the end of the sixth century, the Emperor Maurice, or senior officers writing for him, described in great detail the Byzantine army of the period in The Strategikon, a manual for commanders. Maurice, who reigned from 582 to 602, certainly had extensive military experience. In 592, he forced the Persians to sign a treaty that regained extensive Armenian territory for the empire that had been lost in earlier wars. Maurice then turned to the western frontier in the Balkans. In a war that lasted the rest of his life, he defeated the Avars and Slavs in battle, but could not gain a decisive victory.The Strategikon's author gives us a fair picture of the Byzantine army and its troops, including the equipment borrowed from the Herules, Goths, Slavs and especially the Avars, once barbarian enemies all. Cavalrymen should have "hooded coats of mail reaching to their ankles which may be drawn up by thongs and rings, along with carying cases." Helmets were to have small plumes on top and bows were to be suited to the strength of each man, their cases broad enough that strung bows can fit in them, and spare bow strings kept the men's saddle bags. The men's quivers should have covers and hold 30 or 40 arrows and they should carry small files and awls in their baldrics. The cavalry lances should be "of the Avar type with leather thongs in the middle of the shaft and with pennons." The men were also to have "swords and round neck pieces of the Avar type with linen fringes outside and wool inside." Young foreigners unskilled with the bow should have lances and shields and bucellary troops ought to have iron gauntlets and small tassles hanging from the back straps and neck straps of their horses, as well as small pennons hanging from their own shoulders over their coats of mail, "for the more handsome the soldier is, in his armament, the more confidence he gains in himself and the more fear he inspires in the enemy." Lances were apparently expected to be thrown, for the troops should have "two lances so as to have a spare in case the first one misses. Unskilled men should use lighter bows."The manual then describes horse gear and the trooper's clothing. "The horses, especially those of the officers and the other special troops, in particular those in the front ranks of the battle line, should have protective pieces of iron armor about their heads and breast plates of iron or felt, or else breast and neck coverings such as the Avars use. The saddles should have large and thick cloths; the bridles should be of good quality; attached to the saddles should be two iron stirrups, a lasso with thong, hobble, a sadle bag large enough to hold three or four days' rations when needed. There should be four tassels on the back strap, one on top of the head, and one under the chin.""The men's clothing," the Strategikon continues, "especially their tunics, whether made of linen, goat's hair or rough wool, should be broad and full, cut according to the Avar pattern, so they can be fastened to cover the knees while riding and give a neat appearance. They should also be provided with an extra-large cloak or hooded mantle of felt with broad sleeves to wear, large enough to wear over their armament, including the coat of mail and the bow." "Each squad should have a tent, as well as sickles and axes to meet any contingency. It is well to have tents of the Avar type, which combine practicality with good appearance.""The men," according to The Strategikon, "should certainly be required to provide servants for themselves, slave or free ... Should they neglect this and find themselves without servants, then in time of battle it will be necessary to detail some of the soldiers themselves to the baggage train, and there will be fewer men fighting in the ranks. But if, as can easily happen, some of the men are unable to afford servants, then it will be necessary to require that three or four soldiers join in maintaining one servant. A similar arrangement should be made with the pack animals, which may be needed to carry the coats of mail and the tents."The manual then describes a system of unit identification that sounds like a fore-runner of medieval heraldry. The flags of a meros or division, should be the same color. The streamers of its immediate sub-units, the several moiras or brigades, should also have their own color. Thus, the manual states, "each individual tagma, (battalion or squadron) may easily recognize its own standard. Other distinctive devices known to the soldiers should be imposed on the fields of the flags, so that they may easily be recognized according to meros, moira and tagma. The standards of the merarchs (meros commander) should be particularly distinctive and conspicuous, so they may be recognized by their troops at a great distance."The Strategikon deals more briefly with the infantry. They are to wear Gothic tunics "coming down to their knees or short ones split up the sides and Gothic shoes with thick soles, broad toes and plain stitching, fastened with no more than two clasps the soles studded with a few nails for greater durability." Boots or greaves are discouraged, "for they are unsuitable for marching and, if worn, slow one down. Their mantles should be simple, not like Bulgarian cloaks. Their hair should be cut short, and it is better if it is not allowed to grow long."The descriptions of the armament of the "heavy-armed infantrymen" are equally terse. "The men of each arithmos or tagma," the Strategikon tells us, "should have shields of the same color, Herulian swords, lances, helmets with small plumes and tassels on top and on the cheek plates - at least the first men in the file should have these - slings, and lead-pointed darts. The picked men of the files should have mail coats, all of them if it can be done, but in any case the first two in the file. They should also have iron or wooden greaves, at least the first and second in each file."The light-armed infantryman, still quoting the Strategikon, "should carry bows on their shoulders with large quivers holding about 30 or 40 arrows. They should have small shields, as well as crossbows with short arrows in small quivers. These can be fired a great distance with the bows and cause harm to the enemy. For men who might not have bows or are not experienced archers, small javelins or Slavic spears should be provided. They should also carry lead-pointed darts in leather cases, and slings."The strength of the Byzantine army and navy in 565 is estimated by Teadgold to have been 379,300 men, with a field army and part of the guards totaling 150,300, and the frontier troops, part of the guards and the oarsmen totaling 229,000. These numbers probably held through the reign of Maurice. However, the largest field army mentioned in the Strategikon is a force of 34,384 (16,384 heavy infantry, 8,000 light-armed troops and 10,000 cavalry) which is given as an example of "the past, when the legions were composed of large numbers of men." Writing of his own time, Maurice stipulates that an army of more than 24,000 men should be divided into four components and an army of less than 24,000 into three. In another section, Maurice describes the formation of cavalry tagmas of 300 to 400 men into morias of 2,000 to 3,000 and the morias into meros of 6,000 to 7,000.Analysis of the Byzantine Militay CollapseStructural Weaknesses -Structural history -tagmataHetaireia), Komnenian-era army (pronoia), Palaiologan-era army (allagia)Varangian GuardGenerals (Magister militumDomestic of the SchoolsGrand DomesticStratopedarchesProtostrator)Byzantine navy: Greek fireDromonAdmirals (Droungarios of the FleetMegas doux)Campaign historyLists of wars, revolts and civil wars, and battlesStrategy and tacticsTacticsSiege warfareMilitary manualsFortifications (Walls of Constantinople)It was in this situation that the disintegration of the military ‘themes system’, which had been the foundation of the empire's remarkable success from the eighth to eleventh centuries, revealed itself as a real catastrophe for the Byzantine state.The first advantage of the theme system had been its numerical strength. It is thought that the Byzantine field army under Manuel I Komnenos (r. 1143–1180) had numbered some 40,000 men. However, there is evidence that the thematic armies of earlier centuries had provided the empire with a numerically superior force. The army of the theme of Thrakesion alone had provided about 9,600 men in the period 902–936, for example. Furthermore, the thematic armies had been stationed in the provinces, and their greater independence from central command meant that they were able to deal with threats quickly at a local level. This, combined with their greater numbers, allowed them to provide greater defense in depth.The other key advantage of the theme system was that it had offered the Byzantine state good value for money. It provided a means of cheaply mobilising large numbers of men. The demise of the system meant that armies became more expensive in the long run, which reduced the numbers of troops that the emperors could afford to employ. The considerable wealth and diplomatic skill of the Komnenian emperors, their constant attention to military matters, and their frequent energetic campaigning, had largely countered this change. But the luck of the empire in having the talented Komneni to provide capable leadership was not a long-term solution to a structural problem in the Byzantine state itself.After the death of Manuel I Komnenos in 1180, the Angeloi had not lavished the same care on the military as the Komneni had done, and the result was that these structural weakness began to manifest themselves in military decline. From 1185 on, Byzantine emperors found it increasingly difficult to muster and pay for sufficient military forces, while their incompetence exposed the limitations of the entire Byzantine military system, dependent as it was on competent personal direction from the emperor. The culmination of the empire's military disintegration under the Angeloi was reached on 13 April 1204, when the armies of the Fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople.CONCLUSION -Thus, the problem was not so much that the Komnenian army was any less effective in battle (the thematic army's success rate was just as varied as that of its Komnenian counterpart); it is more the case that, because it was a smaller, more centralised force, the twelfth century army required a greater degree of competent direction from the emperor in order to be effective. Although formidable under an energetic leader, the Komnenian army did not work so well under incompetent or uninterested emperors. The greater independence and resilience of the thematic army had provided the early empire with a structural advantage that was now lost.For all of the reasons above, it is possible to argue that the demise of the theme system was a great loss to the Byzantine empire. Although it took centuries to become fully apparent, one of the main institutional strengths of the Byzantine state was now gone. Thus it was not the army itself that was to blame for the decline of the empire, but rather the system that supported it. Without strong underlying institutions that could endure beyond the reign of each emperor, the state was extremely vulnerable in times of crisis. Byzantium had come to rely too much on individual emperors, and its continued survival was now no longer certain. While the theme system's demise did play a major role in the empire's military decline, other factors were important as well. These include:An increasing reliance on foreign mercenaries, which also contributed to the Byzantine's decline.A long, slow decay in the quality and prestige of the ordinary, non-elite Byzantine infantry.A creeping Feudalism that helped to erode centralized administration.Increasing emulation of Western (or Latin) weapons, equipment and warfare methods, Gunpoweder, beginning especially during the reign of Manuel I Komnenos.The Byzantines lasted and defeated threats time and time again, I hope this Helps educate why the Eastern Romans were so strong, what made them strong, how they lasted, and how they ultimately fell…Thanks for reading, Cheers!

The following is sourced and taken directly from 'Cirque du Soleil HRM Practices' ICMR center for Management Research, Manasi Pawar 2007.In 1980, Gilles Ste-Croix (Ste-Croix), with skills in stilt-walking, along with some performers founded Les Echassiers de Baie-Saint-Paul (Les Echassiers), and began street performances. Soon Laliberte and Daniel Gauthier (Gauthier) joined the group. In the same year, Gauthier and Ste- Croix planned to turn Le Balcon Vert, a performing artists' youth hostel that they managed into an organized performing troupe. To raise funds for this purpose, Ste-Croix stilt-walked between Baie- Saint-Paul and Quebec City. This attracted the attention of the Quebec Government and it provided the trio with the necessary funds. Their maiden tour was that of Quebec in 1980.However, initially Les Echassiers was a commercial failure and suffered substantial losses. In late 1980, the trio formed the Club des Talons Hauts, a troupe formed by bringing together many street performers like fire eaters, mime artists, jugglers and stilt walkers. The venture, known as "High- Heels Club", started making profits by 1981.By September 1981, Les Echassiers had broken even. The trio decided to organize a fair, where they could exchange ideas with other performers and also learn new tricks. The fair, which first toured in July 1982, was called the “La Fete Foraine de Baie St-Paul” (La Fete Foraine). La Fete Foraine also held workshops to teach the circus arts to anyone interested in learning them. These people could then take part in the performances.In 1984, during 450th anniversary of Jack Cartier's discovery of Canada, the troupe convinced the organizers of the celebrations in Quebec to provide them with a grant running to C$1.2 million. This led to the subsequent formation of Cirque. The company performed shows across Quebec. Laliberte chose the name Cirque du Soleil for his company as he saw the sun as a symbol of youth, energy, power, and light.From the very beginning, Cirque's shows were quite different from the shows of a traditional circus. Cirque's shows had much more to offer as it had artists from several countries performing in the show. It created a new circus experience with amazing light effects, own music, and radically different costumes. To attract audience, traditional circuses, often included performances by well known and famous artists. Cirque did not employ noted performers to pull crowds. Laliberte believed that no performer could be bigger than Cirque itself. Cirque did not include animals in its acts, and by not including animals, the company avoided attacks from animal rights activists and the huge costs involved in maintaining and moving the animals. Cirque also avoided loud background music which was common in traditional circuses.After its first tour in 1984, Cirque received an additional grant from the Quebec government. With these funds, Cirque carried out a major renovation organizing itself into a formal circus. For this purpose, Laliberte met with Guy Caron, founder of Canada's National Circus School. Caron began working as Cirque's artistic director. Both Laliberte and Caron played a major role in redesigning Cirque. There was a live band that played strong, emotionally charged music from the start till the end. The performers themselves moved the props and the equipment on and off the stage, blending the process into their performance. This way, the main storyline of the performance was not disrupted.In 1985, the troupe performed outside Quebec for the first time when it held a show in the neighboring province Ontario. The positive response from the audience encouraged Laliberte to expand Cirque's operations outside Quebec. In the next year, Cirque performed at the Children's Film Festival in British Columbia and at a world fair in Vancouver. By this time, Cirque had a seating capacity to 1500. However, some of the shows failed, leaving Cirque in a financial mess. In late 1985, the performance in Toronto received a poor response from the audience with just 25 percent of the seats being filled. A subsequent show at Niagara was also a failure. As a result, Cirque went deep into debt – to the tune of US$750,000. However, the company did not go bankrupt as Cirque's financial institution, the Desjardins Group, postponed Cirque's debt payment of US$200,000. The Quebec government granted sufficient funds to the company so that it could sustain itself for another year. At that time, Daniel Lamarre, then President and CEO of largest TV broadcaster in Quebec, joined Cirque. Earlier, Lamarre worked with public relation firms like National Public Relations and Burson-Marsteller.In 1987, the status of Cirque was changed from non-profit to a for-profit entity. That year, the troupe was invited to the Los Angeles Arts Festival. Although the company was facing financial problems, Laliberte decided to take a chance and his troupe performed at the festival. The performance was a huge success. The show got noticed by Columbia Pictures, which got into talks with Laliberte and Gautier for making a movie about Cirque. However, Laliberte did not allow the deal to materialize as Columbia Pictures tried to control the production. This experience left him with the conviction that Cirque should be privately held so that he could have all the freedom needed to operate the company.The company could seat 2,500 people by the year 1990, and the tickets sold for as high as US$33.5 By this time, Cirque had different troupes touring several parts of the world and normally halting in cities for about four to five weeks. A new production named Nouvelle Experience which toured 13 major cities in the US and Canada over 19 months enjoyed an excellent response and by the end of its tour, 1.3 million people had seen it.By mid-1991, Cirque was able to convince Fuji Television Network (Fuji) to sponsor Cirque's tour of Asia and Fuji agreed to give US$40 million for the purpose. Cirque performed across eight cities beginning with Tokyo. At the same time, Cirque partnered with Circus Knie15 for a tour of Switzerland. The company also conducted a tour of North America with its production Saltimbanco ('Street Performer' in Italian) in 1992. Saltimbanco was a major success in North America and it then toured Japan for six months.Cirque also entered into a year-long agreement with Mirage, a Las Vegas hotel, to perform Nouvelle Experience. This was Cirque's first engagement of the kind. The fact that this was a huge success encouraged it to launch another production called Mystere, which began its performance at Mirage. Subsequently, Cirque entered into a ten-year contract with Mirage for the production. Steve Wynn (Wynn), owner of Mirage, also built a permanent facility for Cirque at the cost of US$ 20 million at his new resort, Treasure Island, which opened in 1994. This provided Cirque with a major and steady source of revenue. In addition to the revenues obtained by the company in terms of ticket sales, it was also earning a significant amount from the merchandise that it sold at the performances. There was also a considerable market for Cirque's CDs as the company had created quite a fan following for itself over the years.In 1995, Cirque established its first European headquarters at Amsterdam. The same year, Saltimbanco went on its first extensive European tour. In 1997, Saltimbanco presented its last performance in London. Cirque's next production was Alegria, which was performed all across Europe for over two years. Cirque's sales had increased manifold from US$30 million in 1994 to US$110 million in 1996. This growth was mainly because of the production Mystere. Mystere's revenues were at US$40 million. In 1997, Wynn constructed a US$60 million theater for Cirque at Bellagio, Las Vegas. Walt Disney also constructed another permanent theater to house Cirque at Walt Disney World, near Orlando, California. The same year, a US$22 million facility for rehearsals and costume designing activities called 'Creation Studio' was created by Cirque in Montreal. This also served as the company's headquarters.In October 1998, Cirque's new production 'O' (after 'eau', which means water in French) debuted at Bellagio. This production was unique with the performance being conducted in, above, and around an Olympic-sized 1.5 million gallon swimming pool that had been created for the purpose. The production cost was a whopping US$90 million and the tickets were priced at US$100 each. Another production La Nouba debuted at the newly constructed theater at Walt Disney World. Dralion, yet another new production, embarked on a three-year tour of North America in January 1999. Thus, Cirque concluded the 1990s with seven productions and performances in 22 countries in Asia-Pacific, North America, and Europe.