Battle of Turtucaia

The Battle of Turtucaia (; , "Bitka pri Tutrakan"), also known as Tutrakan Epopee (, "Tutrakanska epopeya") in Bulgaria, was the opening battle of the first Central Powers offensive during the Romanian Campaign of World War I. The battle lasted for five days and ended with the capture of the fortress of Turtucaia (now Tutrakan) and the surrender of its Romanian defenders.
Background.
By August 1916 the Central Powers found themselves in an increasingly difficult military situation – in the West the German offensive at Verdun had turned into a costly battle of attrition, in the East the Brusilov Offensive was crippling the Austro-Hungarian Army, and in the South the Italian Army was increasing the pressure on the Austro-Hungarians, while General Maurice Sarrail's Allied expeditionary force in northern Greece seemed poised for a major offensive against the Bulgarian Army.
The Romanian government asserted that the moment was right for it to fulfill the country's national ambitions by aligning itself with the Entente, and declared war on the Austro-Hungarian Empire on 27 August 1916. Three Romanian armies invaded Transylvania through the Carpathian Mountains, pushing back the much smaller Austro-Hungarian First Army. In a short time the Romanian forces occupied Orsova, Petrozsény, and Brassó, and reached Nagyszeben on their way to the river Maros, the main objective of the offensive.
In response the German Empire declared war on the Kingdom of Romania on 27 August, with the Kingdom of Bulgaria following suit on 1 September. On the next day the Bulgarian Third Army initiated the Central Powers' first major offensive of the campaign by invading Southern Dobruja.
Origins and state of the fortress.
Tutrakan was originally a Roman fort. During the reign of Emperor Diocletian (284–305) it developed into one of the largest strongholds of the Danubian limes. In the 7th century it became part of the Bulgarian Empire, until the latter was subjugated by the Ottoman Empire in the late 14th century. When the Ottoman Empire entered its period of decline, it relied on the Danube as its main defensive barrier in the Balkans. The enormous width of the river, however, proved insufficient to defend against the armies of the Russian Empire, which crossed it several times in its lower stretch during the numerous Russo-Ottoman Wars. To counter this constant threat the Ottoman military created the fortified quadrilateral Ruse–Silistra–Varna–Shumen, hoping to prevent any invaders from crossing the Balkan Mountains and threatening Istanbul. Tutrakan was situated on the northern side of the quadrilateral, on a stretch where the Danube is narrow, across from the mouth of the navigable Argeș River. This made it an excellent spot for a crossing and prompted the Ottomans to fortify it with a large garrison.
With the liberation of Bulgaria after the Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878), Tutrakan became an integral part of the country, but Bulgarian national ambitions were directed in general towards Macedonia and Thrace, and the defense of the Danube was largely neglected. As a result of the Second Balkan War, Tutrakan and the entire Southern Dobruja region were ceded to Romania in 1913, with the town being renamed to Turtucaia.
The Romanian General Staff immediately took measures to strengthen the defences of the town, designing it to serve as a bridgehead in the event of war with Bulgaria. Intensive construction work lasted for more than two years under the guidance of Belgian military engineers. The surrounding terrain was favorable for a bridgehead, as the heights overlooking the town form a plateau 7 to 10 kilometres wide, rising as high as 113 meters over the Danube, and being surrounded by numerous wide ravines.
The basic defense consisted of three concentric lines of trenches anchored on the river. The most forward of these were small outposts designed for surveillance. To the west, around the village of Staro Selo, the outer fortifications were of a more extensive character.
The main defensive line was constructed on the very edge of the plateau in order to keep enemy artillery away from any bridge that could be built to Turtucaia. The line stretched for almost 30 kilometers and had as its heart fifteen "centers of resistance", forts numbered from one to 15 and bearing the names of local settlements - "Turtucaia", "Staro Selo", "Daidâr", "Sarsânlar" etc. Each of these incorporated two shelters for 50 to 70 soldiers, with roofs supported by iron rails or wooden boards, on top of which a two-meter layer of earth was laid. Their profile was low, rising only about 60 centimeters, thus ensuring reasonable protection against field artillery shells. Spaced from 1.2 to 2.2 kilometers apart, the individual forts were linked by shallow trenches and machine gun nests, which were in turn connected via communication trenches to the rear of the main defensive line. The intervening spaces were further covered by rifle and machine gun positions in the flanks of the forts. The "centers of resistance" were well protected by barbed wire obstacles that reached a depth of 10 to 15 meters, but they were placed some 50 metres away from the firing line and thus could not be defended with hand grenades. A hundred meters in front of the main line the Romanians had built three rows of pitfalls and barbed wire that ran continuously from fort 15 to fort 3. Most of the artillery was placed in the main defensive line, although several pieces, along with trenches and machine guns, were placed on the nearby islands of the Danube in order to support the Romanian Danube Flotilla, which was tasked with providing artillery cover on the western approaches to the fortress.
Some four kilometers from the main defensive line and three kilometers from Turtucaia itself lay the secondary defensive line of the fortress. It consisted of a single line of trenches with few prepared machine gun nests or obstacles, and no artillery at all. With their attention focused almost entirely on the main defensive line, the Romanian command largely ignored this secondary line.
For command purposes the entire area of the fortress was divided into three sectors: I (west), II (south) and III (east), also named after local villages - Staro Selo, Daidâr, and Antimova. Each of them had its own commander.
The garrison.
The defense of the Danube and Dobruja frontiers was entrusted to the Romanian Third Army, under the command of General , who had his headquarters in Bucharest. The fortress of Turtucaia was commanded by the head of the Romanian 17th Infantry Division, General , who by the beginning of the conflict had the following forces at his disposal:
17th Infantry Division (Teodorescu)
Romanian battle strength stood at 19 battalions, with over 20,000 men and 66 machine guns. Only three of the battalions were of the standing army, with the rest drawn from the reserve. A valuable asset for the garrison was the assistance of the Romanian Danube Flotilla, consisting mainly of the 2nd Monitor Division: "Brătianu", "Kogălniceanu" and "Catargiu".
General Teodorescu could rely on a large artillery park, consisting by the end of August of over 157 guns ranging in caliber from 7.5 to 21 centimeters; however, most of these were fixed guns that lacked modern, quick-firing capability. The trench artillery consisted of numerous small-caliber turret guns, while the mobile horse-drawn artillery had 23 guns, only eight of them quick-firing. In the Western Sector the troops benefited from the guns of the Danube Flotilla. Almost all of the artillery was deployed in the main defensive line, but the fixed artillery in particular was positioned in a way that made it difficult for all the guns to concentrate their fire on a single spot. The cannon were distributed in equal quantities among the sectors, leaving no reserve at all. Compounding these difficulties was the fact that the guns, in most cases, were firing from platforms, which meant that their position could not be shifted.
The garrison of Turtucaia was connected to Olteniţa, which lay across the Danube, by a submerged telephone cable, and to Third Army headquarters in Bucharest by a wireless telegraph station; however, it remained relatively isolated from the nearest Romanian units in Dobruja. The 9th division was almost 60 kilometres to the east in Silistra, while the 19th Division and 5th Cavalry brigade were 100 kilometres to the south-east, around Bazargic (now Dobrich). The Romanian 16th, 20th, 18th Infantry and 1st Cavalry divisions were all on the left bank of the Danube and could be used to reinforce the fortress if needed.
In general, despite some of the defence's defects, the Romanian command was convinced of the strength of the fortress, and confident in its ability to hold out against major enemy attacks. It was often referred to as "the second Verdun", or "the Verdun of the East". This comparison was not entirely without justification. Most of the major European fortresses had forts of the same type as the 15 around Turtucaia; e.g. Liège had 12, Przemyśl had 15 and Verdun itself had 23.
The attackers.
To protect their Danube frontier the Bulgarians had activated their Third Army as early as September 1915, giving its commander, Lieutenant General Stefan Toshev, almost a year to train and equip his troops. When Romanian intentions became clear in the middle of 1916, strengthening Third Army became a priority for the Bulgarian high command.
At the end of August the army was subordinated to Army Group Mackensen, under the overall command of Field Marshal August von Mackensen, who had transferred his headquarters from the Macedonian front for the specific purpose of coordinating the offensive against Romania. By 1 September the Third Army had concentrated 62 infantry battalions, 55 artillery batteries and 23 cavalry squadrons on the Dobruja frontier. For operations against the Turtucaia fortress General Toshev planned to use the left wing of his army, composed of the following:
4th Preslav Infantry Division (Kiselov)
1/1st Infantry Brigade (Nedialkov)
German-Bulgarian Detachment (von Hammerstein from 4 September)
The battle strength of these forces consisted of 31 infantry and reserve battalions, 29 batteries and 7 squadrons or a total of around 55,000 men with 132 artillery pieces and 53 machine guns. This ensured the initial numerical superiority of the attackers both in men and firepower, but most of the Bulgarian units, with the notable exception of the 1st Brigade of the 1st Sofia Infantry Division, did not have direct combat experience, as they did not take part in the Serbian Campaign. They had, however, profited from recent improvements in the Bulgarian Army, including the addition of more machine gun companies and heavy artillery as well as improved communications and logistical support.
The Bulgarian and German artillery consisted of modern quick-firing howitzer, field or long guns that varied in caliber from 7.5 to 15 centimeters. Unlike the Romanians, however, the Bulgarians and Germans could not rely on supporting fire from their allied Danube monitors because the Austro-Hungarian Danube Flotilla had been bottled up in the Persina channel by passive and active Romanian measures. For reconnaissance, observation and directing of the artillery fire, the invading forces had also deployed a balloon and several aircraft.
Initially general Toshev retained direct control over the left wing of his army, but as the battle progressed it was realized that a common command on the battlefield itself was needed, and general Panteley Kiselov, the commander of the 4th Preslav Division, was placed in charge of all forces operating against Turtucaia. While retaining the control of his division he did not receive any additional staff, which created problems with the coordination of the forces. Nonetheless general Kiselov and his chief of staff Lieutenant Colonel Stefan Noykov were rated excellent officers by the Germans and represented the top divisional leadership in the Third Army.
The Bulgarian government took great care in assisting the preparations of the operations and declared war on Romania on 1 September—five days after the German government, a move that had initially caused a great deal of concern in the German high command.
Strategic planning.
The Bulgarian plan.
On 28 August field marshal Mackensen issued his first directive to the Bulgarian Third Army, ordering it to prepare for a decisive advance aimed at seizing the vital crossing points on the Danube in Southern Dobruja. This envisaged the simultaneous capture of both Turtucaia and Silistra by the 4th and 1st divisions. Though general Toshev began deploying his forces as required by the field marshal, he was deeply opposed to dividing them in two and attacking both fortresses. On 31 August the two men met at the Gorna Oryahovitsa train station to exchange thoughts on the operation. Relying on his better intelligence on Romanian forces in Dobruja and the state of their fortifications, the general managed to convince the field marshal to prioritize the capture of Turtucaia over that of Silistra, and concentrate all available forces for that purpose alone. On the same day Toshev presented a detailed plan for the assault, according to which the army would advance on 2 September with its left wing against the bridgehead while the 3/1 Infantry Brigade moved in the direction of Silistra to cover its flank. The right wing of the army, consisting of the 6th Infantry Division and the Varna Garrison, was to advance against Bazargic and Balcic with the 1st Cavalry Division linking it to the left wing. On the next day von Mackensen approved the plan with minor adjustments, such as requiring that the 2/1 Infantry Brigade be kept in reserve for the defense of the right flank of the forces attacking Turtucaia. After receiving the field marshal's sanction, the staff of Third Army moved to Razgrad, from where it began coordinating final preparations for the offensive.
On 1 September von Mackensen received a telegram from the new Chief of the German General Staff von Hindenburg informing him that German and Austro-Hungarian build up in Transylvania would be completed no sooner than the second half of September while the forces that were already deployed would be able only to defend their positions against the advancing Romanians. Von Hindenburg and the Bulgarian commander in chief general Zhekov then both confirmed the orders of the Bulgarian Third Army to advance into Dobruja in order to draw and defeat as many Romanian and Russian forces as possible, stressing the importance of a rapid success for the entire Romanian Campaign.
The Romanian plan.
The Romanian plan, or the so-called Hypothesis Z, required most of the country's forces to invade Transylvania, while its almost 150,000-strong Third Army assumed a defensive stance along the Danube and Dobruja frontiers for ten days. Thereafter, the southern forces would attack from the Dobruja into Bulgaria with the expected assistance of general Andrei Zayonchkovski's Russian Army Corps and establish a tenable position on the Ruse–Shumen–Varna line, thus providing the northern armies operational freedom.
The Russians crossed the Danube on schedule and concentrated around Cobadin. On 31 August General Aslan subordinated the 19th Romanian Infantry Division, which was deployed in Bazargic, and created the Eastern Operations Group under the command of general Zayonchkovski. The Romanians decided to defend both Turtucaia and Silistra along with the entire Dobruja frontier in order to ensure themselves appropriate conditions for their future drive into Bulgaria. General Aslan realized that his forces were too dispersed for this task and ordered the Russians to deploy closer to the fortresses, but general Zayonchkovski thought that he should concentrate his corps first at Bazargic and then if the conditions allowed move towards Turtucaia and Silistra. Thus valuable time was lost in solving this question and the Russian corps began moving south on 3 September.
The battle.
Encirclement of Turtucaia (2–4 September).
Early on the morning of 2 September the Bulgarian Third Army crossed the Romanian border along its entire length, and its left wing began closing on the fortress. Colonel Kaufman's German-Bulgarian detachment advanced against Sector I (West) of the fortress, pushing back the weak Romanian vanguards and taking up positions to the east of the village of Turcsmil, where they were halted by strong Romanian artillery fire from the Danube Flotilla and batteries on the river islands. The 4th Preslav Division, delivering the main attack in Sector II (South), quickly overran the Romanian outposts, the Romanian soldiers retreating so fast that none were captured. The division advanced between 15 and 23 km and came within 2.7 kilometers of the main defensive line, while shortening its front from 20 to 10 kilometers. Meanwhile, in Sector III (East) the Bulgarian 1/1 Infantry Brigade met no resistance at all, as the Romanian commander had pulled his troops behind the main defensive line before coming under attack.
By the evening of the first day the Romanians had abandoned almost their entire preliminary line of defense in favor of the main (second) defensive line. From there they put up continuous rifle fire, supported by occasional artillery fire, throughout the night of 2/3 September - perhaps belying disorganization and nervousness, as the Bulgarian units were, as yet, well out of range. The Romanian command was slow to react to the developing situation, with General Aslan remaining in Bucharest. He ordered general Zayonchkovski to approach the Bulgarian frontier with his forces, but the order was only carried out after extensive delays. Attempts were also made to send reinforcements from the reserves around the capital, but these too were delayed due to the general confusion and congestion accompanying the Romanian mobilization.
On 3 September the Bulgarians began consolidating their positions. To do this more effectively the German-Bulgarian detachment was ordered to take height 131, west of Staro Selo, where it would secure a staging area for the assault on the Romanian forts in Sector I (West). The defenders here were relatively well entrenched and protected by rows of barbed wire, while the attackers had to advance through an open field with their flanks exposed to fire from the Romanian monitors and some of the trenches. Romanian positions further south, around the village of Senovo, were fronted by low hills that could provide cover for advancing infantry, which prompted Colonel Kaufman to divide his detachment into three columns (commanded by Colonel Vlahov, Major von Hamerstein, and Colonel Drazhkov) and use one to attack towards Senovo while the other two supported it. Advancing at about 5 am, Colonel Vlahov's force initially met little resistance; however, Romanian fire gradually intensified, and the Bulgarian column was exposed to flanking fire from the main defensive line. Some of the soldiers reached the barbed wire, but were unable to get through it. At noon the units were ordered to dig in on the positions they had reached. Colonel Vlahov's request for reinforcement was denied. Romanian counterattacks forced the Colonel to order the troops to retire about 300 meters from the barbed wire and dig in. The advance of Major von Hamerstein, met with strong rifle and monitor fire, achieved little. Colonel Drazhkov, meanwhile, repelled Romanian flanking attacks, but his advance was stalled by strong artillery fire at about 50 meters from the Romanian barbed wire. Overall, the attackers in this sector suffered around 300 casualties. They did not achieve their objectives, and had to wait until the next day as darkness settled over the battlefield.
After a rainy night the 4th Preslav Division used 3 September to approach the barbed wire of the main defensive line in Sector II, driving away Romanian patrols, taking Daidâr (now Shumentsi), and repositioning its heavy artillery. In the process the division repelled several Romanian counterattacks, while sustaining light casualties. In Sector III the 1/1 Infantry Brigade managed to close in on the main defensive line without opposition.
The Romanian position was gradually deteriorating. General Teodorescu was forced to respond to requests from the commanders of sectors I and III for reinforcements by sending them his last reserves (which would prove futile, as the main Bulgarian attack was to be delivered in Sector II). Despite Teodorescu's pessimistic reports, the Romanian high command retained its hope that the fortress would hold until relieved by Romanian and Russian forces advancing from the east, or that the garrison would be able to break the encirclement and retreat to Silistra. On 3 September the first attempts to assist Turtucaia were made by the Romanian soldiers on the right wing of the Bulgarian Third Army, but they were defeated by the Bulgarian 1st Cavalry Division at the villages of Cociumar and Karapelit, where a brigade of the Romanian 19th Division suffered the following casualties: 654 killed or wounded and at least 700 captured.
At about 11 am on 3 September General Toshev, having exchanged thoughts with General Kiselov, issued Order No. 17 for the next day's attack on Turtucaia. It stated that the commander of the 4th division was to assume control over all forces operating against the fortress and determine the exact hour of the infantry attack, once the preliminary artillery barrage had inflicted sufficient damage. Major von Hammerstein and his group were to attack and take fort 2 in Sector I (West), the main attack was to be delivered by the 4th Division against forts 5 and 6 in Sector II (South), and finally, the 1/1 Brigade was to capture fort 8 in Sector III (East). To protect the right flank of these forces, General Toshev tasked the remaining two brigades of the 1st Sofia Infantry division with monitoring Romanian activity in Silistra. When Kiselov received this order, he used his new position as overall operational commander to make several changes to the plan. Forts 5 and 6 were now to be attacked only by the Kmetov Brigade, while the Ikonomov Brigade was directed against fort 7. All the heavy artillery was placed under the commander of the 2nd Heavy Regiment, Colonel Angelov, who was to execute the planned artillery barrage from 9 am. The infantry was to approach to within 150 meters and wait for the barrage to end. Angelov, however, felt that intelligence on the Romanian positions was insufficient and that the Bulgarian batteries needed better positioning, so he asked that the attack be postponed for one day. In addition, communication with von Hammerstein's group was weak, and the two German minenwerfer companies that were crucial for the advance in that sector needed more time to position themselves. This convinced general Kiselov to delay the attack.
September 4 was spent in additional preparation for the attack. Active fighting continued only in Sector I, where von Kaufman's detachment had to finish the attack on height 131, which it had started the previous day, and secure the staging ground for the assault on fort 2. This objective was achieved early in the morning with relative ease, most of the Romanian defenders having retired to the main defensive line. That day field marshal Mackensen recalled von Kaufman to Byala, and the German - Bulgarian detachment was placed under the command of Major von Hammerstein.
General Teodorescu continued sending pessimistic and even desperate reports to the Romanian high command and asking for reinforcements. This time he was not ignored: the 10th and 15th divisions, representing the army's strategic reserve, were ordered to move south towards Olteniţa - the first to guard the river shore and the latter to prepare to cross the Danube and assist the garrison in Turtucaia. These were seventeen battalions from the Romanian 34th, 74th, 75th, 80th regiments plus one battalion from the 84th Regiment and 2 battalions from the 2nd Border Regiment, supported by 6 artillery batteries. These new, fresh troops allowed the Romanians to gain numerical superiority over the Bulgarians, but once again they were delayed on their way and would arrive gradually on the battlefield, reducing their impact on the overall course of the battle. The first reinforcements crossed the Danube late in the afternoon and during the night on 4 September. When they stepped on the southern shore they were immediately parceled out to strengthen the different sectors, with no regard for the direction of the main Bulgarian attack or for the establishment of a sufficient reserve.
Fall of the fortress (5–6 September).
By 5 September the garrison had been able to strengthen some parts of the main defensive line with the help of the newly arriving reinforcements. In Sector I, forts 1 to 5 were guarded by nine and a half battalions chiefly from the Romanian 36th Infantry regiment, stiffened with battalions from the 40th, 75th and 80th infantry regiments, as well as four companies from 48th and 72nd militia battalions. Sector II was reinforced with 4 battalions of the 74th and 75th regiments to a total of 8 battalions, but only after the attack had started. Sector III was also reinforced as the assault developed by various infantry, militia and border units until it reached a strength of 14 battalions. The initial reserve of the fortress had been spent on reinforcing the lines, and only on 5 September was a small reserve of newly arrived reinforcements established. It consisted of one infantry battalion, one border battalion, and one infantry company.
Thus in the decisive Sector II the Bulgarians were able to secure a substantial numerical superiority during the initial phase of the assault:
At 5:30 am a Bulgarian observation balloon pulled by an automobile ascended to the sky to direct the planned barrage. Exactly an hour later Colonel Angelov gave the order for the preliminary artillery bombardment to begin. The cannons concentrated their fire on the forts and obstacles between them, and at 7:40 am the observation post at Daidâr reported that groups of Romanian soldiers were leaving forts 5 and 6, making their way through the communication trenches leading to the rear. The Romanian batteries tried to respond, but the effort was not well coordinated; their sporadic fire (indicating low stocks of ammunition) wasn't aimed at the heavy batteries of the attackers, and their fire ceased immediately after the Bulgarians had opened fire at them. The power of the Bulgarian barrage even deceived General Teodorescu into believing that it was executed by 30.5 cm cannons, when in fact there were none. By 8:00 am three out of four fortress batteries in Sector II had their fire suppressed or were destroyed, which forced Teodorescu to send the 1/5 Howitzer Section to the area. It took up position behind fort 8 without being noticed by the Bulgarians.
At about 8:00 am Colonel Angelov informed General Kiselov and Lieutenant Colonel Noykov that in his opinion the artillery had achieved sufficient results for the infantry to begin its advance. The general was not entirely convinced, but as the artillery barrage was supposed to continue while the infantry was approaching the line, he ordered the commanders of the 3/4, 1/4 and 1/1 infantry brigades to begin the attack, and all officers to make an example by personally leading their men in the assault. Later this order was also received by von Hammerstein and the commander of the 47 Infantry Regiment.
According to plan, Colonel Kmetov's brigade attacked forts 5 and 6, which were defended by the Romanian 79th Infantry Regiment. The 19th Shumen Regiment, divided in two groups and supported by the 48th Regiment, prepared to descend along a slope directly facing the Romanian fortifications to the bottom of the ravine in front of the Daidâr village. As soon as the infantry began advancing it was met with strong rifle and machine gun fire supported by the smaller caliber Romanian turret guns that had survived. Bulgarian field and heavy artillery, still concentrated on Romanian batteries behind the defensive line, provided little direct support. Assisted by covering fire from its machine guns, the brigade managed to reach the first obstacles in front of the main defensive line by 10:30 am, and the infantry rushed them and the barbed wire through passages made by the pioneers under heavy fire. Half an hour later the 1/19 battalion and part of the 3/48 battalion, which were part of the brigade's right group, captured fort 6 and the trenches to the east of it. The left group was temporarily held up by Romanian fire, but by 12:30 it had driven the Romanians out of their trenches and achieved control of the main defensive line in that part of the sector. After the fall of forts 5 and 6 the Bulgarians pursued the retreating defenders until 16:00, advancing two kilometers to the north of the main defensive line. The Kmetov Brigade captured 250 soldiers, 4 heavy batteries, six 53 mm turret guns and many rifles. Its artillery had fired 2,606 shells. Both Romanian and Bulgarian infantry losses were heavy, with the 19th Shumen Regiment suffering 1,652 casualties.
To the east of the 3/4 Brigade was the Ikonomov Brigade, tasked with the capture of fort 7. During the night, its 7th Preslav and 31st Varna Infantry Regiments had gotten within 600 meters of the line's artificial obstacles. They began their assault at about 8:00 am on 5 September, but, in spite of suppressing fire from their artillery, met strong Romanian resistance. At 9:30 the forward units were forced to halt and take cover some 200 meters from the obstacles. This was partly a result of the shifting of positions of the Bulgarian artillery, as the 1/15 artillery section had been ordered to move forward in direct support of the advancing infantry. The section took up new positions on a ridge east of Daidâr and immediately opened fire on the trenches around forts 6 and 7. At 10:30 the 31st Regiment rushed the obstacles and, under heavy fire, began scaling the slope leading to fort 7. The Bulgarians managed to enter the fort and its neighboring trenches, where they were engaged in a costly close quarter battle while exposed to fire from their own artillery. By 11:20 the Romanians had been completely expelled, but with its commander wounded and its units disorganized the 31st Regiment did not pursue, and was content with firing on the retreating defenders from the trenches.
The 7th Preslav Regiment meanwhile had been faced with even stronger Romanian fire, and was able to advance only at about 12:00, when its commander, Colonel Dobrev, personally led the assault against a fortification thought by the Bulgarians to be fort 8, but which was actually one of the so-called subcenters of defense that were situated in the gaps between the forts. Many of the defenders had retreated from the line, and those who remained were captured. Parts of the regiment continued to pursue beyond the main defensive line until 13:35, when Colonel Dobrev ordered them to halt. When it was realized that this was not fort 8 he ordered his infantry to cut the retreat routes of that fort, but the Romanians managed to prevent this with artillery fire.
By the afternoon of 5 September the forts of the main defensive line in Sector II had all fallen into the hands of the attackers. The Romanian 79th Regiment which had defended the sector was practically destroyed. It was left with only 400 effectives, having suffered 46 officers and 3,000 soldiers killed or wounded. The newly arriving Romanian battalions were unable to prevent the Bulgarian breakthrough, and, with the remnants of the 79th Regiment, tried to prepare the secondary defensive line. In this they were helped by the thick forest behind the main defensive line, which made it hard for the Bulgarian units - intermixed, disorganized, and unprepared for their own success - to advance.
In Sector III the artillery bombardment began at 6:55, and by 8:15 had achieved considerable success in damaging the Romanian fortifications, forcing some of the defenders to flee to the rear and the Danube. The 1st and 6th Bulgarian regiments advanced through a large corn field that made their movement almost undetectable and by 11:30 reached the plateau north of Antimova. Only now did the Romanians in forts 8 and 9 spot them and open fire, temporarily halting the Bulgarian advance. Colonel Nedialkov, who was with the supporting units, immediately ordered part of the artillery to move forward and directly support the infantry. Following this the 1st Sofia Regiment and the neighboring 4/6 battalion rushed the barbed wire and crossed it without difficulty. This and the breakthrough achieved by the 4th Preslav Division to the west caused the wavering Romanian soldiers to abandon their trenches and retreat to the rear, and by 13:30 the surrounding trenches of fort 8 had fallen. The fort itself was taken simultaneously by parts of the 1st and 7th regiments. After these successes the brigade was directed to conquer the remaining parts of the Eastern Sector, including forts 9, 10, 11 and 12. Meeting little resistance, as the arriving Romanian reinforcements were often caught up by retreating units and compelled to join them, the Bulgarians accomplished this task and by 21:30 reached the shore of the Danube, completing the isolation of the fortress.
The attack in Sector I was delayed considerably as Major Hammerstein gave orders to the three groups of his detachment for the attack on fort 2; he also demanded a prolonged artillery bombardment to better secure the advance of the infantry. So it was only at 14:30, when the guns concentrated their fire on the fort itself, that the major gave the order for the first and second groups to attack. Despite the artillery fire they faced, the Bulgarians and Germans advanced with relative ease as the Romanians, despite their large number, began retreating and even fleeing in panic to Turtucaia. Around 13:00 general Teodorescu ordered the commander of the sector to abandon forts 2, 3, 4 and 5. By the end of the day only fort 1 was still in Romanian hands, as it had powerful artillery cover from the Danube monitors and batteries on the left bank of the river.
By the evening of 5 September the entire main defensive line (save two forts) had been taken, along with all of the Romanian fixed artillery and part of the mobile artillery. The Romanian units were so disorganized that a planned counterattack with the new reinforcements from the 15th Division had to be postponed for the next day. The Bulgarian units, especially those of the 4th Infantry Division, had also suffered heavy casualties and needed the night for reorganization and better positioning of their artillery.
General Kiselov was visited by both General Toshev and Colonel Tappen, Mackensen's chief of staff. Both men were pleased with the day's events, and, despite the heavy casualties, urged him to carry on with the attack.
Resumption of the attack.
During the night of 5 September the Romanians established themselves as best they could on their much weaker secondary defensive position. General Teodorescu ordered a redeployment of forces so that 9 battalions were to defend Sector I, 12 battalions Sector II, 2 battalions Sector III and 5 battalions Sector IV, while an additional 7 battalions remained in reserve. This order, however, reached the troops only in the morning and the units were not able to execute it.
At around 4:30 am on 6 September the Bulgarian artillery again opened fire in sectors I and III. Men of the Bulgarian 4th division began crossing the large forest that separated the two main and secondary defensive lines. Aided by the powerful artillery preparation, the Bulgarian 7th and 31st infantry regiments advanced rapidly. By 12:30 they had passed through the trenches that had been abandoned by their defenders earlier in the day. At around 15:00 the two regiments of the 1/4 Brigade gathered on the hill overlooking Turtucaia itself. Meanwhile, the Kmetov Brigade also advanced, though not as quickly and with greater disorganization. Parts of it reached the northern end of the forest at 13:00 and immediately attacked the Romanian trenches, but it was only at 15:30 that the trenches were occupied, most of the defenders having already pulled out due to the success of the 1/4 Brigade and the artillery bombardment. By 17:30 the brigade reached the hill overlooking the town.
The 1/1 Infantry Brigade was ordered to coordinate its actions with the 4th Division and advance against the right flank of the defensive line. At about 6:50, while still waiting to go forward, the units came under attack from several Romanian battalions which threatened to envelop their flank, but who were stopped by Bulgarian reinforcements. After this both the 1st and 6th regiments advanced, and by 11:30 had come within 800 meters of the line. The Romanian defenders, believing that a Russian column was advancing from the east to help the encircled fortress, put up stout resistance; however, once they realized the "relief column" was in fact Bulgarian, they started retreating in panic. So the 1/1 Brigade was allowed to reach the vicinity of the town at 17:00.
In Sector I, Major Hammerstein's detachment entered the forest at 10:00, where it met very weak Romanian vanguards that were swiftly pushed back. During the afternoon it took fort 1 in the face of more determined Romanian resistance, then continued advancing until it was lined up next to the 4th Division.
The only way the garrison could now be saved was with help from outside forces, and as early as 5 September General Aslan ordered the commander of the 9th Division, General , to advance decisively from Silistra and relieve the besieged town. The commander executed this order by leaving 4 battalions in Silistra and sending the remaining 5 battalions, 4 batteries and 2 squadrons to break the siege. On 6 September these forces were met and defeated by the Bulgarian 3/1 Infantry Brigade, which had been ordered to protect the flank of the army, at the village of Sarsânlar (now Zafirovo), some 18 kilometers to the east of Turtucaia. This sealed the fate of the garrison.
With the situation deteriorating rapidly, General Teodorescu ordered his men to retreat and if possible try to break the encirclement in the direction of Silistra. At 13:40 he himself boarded a boat to cross the Danube, leaving behind thousands of panicked soldiers, some of whom tried to follow his example but ended drowning in the river or being hit by artillery fire. Romanian attempts to break out and escape towards Silistra also proved largely unsuccessful in the face of the Bulgarian artillery. As the Bulgarians entered the town the defenders began surrendering in large groups. At 15:30 colonel Mărășescu, who was now in charge of the garrison, and his senior officers wrote a note to general Kiselov in German and dispatched it to three of the sectors, offering the unconditional surrender of the fortress together with all its men and material. At 16:30 one of the truce-bearers reached the Bulgarian 1/31 battalion and was immediately dispatched to Colonel Ikonomov, who at 17:30, via telephone, informed General Kiselov of the note and its contents. Kiselov accepted the surrender on the condition that all military personnel be gathered on the plateau south of the town's barracks before 18:30.
Aftermath.
Casualties.
The Romanians committed around 39,000 men for the defense of the Turtucaia fortress, and over 34,000 of them became casualties. Only between 3,500 and 4,000 managed to cross the Danube or make their way to Silistra. These were the troops of the 9th Infantry Division, safely evacuated by the three river monitors. While the number of killed and wounded rose to between six and seven thousand men, the vast majority of the garrison - some 480 officers and 28,000 soldiers - surrendered or were captured by the Bulgarians. The attackers also captured all the military material of the fortress, including 62 machine guns and around 150 cannons, among them two Bulgarian batteries captured by Romania during the Second Balkan War. The heaviest fighting was in Sector II where the 79th Regiment, which in general was the unit that resisted the attacks the most, suffered 76% losses - out of 4,659 men some 3,576 were killed or wounded.
Bulgarian casualties were heavy. From 2 to 6 September they totaled 1,517 killed, 7,407 wounded and 247 missing. Of these, only 93 were killed and 479 wounded between 2 and 4 September. Around 82% of the total losses - 1,249 killed and 6,069 wounded - occurred on 5 September during the attack of the main defensive line. The heaviest fighting was in Sector II where, in one example, the 7th Preslav Infantry Regiment had 50% of its officers and 39.7% of its soldiers killed or wounded. Characteristically, almost all of casualties were suffered by the infantry, the heavy artillery having only 2 killed and 7 wounded. German casualties were 5 killed and 29 wounded.
Impact on the campaign.
The rapid fall of Turtucaia and the loss of two infantry divisions was a surprise with crucial consequences for the entire Romanian Campaign. Most importantly, it unnerved the Romanian High Command and severely affected the morale of the army and the people. The scale of the defeat forced Romania to detach several divisions from its armies in Transylvania, greatly reducing the impetus of the advance there. On 7 September that advance was restricted by the Romanian high command, and on 15 September it was halted altogether, even before the armies had linked up on a defensible front. Major changes were made in the command structure of the forces operating against the Bulgarian Third Army. General Aslan and his chief of staff were sacked. Command of the Romanian Third Army was taken over by General Averescu, and the Russo-Romanian forces in Dobruja were reorganized as the Dobruja Army under General Zayonchkovski.
The speed with which the victory was achieved was so unexpected by the Central Powers that even Field Marshal Mackensen, who was usually present on the site of important battles, hadn't planned to arrive on the battlefield until several days after the actual capitulation of the fortress. It boosted the morale of the Bulgarians and their allies as far away as the Macedonian front, as well as in political circles in Berlin and Vienna. Kaiser Wilhelm, who had been particularly depressed by Romania's entry into the war, celebrated with a champagne party for the Bulgarian representative at the headquarters of the German High Command. The suspension of the Romanian offensive in Transylvania, which had threatened to overrun the province, gave General Falkenhayn enough time to concentrate his force and go on the offensive by the end of September.


Irene of Larissa

Irene of Larissa () was the second wife and empress-consort (tsaritsa) of tsar Gavril Radomir of Bulgaria.
John Skylitzes reports Irene was a "beautiful captive from Larissa", and nothing else is known about her antecedents. Gavril Radomir married her around 999 after he had expelled his first Hungarian wife, who was pregnant at this time.
They had seven children, five sons and two daughters.
Gavril Radomir succeeded to the Bulgarian throne in 1014, but his reign was short. Skylitzes reports that Irene was murdered along with her husband by his cousin, Ivan Vladislav, who seized the throne in 1015. He also took steps to ensure his position and ordered the mutilation of their eldest son.


Toirdelbach mac Murchada meic Briain

Toirdelbach mac Murchada meic Briain (c. 999 – 23 April 1014) was the grandson of Brian Boru and one of the leaders of the Dál gCais-led Irish army at the Battle of Clontarf, where he was killed (likely by drowning) while leading Irish forces pursuing the fleeing Vikings.
Toirdelbach was the son of Murchad mac Briain, the putative heir of Brian, who was also killed at Clontarf.


IV Corps (Ottoman Empire)

The IV Corps of the Ottoman Empire (Turkish: "4 ncü Kolordu" "or" "Dördüncü Kolordu") was one of the corps of the Ottoman Army. It was formed in the early 20th century during Ottoman military reforms. It was disbanded at the end of World War I.
Formation.
Order of Battle, 1911.
With further reorganizations of the Ottoman Army, to include the creation of corps level headquarters, by 1911 the IV Corps was headquartered in Adrianople. The Corps before the First Balkan War in 1911 was structured as such:
Balkan Wars.
Order of Battle, October 17, 1912.
On October 17, 1912, the corps was structured as follows:
Order of Battle, October 29, 1912.
On October 29, 1912, the corps was structured as follows:
World War I.
Order of Battle, August 1914, November 1914.
In August 1914, November 1914, the corps was structured as follows:
Order of Battle, April 1915.
In late April 1915, the corps was structured as follows:
Order of Battle, Late Summer 1915, January 1916.
In late Summer 1915, January 1916, the corps was structured as follows:
Order of Battle, August 1916.
In August 1916, the corps was structured as follows:
Order of Battle, December 1916.
In December 1916, the corps was structured as follows:
Order of Battle, August 1917.
In August 1917, the corps was structured as follows:
Order of Battle, January 1918.
In January 1918, the corps was structured as follows:
Order of Battle, June 1918.
In June 1918, the corps was structured as follows:


Dutch in Belgium

The Dutch language used in Belgium can also be referred to as Flemish Dutch or Belgian Dutch. Dutch is the mother tongue of about 60% of the population in Belgium, spoken by approximately 6.5 million out of a population of 11 million people. It is the only official language in Flanders, that is to say the provinces of Antwerp, Flemish Brabant, Limburg, and East Flanders and West Flanders. Alongside French, it is also an official language of Brussels. However, in the Brussels Capital Region and in the adjacent Flemish-Brabant municipalities, Dutch has been largely displaced by French as an everyday language.
Belgian Dutch differs from Standard Dutch in terms of accent and vocabulary. The most spoken Dutch dialects in Belgium are West Flemish, East Flemish, Brabantian and Limburgish. Although the Brabant dialect of the Brussels working-class neighborhoods, in particular the Marolles, with their population has virtually disappeared, linguistic variants exist in a diminishing degree in which an influence of the Brabant can be discerned.
Changes and conflicts.
The position of Dutch in Belgium has improved considerably over the past 50 years at the expense of French, which once dominated strongly in political, economic and cultural life. The main reasons for this are the strengthened economic position of Flanders and the problematic situation of heavy industry in Wallonia since the 1960s.
The position of Standard Dutch as a general language has been reinforced at the expense of the previously almost exclusive use of the dialects as spoken languages. Incidentally, the status of the spoken Dutch standard is floating, which means that they are used at the socially higher level according to the rules that are also applicable in the Netherlands, but at the lower levels and especially in the local communication in many gradations to a dialect.
For a long time a Flemish standard has existed as a close variant of Standard Dutch existence, the so-called "Schoonvlaams". The spoken standard was also under the influence of Antwerp for a long time as a dialect with high status, which also applied outside this city. The high quality of the Dutch-speaking schools is an explanation for the growing success of the Dutch-speaking educational network in Brussels. On the other hand, French-speaking education has lacked to status due to the massive influx of non-French-speaking children.
The knowledge of French as a second language among Dutch speakers in Flanders decreases, especially for the benefit of English. In Flemish education, French is no longer a compulsory second language. Such a situation already existed in French-speaking Belgium with regard to Dutch. In schools in Wallonia, Dutch is often taught as an elective, and as such it must compete against English. There are also Walloon educational institutions where several subjects are taught in Dutch as a form of Language immersion.
Despite its name, Brabantian is the dominant contributor to the Flemish Dutch "tussentaal". The combined region, culture, and people of Dutch-speaking Belgium has come to be known as "Flemish". Flemish is also used to refer to one of the historical languages spoken in the former County of Flanders. Linguistically and formally, "Flemish" refers to the region, culture and people of (North) Belgium or Flanders. Flemish people speak (Belgian) Dutch in Flanders, the Flemish part of Belgium.
By region.
Brussels.
The Brussels-Capital Region is officially bilingual French–Dutch. This means that Dutch should be on an equal footing with French, which is often not the case at local Brussels level: in many municipal and regional services, hospitals, public transport, and also in shops and offices, Dutch is little used. On the other hand, Dutch in Brussels is important because the Flemish government resides there, alongside the federal government services, and especially because many Flemish people work in Brussels, but do not live there.
The last official census count in Brussels dates from 1947. At that time, the proportions were 24.24% Dutch-speaking and 70.61% French-speaking. Since then no official census have been carried out. These were abolished under Flemish political pressure because they were often performed unreliable and could not be an argument for further 'minorizing' Dutch. Since then, it has been necessary to rely on other sources to get an idea of the number of Dutch and French speakers in Brussels. Dutch speakers tend to congregate in the city's northern municipalities.
Languages spoken at home as determined by a 2013 survey are:
In the last decade Dutch seems to be used more, both in education, where this development has been going on for some time, and in economic and social life. In 2012, 35% of the higher education institutions in Brussels were Dutch-speaking. The percentage of participants in nursery and primary education who received Dutch lessons approached 25% in 2013. The percentage of participants in secondary and higher education who received Dutch lessons was also on the rise and in 2013 reached 17%. Among foreign inhabitants of Brussels, there is also a clear increase in both the number and percentage of children and adults choosing Dutch-speaking education.
Flanders.
Dutch is the official language in Flanders, but there are a number of Flemish municipalities in the Brussels Periphery with a French-speaking majority, which are officially Dutch-speaking with French-language facilities.
The number of people in Flanders who submitted their vehicle registration in French in 2010 is six times higher than the number of Dutch-language applications in Wallonia.
Wallonia.
To the east of the Flemish counties Voeren, in the Low Dietsch region in the Liège province, where a transitional dialect between Dutch and German is still being spoken. This regional language is closely related to that of Dutch South Limburgish, the dialect of Eupen and of the adjacent Aachen. These rural municipalities, which have been able to preserve their 'Platdietse' character despite two centuries of French-speaking administration, remained officially monolingual French after the establishment of the language border in 1963, although there is a legal possibility for facilities for Dutch or German. In the last three decades more and more Germans working in Aachen have settled in this region. They do not reinforce the Dutch language but a German language element.
There has also been a considerable linguistic deviation of Flemish workers with their families to the Borinage and the Liège industrial areas. This immigration took place from the 19th to the middle of the 20th century. These were mostly dialect speakers who had little or no knowledge of Standard Dutch and became French-speaking quite quickly. The conservative Belgian government and especially the Catholic clergy also saw such 'social risks' for Flanders in the rise of socialism in these industrial areas, and therefore stimulated train and tram traffic, which allowed the Flemish to continue to live in their own environment.
In the years after the Second World War, many Flemish farmers also moved to Wallonia, often because of the size of the farms and the attractive price of agricultural land. Dutch has also become more important in tourism, especially in the Ardennes. The Flemish and Dutch are increasingly serviced at campsites, hotels and attractions in their own language by Dutch-speaking staff. There are also more Flemish families now living across the language border because it is cheaper to build, buy or rent. These developments do not yet lead to legal facilities for Dutch speakers.
Characteristics.
Dutch is the majority language in northern Belgium, being spoken natively by three-fifths of the population of Belgium. It is one of the three national languages of Belgium, together with French and German, and is the only official language of the Flemish Region.
The various Dutch dialects spoken in Belgium contain a number of lexical and a few grammatical features which distinguish them from Standard Dutch. As in the Netherlands, the pronunciation of Standard Dutch is affected by the native dialect of the speaker.
All Dutch dialect groups spoken in Belgium are spoken in adjacent areas of the Netherlands as well. East Flemish forms a continuum with both Brabantic and West Flemish. Standard Dutch is primarily based on the Hollandic dialect  (spoken in the Western provinces of the Netherlands) and to a lesser extent on Brabantian, which is the dominant dialect in Flanders, as well as in the south of the Netherlands.
The supra-regional, semi-standardized colloquial form of Dutch spoken in Belgium uses the vocabulary and the sound inventory of the Brabantic dialects. It is often called Tussentaal ("in-between-language" or "intermediate language", intermediate between dialects and standard Dutch).


Lydia Manley Henry

Lydia Manley Henry DSc (30 June 1891 – 27 March 1985) was the first female graduate in medicine from the University of Sheffield. She served with the Scottish Women's Hospitals for Foreign Service during the First World War. She was awarded the Croix de Guerre by the French government. For her thesis on gangrene, based on her wartime experience, she was awarded the degree of MD, the first woman to graduate with this degree from the University of Sheffield.
Early life and education.
Lydia Henry was born in Macduff, Scotland. She was the daughter of William Paterson Henry (1853–1894) and his wife Elizabeth Dawson Murdoch (1856–1946). Her father died of tuberculosis when she was two years old. Her mother moved to Sheffield leaving her daughter to be brought up by an aunt in Macduff. At the age of 14, she relocated to Sheffield to join her mother, who had begun work at the Day Training College for Teachers in Sheffield and in 1905, became Vice-Principal of the City Training College. At this time, she felt able to care for her daughter again.
Henry was educated at the Sheffield High School for Girls. She enrolled in the Sheffield University Medical School in 1909. In June 1916, she graduated with an MB ChB, and along with fellow student, Florence Elizabeth Millard, they were the first women to receive a medical degree from the university. The next day she became the first woman to work as a hospital doctor in Sheffield.
Medical career.
Henry had further experience working as a house officer in Sheffield Royal Infirmary and the Sheffield Royal Hospital. During the World War I, it became easier for women doctors to find posts in teaching hospitals, as many male doctors were serving in the armed forces. Her experience included working in the Sheffield Royal Infirmary women's clinic for venereal diseases, the first woman doctor to do so.
The day after finishing as a house officer and becoming fully qualified to practise medicine, Henry enlisted in the Scottish Women's Hospitals for Foreign Service (SWH), working in the hospital set up in Royaumont Abbey, north-east of Paris. She arrived in July 1917 and was the youngest doctor on the staff. There, as an assistant surgeon, she had charge of the Blanche de Castille ward. She later served at the associated SWH hospital at Villers-Cotterêts, which treated French rather than British soldiers. After the war the French government awarded her the Croix de Guerre.
After the war, Henry worked on her MD thesis, which was on gangrene, based on her experiences with the condition at Royaumont. With this thesis, in 1920 she graduated from the University of Sheffield with the degree of MD, the first woman to do so. Appointment as assistant medical officer of health for Blackburn, Lancashire, followed. Her success in this post led to her appointment as head of the Social Services Department at the King's College for Women of the University of London, and she went on to become a member of its Senate.
Henry emigrated to Canada in 1925 and married, becoming Mrs J. Stewart Henry. She stopped practising as a physician. During World War II, she returned to Scotland, providing assistance onshore for the submarine crews operating out of north-east Scotland.
In 1978, the University of Edinburgh medical school awarded her the degree of DSc, on the occasion of its 150th anniversary.
Death and legacy.
She died in Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada, on 27 March 1985. A memorial to her memory was erected in her birthplace, Macduff, Scotland.


Judgement of God

Judgement of God (), is a French drama film from 1952, directed by Raymond Bernard, written by Pierre Montazel, and starring by Andrée Debar and Louis de Funès. The screenplay was based on the German legend from the 15th century. The German title is "Agnes Bernauer".


Imhoff family

The Imhoff, Imhof or Im Hof family is a noble patrician family that belonged to the wealthy trading dynasties and ruling oligarchy in the Free Imperial City of Nuremberg during its "Golden Age" in the Renaissance. The "Imhoff Trading Company" was one of the most important European traders between the 15th and 17th centuries. It maintained branches and trade connections throughout Europe and financed European courts with loans.
History.
The family was originally from Lauingen where they belonged to the patrician families. "Hans im Hof" (c. 1260-1341) is the first mentioned member and "Sigmund Imhof" was mayor of Lauingen in 1277. The city belonged to the hereditary Duchy of the Hohenstaufen emperors. After the death of their last offspring, Conradin, in 1268, Lauingen fell to Louis II, Duke of Bavaria, following which a number of young patricians left the city, including Konrad and Hans II Imhoff, to settle in the free imperial city of Nuremberg. Hans II married Lucia Gross, a granddaughter of the famous Nuremberg patrician Konrad Gross, donator of the Heilig-Geist-Spital, and was accepted as a citizen and incorporated into the ruling Nuremberg patriciate. The Nuremberg Imhoff family belonged to the circle of families that had an exclusive access to the Inner Council of Nürnberg, to which the family sent representatives between 1402 and 1806, with only short interruptions. The family was related to other protestant patrician families of Nuremberg like the Tucher or Haller.
The Imhoffs became prosperous through long-distance trade by supplying the markets and trade fairs in Frankfurt, Cologne, Strasbourg, in the Upper Palatinate and in Bohemia from Lauingen. The Nuremberg "Imhoff Trading Company" was first mentioned in 1381 in trade between Venice, Nuremberg and Eastern Europe. They worked closely together with other Nuremberg traders such as the Gross, Mendel, Pfinzing, Stromer and Pirckheimer families. Their retail range was extensive and mainly included spices, colors, precious metals, silk, canvas and cloth, wine, tobacco, leather and skins, weapons and Nuremberg handicraft products, the latter mostly in exchange (raw materials for finished goods). The family was also invested in the mining industry in Saxony and Silesia.
Hans IV Imhoff (d. 1499) founded a second trading company which, from the second half of the 15th century, concentrated on the trading centers of Western Europe. He had eight sons who not only maintained the older trading branches in Venice, Salzburg, Linz, Prague, Brno and Olomouc, but also founded new retail branches in Naples, Aquila, Messina, Lyon, Zaragoza, Lisbon, Antwerp and Amsterdam. In 1510 the Imhoffs founded a trading post in Bari, Italy, to ship Indian saffron via Venice to Germany. A brother of Hans V, Ludwig (1466–1533), went there and founded an Italian branch that remained in Bari until its extinction in 1719. In the saffron trade the Imhoffs became big competitors of the Tuchers. In 1505 three Imhoffs, as well as members of the Hirschvogel and Welser families, took part in an expedition on the first trade trip of Upper German merchants to India.
Hans V (1461-1522) also entered the banking business. He was a close friend of Willibald Pirckheimer, Lazarus Spengler, Albrecht Dürer, Adam Kraft and Eobanus Hessus, and supported them financially. His grandson Willibald Imhoff (1519–1580), also a grandson of Willibald Pirckheimer, became a famous art collector. He was portrayed by Titian, and after the death of Andreas Dürer (Albrecht's brother) Imhoff was able to acquire numerous works by Albrecht Dürer.
The family also spread to Bavaria and Austria, as well as Saxony, Braunschweig, Hanover and the Netherlands. The Augsburg branch became quite influential, however, unlike their Lutheran Nuremberg cousins, they were catholic. They provided several mayors to the city and were related to the Fugger family. The new Augsburg Town Hall was commissioned by mayor Hieronymus Imhoff (1575–1638) in 1609. He supported the Counter-Reformation and was therefore arrested by Swedish troops during the Thirty Years' War.
The Imhoff family donated numerous works of art in Nuremberg and elsewhere.
Imhof(f) is a common name in Germany, and not all persons named Imhoff belong to the patrician family. Several branches of the family still exist.


Filippo Castagna

Filippo Castagna (, 19 November 1765 – 26 January 1830) was a Maltese politician of the late 18th and early 19th centuries.
Castagna was born in Għaxaq on 19 November 1765. During the French occupation of Malta in 1798, he was chosen as a representative of the municipality of Żurrieq, Safi, Kirkop and Gudja. When a rebellion against French rule broke out in September 1798, Castagna supported the rebel cause and he was involved in the capture of Saint Thomas Tower from the French. On 18 February 1799, he was elected as a representative of Gudja to the rebel "Consiglio Popolare". He was also appointed as inspector of fortifications by the British Civil Commissioner Alexander Ball.
After the French surrendered and Malta became a British protectorate, Castagna was appointed as the "luogotenente" of Senglea and Cospicua. In November 1801, he was part of a delegation of six representatives who travelled to London to present the needs of the Maltese people to the British government. Civil Commissioner Charles Cameron described him as being popular, wise and having moderate views. After the death of Emmanuele Vitale in 1802, Castagna was appointed Governor of Gozo, and he held this position until it was abolished in 1814.
Castagna retired in 1814 and he moved to a house in St George's Bay in Birżebbuġa. He died on 26 January 1830 after a long illness, and he was buried inside the Għaxaq parish church.


John Salisbury (bishop)

John Salisbury, O.S.B. (died 1573) was a Welsh clergyman who held high office in the pre- and post-Reformation church in England.
He was the last Abbot of Titchfield; the abbey was dissolved in December 1537. Under the provisions of the Suffragan Bishops Act 1534, he was appointed and consecrated Bishop of Thetford on 19 March 1536. Three years later, he was also appointed Dean of Norwich on 20 August 1539, but in the reign of Queen Mary I, he was deprived of the deanery in early 1554. After the accession of Queen Elizabeth I, he was restored as Dean in 1559. He was also Chancellor of Lincoln Cathedral and Archdeacon of Anglesey.
He was nominated Bishop of Sodor and Man on 27 March 1570, which was confirmed on 7 April 1570. Whilst bishop, he continued to hold the deanery of Norwich "in commendam".
He died in September 1573 and was buried in Norwich Cathedral.


Stoppingas

The Stoppingas was a tribe or clan of Anglo-Saxon England. Their domain was Wootton Wawen and the valley of the River Alne in modern-day Warwickshire. The name of the tribe may have come from the personal name "Stoppa", who could have been the tribe's founder or leader, or earliest common ancestor.
The Stoppingas formed part of the Saxon kingdom of the Hwicce, which was later conquered and absorbed by the kingdom of Mercia.
In the mid eighth century Æthelbald of Mercia gave a grant of land in the region of the Stoppingas to Æthelric, the son of King Oshere of the Hwicce, for the purpose of establishing a Minster in the territory. Such an institution was subsequently built at Wootton Wawen, and the later "parochia" of this minster probably represents the extent territory of the Stoppingas.


2000 Jersey by-elections

The following by elections for Deputy took place in 2000 in Jersey.
St. Helier No. 1 District.
Election date: May 2000


Anna of Mecklenburg-Schwerin

Anna, Princess of Mecklenburg-Schwerin (14 September 1485, Plau am See – 12 May 1525, Rödelheim) was by marriage Landgravine of Hesse.
She was a daughter of Duke Magnus II of Mecklenburg (1441–1503), and Sophie of Pomerania-Stettin (about 1460 – 1504). She was a member of the 13th Generation of the Princely House of Mecklenburg.
Life.
"The historian has to give the landgravine a prominent place in the Hessian history", historian Hans Glagau wrote in 1899. Landgravine Anna of Hesse, born Duchess of Mecklenburg, would be worthy of a historical-critical biography. So far, however, an adequate representation of personality and life of the landgravine has not emerged.
In 1500, Anna married William II of Hesse (1469–1509). She was his second wife. Due to the early death of the ruler of Upper Hesse, William III (1471–1500), and the insanity of the Regent of Lower Hesse, William I (1466–1515), all of Hesse, including the county of Katzenelnbogen, was reunited in 1500 under William II. But Wilhelm II fell ill in 1504 – probably syphilis – and was incapable of governing in the following years.
In his first will (dated 1506), he appointed a Council of five guardians for his children Elisabeth (1502–1557) and Philip I (1504–1567) as well as his brother William I, his brother's wife Anna of Brunswick, and for his own wife.
In his second testament (dated 1508), he determined, however, that Anna would be guardian (next to his uncle, Hermann of Cologne, who died in September 1508) and appointed two counselors to assist her. However, Anna's claim to the regency was not recognized by the Estates of the Landgraviate of Hesse, nor by Saxony. In July 1509 there was a debate between Anna and the Hessian Estates, who were supported by the Saxon dukes. The second will was not recognized. During this period Anna lived at her Wittum in Gießen with her daughter Elisabeth, while her son Philip remained in Kassel under the supervision of Ludwig von Boyneburg to Lengsfeld. She was financially dependent on the Council and did not receive much money. This is evident among other things, an incident in 1512. In that year, Anna's sister Catherine married Duke Henry IV of Saxony. On this occasion, Anna wanted to introduce her daughter Elisabeth at the Saxon court, as she had been promised at a very early age to John, the eldest son of George the Bearded. Anna requested some damask for a proper dress from the council, but the request was denied. Anna then decided not to take her daughter to Dresden, because of her "shabby clothes".
Things changed in 1514: Anna came to power with the support of many nobles and cities. She was never officially recognized as a regent, but she ruled even past 1519, the year her son Philip was declared of age by Emperor Maximilian I.
We know very little about the last years of her life. In 1519 she married a second time, with the 23-year-old Count Otto of Solms-Laubach, who died three years later.
Offspring.
Anna first married on 20 October 1500 in Kassel the Landgrave William II of Hesse (1469–1509) with whom she had the following children:
On 7 September 1519 she married Count Otto of Solms-Laubach (1496–1522), a second marriage:
Importance.
Anna of Hesse's life is interesting from the point of view of theological history, because she directly influenced the time before the introduction of the Reformation in Hesse by Philip I in 1527. Her husband had ordered reforms in all monasteries in Hesse in his will. Anna tried to implement these reforms in some places, but the reforms only succeeded during Philip's rule, albeit he implemented them in his own way. It would seem very important for church historians to investigate Anna's influence on church policies and the church in Hesse in the Reformation in Hesse and elsewhere. She herself has worked tirelessly for the monasteries and Catholicism, causing a discord with her son.
The topic is important in a broader perspective, because it is about a period in the history of Hesse that hasn't been studied much in the past: the late Middle Ages, just before the Reformation, from the perspective of a prominent female regent. The chaotic conditions in Hesse during the years 1509–1518 were caused by the fact that no legitimate ruler was available, and power had to be exercised by a woman.
Also interesting in this context is the political delicacy of the conflicts between different interest groups: the Estates, Anna and Philip, the advisors appointed by William's will, the emperor and the princes of Saxony.
References.
In fiction:


Cottonwood Ranch

The Cottonwood Ranch is an historic site near Studley in Valley Township, Sheridan County, Kansas, United States. The ranch is now preserved as a Kansas State Historic Site.
The ranch was built by Abraham Pratt, an Englishman who first came to the United States during the years of the Colorado Gold Rush. After returning to England, he immigrated to Kansas with his sons John Fenton and Tom and settled in the Studley vicinity. Beginning in 1885, the men built a one-room stone house with a sod roof and dirt floor. After it proved inadequate for shelter from the winter conditions, it was re-roofed with wood, and it was expanded in later years. Other buildings at the ranch included a sod stable, a sod-walled corral, and a wood-framed outbuilding with a toilet. A storage cistern was constructed to store water from a natural spring on the property.
In 1983, the ranch property was listed on the National Register of Historic Places as the John Fenton Pratt Ranch.


Langelsheim

Langelsheim is a town in the district of Goslar, in Lower Saxony, Germany.
Geography.
The municipality is situated between the river Innerste and its tributary Grane, on the northern edge of the Harz mountain range and the Harz National Park, located about northwest of Goslar.
City subdivisions.
Langelsheim is divided into the following areas with the following population as of 30 June 2018:
History.
The place once called "Langenizze" developed in the 10th century out of a hill fort at the "Kahnstein" mountain, erected by the Ottonian dynasty. Langelsheim was the site of historic ironworks, first documented in the 13th century, where ore from the Mines of Rammelsberg was smelted.
Demographics.
As of 30 June 2018 there were 11,458 inhabitants in Langelsheim.
Politics.
Town council.
2006 local elections:
2016 local elections:
SPD: 12
FDP: 1
WGL: 6
CDU: 7
International relations.
Langelsheim is twinned with:


Battle of the Masts

The Battle of the Masts () or Battle of Phoenix was a crucial naval battle fought in 654 (A.H. 34) between the Muslim Arabs led by Abu al-A'war and the Byzantine fleet under the personal command of Emperor Constans II. The battle is considered to be "the first decisive conflict of Islam on the deep" as well as part of the earliest campaign by Muawiyah to conquer Constantinople.
Dating.
Al-Tabari records two possible dates for this naval battle: 651-2 (A.H. 31) on the authority of al-Waqidi and 654-5 (A.H. 34) on the authority of Abu Ma'shar al-Sindi. The chronicles of the Armenian Sebeos and Byzantine Theophanes concur with the latter date.
Background.
In the 650s the Arab Caliphate finished off the Sasanian Empire and continued its successful expansion into the Byzantine Empire's territories. In 645, Abdallah ibn Sa'd was made Governor of Egypt by his foster brother Rashidun Caliph Uthman, replacing the semi-independent 'Amr ibn al-'As. Uthman permitted Muawiyah to raid the island of Cyprus in 649 and the success of that campaign set the stage for the undertaking of naval activities by the Government of Egypt. Abdallah ibn Sa'd built a strong navy and proved to be a skilled naval commander. Under him the Muslim navy won a number of naval victories including repulsing a Byzantine counter-attack on Alexandria in 646.
In 654, Muawiyah undertook an expedition in Cappadocia while his fleet, under the command of Abu'l-Awar, advanced along the southern coast of Anatolia. Emperor Constans embarked against it with a large fleet.
Battle.
The two forces met off the coast of Mount Phoenix in Lycia, near the harbour of Phoenix (modern Finike). According to the 9th century chronicler Theophanes the Confessor, as the Emperor was preparing for battle, on the previous night he dreamed that he was in Thessalonica; awaking he related the dream to an interpreter of dreams who said: "Emperor, would that you had not slept nor seen that dream for your presence in Thessalonica" – according to the interpreter, victory inclined to the Emperor's foes. The interpreter interpreted the dream this way because Θεσσαλονίκη ("Thessaloniki") sounds similar to the words " (), which mean 'give victory to another'.
Due to the rough seas, Tabari describes the Byzantine and Arab ships being arranged in lines and lashed together, to allow for melee combat. The Arabs were victorious in battle, although losses were heavy for both sides, and Constans barely escaped to Constantinople. According to Theophanes, he managed to make his escape by exchanging uniforms with one of his officers.
Siege of Constantinople of 654.
Following their defeat, the respite the Byzantines were granted is typically ascribed to the Arab fleet retreating after its victory and conflict over the authority of Uthman among the crew, the first stirrings of a civil war among the Muslims. No further naval attacks on this expedition are recorded in traditional Arabic sources.
However the Armenian historian Sebeos records that the Arab fleet continued on beyond the battle at Phoenix to attempt a siege of Constantinople. The siege was unsuccessful, however, due to a fierce storm that sunk the ships with war machines aboard, an event the Byzantines attributed to divine intervention. The land force led by Muawiyah in Chalcedon, having lost their artillery and siege engines, returned to Syria thereafter.
Muslim sources do not mention this event but it corresponds to notices in other Christian histories of the eastern Mediterranean, such as the chronicle of Theophanes. It suggests the early 650s invasions of Rhodes, Cyprus, and Asia Minor were preparatory to a full-scale assault on the walls of Byzantium. Also it provides a strategic explanation for the Arab fleet's retreat following the victory in the Battle of the Masts, since the First Fitna would not break out until a year later, perhaps influenced by setbacks against the Byzantines and in the Caucasus.
Aftermath.
Both the Rashidun and Roman fleets endured major casualties. And although the Caliphate emerged victorious, they retreated to recoup their losses. Nonetheless, the victory was a significant event in the naval history of the Mediterranean Sea. From long being considered a ‘Roman lake’, the Mediterranean became a contending point between the naval might of the rising Caliphate and the Eastern Roman Empire.
This conflict would continue over the subsequent decades, with Muslims using their supremacy at Mediterranean to go as far as Sicily and establish strongholds in Western Europe. The victory also paved the path for uncontested Muslim expansion along the coastline of North Africa.


Antal Nagy de Buda

Antal Nagy de Buda or Antal Budai Nagy (died near Kolozsvár, Kingdom of Hungary (today Cluj-Napoca, Romania), December 10–14, 1437) was a petty nobleman from Kolozs County, Transylvania, who led the first major peasant revolt in medieval Hungary in 1437. He died in the decisive battle during the revolt, which subsequently failed.
Because of his name, his family might have originated from Nagybuda, Kingdom of Hungary (today in Romania). He lived in the neighbouring village of Diós.
The peasant uprising.
Antal Nagy de Buda lived in Diós, Kolozs County. His family got its name from the village of Nagybuda (today part of Chinteni, Cluj County) in Transylvania. As a soldier, he took part in the Hussite wars in the Czech Republic, where he first became acquainted with Hussitism and a new kind of fighting style.
In Transylvania, the peasants were increasingly taxed by the nobility in the 1430s. King Sigismund's spoilage of money (enforces by law the people to change the coins and made new one with less silver proportion) in particular provoked great uproar and hostility. Bishop György Lépes, moreover, excommunicated the serfs from the church if they refused to pay him decima. Due to the brutal oppression of the nobles, lot of serfs became a follower of Jan Hus(Hussites) in Transylvania.
The peasants gathered on Bábolna Hill were joined by Antal Nagy, along with many other little nobles who were also not satisfied. Antal Nagy was then elected leader by the insurgents because he had military experience. The Transylvanian peasant war started.
After the peasants' envoys were killed by László Csáki's Transylvanian voivode, Antal Nagy gathered the Hungarian and Romanian peasant armies (and some regular nobles). Having experience of the Hussite style of fighting, he arranged the insurgents in a chariot castle, and at Dés he attacked and defeated the knightly army of the nobles who had marched against them. The nobles were forced to negotiate with the insurgents and their leader. The first treaty of Kolozsmonostor was broken by the nobles as soon as another armed force was gathered. At Apáti the peasants prevailed again, and Antal Budai Nagy marched to Kolozsvár. However, despite the victory, the second treaty of the Kolozsmonostor convention was followed by further clashes by the end of the autumn. There were lot of peasant missed from Antal Nagy's army due to losses and departures. Their main strength, against the Transylvanian army marching against Kolozsvár, gathered the peasant army for another attack. They continued to fight resolutely, but in the end the peasant leader fell. The uprising soon failed, but until the recapture of Kolozsvár by the nobility's army on January 8, there were still peasant uprising in Northern Transylvania and Tiszántúl.


Ernest Frederick, Margrave of Baden-Durlach

Ernest Frederick of Baden-Durlach (born 17 October 1560 in Durlach – died 14 April 1604 in Remchingen) ruled the northern part of the Margraviate of Baden-Durlach. He came to power when he came of age in 1584. He founded the first Gymnasium "Illustrie" in the margraviate. His conversion from the Lutheranism to Calvinism and his occupation of Upper Baden caused serious conflicts – even with the Emperor – the consequences of which damaged Lower Baden and ultimately also led to losses of territory.
Life.
Ernest Frederick was the eldest son of the Margrave Charles II of Baden-Durlach and Anna of Veldenz. From 1577 onwards, he received his education at the court of his guardian, the Lutheran Duke Louis III of Württemberg.
The regency 1577–1584.
After his father's death, a regency council was formed, consisting of his mother Anna, Elector Palatine Louis VI, Elector Palatine (until 1583), Duke Philip Louis of Neuburg and Duke Louis "the Pious" of Württemberg. The council ruled Margraviate of Baden-Durlach on his behalf when he inherited it as a minor.
The division of territories.
Ernest Frederick and Charles II's second oldest son, James, both wanted to own dominions. Charles II's last will and testament forbade that, but it had not been signed and sealed, so the remaining guardians decided to give them their way and divide the country. Ernest Frederick received Lower Baden, including the large towns of Durlach and Pforzheim.
His younger brothers James and George Frederick also received parts of the country, so that the land was further divided beyond the existing division into Baden-Durlach, Baden-Baden. The Margraviate of Baden-Hachberg fell back to Ernest Frederick in 1590 after James's death. His youngest brother George Frederick was able to reunite the whole Margraviate of Baden-Durlach after's Ernest Frederick's death.
Marriage.
Margrave Ernest Frederick married on 21 December 1585 Anna of East Frisia (26 June 1562 – 21 April 1621), the daughter of Count Edzard II of East Frisia and widow of his guardian. The marriage produced no children.


William II, Duke of Athens

William II (1312 – 22 August 1338) was the third son of Frederick III of Sicily and Eleanor of Anjou. He inherited the Duchy of Athens after the death of his elder brother Manfred on 9 November 1317.
During his minority, his Greek possessions were governed by his illegitimate elder brother Alfonso Frederick, who in 1319 added the Duchy of Neopatria to the Catalan domains. In 1330, Alfonso returned from Greece and William ceded the counties of Malta and Gozo to him. Nicola Lanza replaced him in Greece.
In 1335, William married María Álvarez de Jérica, a descendant of Roger of Lauria, without papal dispensation, as both John XXII and Benedict XII wanted to check the power of Frederick his father. Two years later, his father willed him the Principality of Taranto, the county of Calatafimi, the honour of Monte Sant'Angelo, and various castles and lands in Noto, Spaccaforno, Capo Passero, and Avola when his mother, Eleanor, daughter of Charles II of Naples, died. She died in 1341, but William died first on 22 August 1338. He left his library to the Dominicans of Palermo and was buried in the cathedral there.
Sources.


Perseis (Paeonia)

Perseis () was a city of ancient Macedon founded by Philip V of Macedon around 168 BCE and named for his son, Perseus. The city's exact location has not be confirmed, but Livy tells us that it was near Stobi. The editors of the "Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World" suggest a site near Črnobuki in North Macedonia.


List of presidents of the Lagting

List of presidents of the Lagting since 1945, the one chamber of the Parliament of Norway from 1945 to 2009, when the chamber was discontinued.


Wendy Davies

Wendy Elizabeth Davies (born 1942) is an Emeritus Professor of History at University College, London, England. Her research focuses on rural societies in early Medieval Europe, focusing on the regions of Wales, Brittany and Iberia.
Career.
Davies studied for her BA degree (1964) and PhD degree (1970) in history at UCL. Following positions in Munich and Birmingham University (1970–76), she returned to UCL as a lecturer in Medieval History in 1977. She was made a Professor in 1985 and thereafter became Head of the Department of History, then Dean of the Faculty of Arts, Dean of the Faculty of Social & Historical Sciences and, from 1995, UCL Pro-Provost (European Affairs). She was made a Fellow of UCL in 1997. She is also a Founding Fellow of the Learned Society of Wales.
Research.
Her teaching originally covered a wide area of European and English medieval history it more recently concentrated on Celtic subjects working across and within the disciplines of history, archaeology and Celtic studies.
She is particularly well known for her studies of early Welsh and Breton history. She is co-director, with Prof. James Graham-Campbell, of the interdisciplinary 'Celtic Inscribed Stones Project', established to build a database of all known early medieval Celtic inscribed stones. For the last twenty years she has also convened a major research group, known as the 'Bucknell Group', with the aim of examining the social significance of early medieval European charters. She is notable for her analysis of the Llandaff Charters.
She has a special interest in the economic and social structure of Western European pre-industrial rural communities and the ways in which they used land and for fifteen years ran, with Dr Grenville Astill, the "East Brittany Survey", a multidisciplinary research programme into settlement and land-use changes. Much of her work has involved collaboration with others and she believes in the importance of fieldwork in teaching and research. Her responsibility for co-ordinating and developing the college's European strategy required her to represent the Provost and President both abroad and at home and to advise him on major European Higher Education trends, maintain the college's membership of European networks and work with to promote the good reputation of UCL. She is particularly concerned that academic qualifications be speedily recognised within Europe.
Awards and honours.
In 1988 Davies was elected as a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries. Davies was elected as a Fellow of the British Academy in 1992. In 2001 she was a Distinguished Visiting Professor at Berkeley. She served as a Member of Council from 2002-2003 and Vice-President of the British Academy from 2003–2005. UCL marked her retirement at a reception on 30 October 2007. She was appointed Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) in the 2008 Birthday Honours.


Georg Heuberger

Georg Heuberger (19467 November 2010) was founding director of the Jewish Museum Frankfurt and representative of the Claims Conference.
Biography.
He was born in Budapest, Hungary. Both his parents, Dolek and Franziska, escaped from the Bochnia ghetto in 1943 and fled to Budapest, Hungary via Slovakia, where they survived The Holocaust. After the Holocaust, the family came to Frankfurt via Prague in 1948. In his early years, Heuberger studied Jewish history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. From 1982 to 1985 he was the rector's assistant at the department of Jewish Studies at the University of Heidelberg. In 1988 he became the founding director of the Jewish Museum Frankfurt and, until his retirement in January 2006, he took over the editing of the exhibition catalogs. As a museum director, he was also the managing director of the Commission for Research into the History of Frankfurt's Jews. Nearing the end of his life, Heuberger became a representative of the Claims Conference, and played an active role in the restitution of art and cultural goods that were stolen from the Jewish community of Budapest. In 2006, Heuberger was awarded the Federal Cross of Merit.