West Nile Bank Front

The West Nile Bank Front (WNBF) was an Ugandan rebel group under the command of Juma Oris.
History.
Formed by ex-Uganda Army soldiers who remained loyal to Idi Amin, the group's exact foundation is unclear. Its first reported activity was in 1988. It became active as proper insurgent force from 1994. However, one ex-fighter of the group stated that the WNBF was founded in 1995. It appears to have been a West Nile offshoot of the Uganda People's Democratic Army and recruited primarily in Koboko County, Arua and Obongi, Moyo. One prominent associate of the WNBF was Isaac Lumago.
It was active up through the end of the First Congo War in 1997, fighting from Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo against the Uganda People's Defense Force. The WNBF worked at destabilizing northern Uganda. It was responsible for many kidnappings and violent raids, and had similar goals and tactics to the Lord's Resistance Army. While it had initially recruited with promises of generous pay, which proved to be false, it eventually turned to forced recruitment to replenish its ranks. The brutal tactics of the WNBF, including the laying of landmines, made it lose popular support in the region. They were in competition for popular support with the rebel Uganda National Rescue Front II that was operating in the same region simultaneously.
The fortunes of the WNBF did not really change until UPDF Major General Katumba Wamala arrived in 1996 and initiated a policy of civil-military cooperation. He has stated:
By working through local and traditional authority structures and enforcing a measured approach to the counter-insurgency, Wamala earned the trust of much of the populace and was able to arrange for numerous rebels to return to their former lives. This diplomatic initiative was coupled by military pressure upon WNBF bases in Southern Sudan by the Ugandan-backed Sudan People's Liberation Army. Amid Operation Thunderbolt (1997), the last WNBF bases in Sudan were destroyed at a major battle at Kaya in which the SPLA, UPDF and several Congolese armed groups took part. Its leader Juma Oris was wounded, and the group splintered. By late 1997, the WNBF was no longer capable of significant activity.


Helsinki village landing

The Helsinki village landing was fought during the Finnish War between Sweden and Russia on 26–28 September 1808 (J:14-16 S), a part of the battles of the Turku archipelago. King Gustav IV Adolf of Sweden planned a large landing operation, over 8,000 strong. Due to the difficult sea weather conditions, the task force under Colonel Anders Fredrik Skjöldebrad was forced to return to Sweden, damaged and broken. The other task force of 3,300 men under Lieutenant Colonel Gustav Olof Lagerbring landed at Helsinki village (Taivassalo) successfully and the troops advanced to the inland areas. The king of Sweden was late to the battle area himself; he arrived on 28 September 1808 in his own yacht.
Course of battle.
Monday 26 September (J:14 S).
The landing started in at 09:00 o’clock in the morning. The Cossacks who patrolled at the beach were pushed back to the village of Järvenperä. The Swedish troops advanced slowly and the Russians reacted quickly, as they sent 3 companies from the Pernov (Pärnu) Musketeer Regiment supported by 2 cannons to oppose the advancing Swedes at Järvenperä. The Kronoberg Regiment offensive caused the Russians to retreat. The Swedes had 4 men wounded on the first day of fighting.
Tuesday 27 September (J:15).
In the morning, the Swedes proceeded to advance in the direction of the village of Viiainen. There, Russian Lieutenant General Karl Gustav von Baggovut had built a defense line with a battalion of the Nevski Musketeer Regiment. According to Baggovut's orders, they had to delay the progress of the Swedes, but the Swedes pushed the Russians back from their positions. Colonel Freiherr Gustaf Reinhold Boije af Gennäs was named as the commander of the Swedish battle forces. The Swedes had 12 killed, 71 wounded and 3 missing on the second day of fighting.
Wednesday 28 September (J:16).
During the night, Prince Pyotr Bagration brought sizable reinforcements to Baggovut. Boije planned a two-pronged offensive for the Swedes. One force would attack from north of Viiainen to Puosta, while at the same time the Lagerbring force would strike the flank of Russian forces at Puosta through Haaroinen and Ranta. Because of the reinforcements, Baggovut had the initiative and he struck strongly and directly to Boije's main line of position while simultaneously starting a flank offensive via Ranta. Lagerbring's attack was stopped by the force of the Russian troops and he had to retreat. Boije found the situation hopeless and ordered a general retreat to the Helsinki village. At the beach the situation was chaotic. The king had ordered all the gunboats to Kahiluoto, and so there were only defenseless troopships left. The loading of the ships happened in disarray under Russian fire and resulted in large losses; The Swedes had sustained 45 killed, 176 wounded and 346 missing (of which more than 300 captured) on the third day of fighting, while the Russians had 529 losses in total during the three days.
Swedish regiments and losses.
In total: less than 3,800 men (no more than 3,300 in the main battle on the 28th); 57 killed, 251 wounded and 349 missing (of which about 300 privates and 11 officers captured according to Russian records).


Schnez-Truppe

The Schnez-Truppe or Schnez Organisation was an illegal clandestine paramilitary organisation formed in West Germany in 1949 by veterans of the "Wehrmacht" and "Waffen-SS" under the leadership of Albert Schnez, that intended to fight against the Soviet Union in the event of an invasion. It has been reported as having been founded with a membership of some 2,000 former officers; later obtaining a total strength of up to 40,000 members.
The organisation was active in the US occupation zone in southern Germany, and aimed to field up to four armoured divisions in case of war. It was to become active in case of an attack by East Germany in a domestic German conflict similar to the Korean War, but without outside interference.
History.
The organisation was formed in secret in 1949 by Albert Schnez, who had risen to the rank of colonel in the "Wehrmacht" during World War II. The aim of the secret army formed by Schnez was to liberate Germany if an invasion by the Soviet Union should occur. Initially, it would retreat to a foreign country, possibly Switzerland or Spain, the latter ruled by Francisco Franco's government.
Schnez's secret army was to have weapons supplied by the West German police, with the help of Anton Grasser, inspector general of the police and a former "Wehrmacht" general, who had been privately employed by Schnez after the war before joining the police. Schnez also organised road transport for his forces through logistics companies.
The organisation engaged in surveillance of left-leaning politicians, like the outspoken member of the Social Democratic Party of Germany faction in the German parliament, Fritz Erler. In case of war, the secret army was planned to be used against communists in West Germany. Schnez was in contact with other right-wing organisations and individuals in Germany, such as Otto Skorzeny, in relation to resistance to a Soviet invasion.
In 1951 Schnez offered the service of his organisation to the German intelligence service, the Gehlen Organization, predecessor of the "Bundesnachrichtendienst", providing black lists of potentially left leaning individuals as well as, in one case, profiling a member of the police as "Halbjude" (half-Jew).
German chancellor Konrad Adenauer became aware of the secret army around 1951 and informed leading opposition politicians of its activities, but did not order any decisive action against Schnez, shying away from conflict with World War II veterans. Instead, he ordered the domestic intelligence services to monitor the organisation and provide small-scale financial support. Within the Gehlen Organization the Schnez-Truppe received the code name "Unternehmen Versicherungen" (Operation Insurance).
The fate of the secret army is unknown, but leading figures of the Schnez-Truppe joined the then newly formed West German armed forces, the "Bundeswehr", in 1955; among them was Adolf Heusinger, first Inspector General of the Bundeswehr and Chairman of the NATO Military Committee from 1961 to 1964, and Hans Speidel, Supreme Commander of NATO ground forces in Central Europe from 1957 to 1963. Albert Schnez also rose to the rank of Inspector General of the "Bundeswehr" and finally retired in 1971, having become an obstacle to the reforms of the armed forces by then-defence minister Helmut Schmidt.
The general public in Germany was unaware of the Schnez-Truppe until 2014, when files relating to it were declassified by the "Bundesnachrichtendienst" after having been re-discovered in 2011. The declassified files were reviewed by German historian , grandson of Albert Kesselring, who was part of an independent commission to study the early history of the German intelligence service. The file on the Schnez-Truppe in the archive of the "Bundesnachrichtendienst" in Pullach, Bavaria, was over 300 pages long.
The Schnez-Truppe was part of a larger movement in West Germany at the time, codenamed the "Windhund-Bewegung" (Greyhound movement), based on the insignia of the 116th Panzer Division. Gerhard von Schwerin, former commander of the division, served as a consultant in military and security matters for the West German government under Adenauer. West Germany, not armed at the time, was concerned with its own inability to defend itself following the outbreak of the Korean War. The main aim was to have a counter-force to the "Kasernierte Volkspolizei" of East Germany in case of a Korea-like scenario should the East attack.
According to intelligence reports at the time, the "Kasernierte Volkspolizei" possessed almost 1,300 tanks, of which 47 were heavy and 480 medium battle tanks. The Schnez-Truppe was to field four armoured divisions, to be deployed in case of a German-only war between East and West, with no outside interference. The tanks for these armoured divisions, however, would have had to been provided by the US Army as West Germany possessed none at the time and Schnez was most active in southern Germany, particularly Württemberg and Bavaria, in the former US occupation zone. Historian Agilolf Keßelring concluded that Schnez's activities were almost certainly known to US intelligence agencies. The Schnez-Truppe was organised down to company level and consisted predominantly of members of former German elite tank divisions. Attempts by Otto Skorzeny to establish a similar organisation to the Schnez-Truppe were seen more critically by the Gehlen Organization, as Skorzeny was considered too unpredictable.
Assessment.
The Schnez-Truppe never came close to a similar status and structure to the post-First World War "Freikorps". German historian Sven Felix Kellerhoff concluded that the organisation was part of the pre-history of the "Bundeswehr". In Kellerhoff's conclusion, the organisation was known to the German government, the German political opposition as well as German intelligence agencies and the US authorities in Germany. The Schnez-Truppe was a political risk, but given the lack of any native defensive capability in West Germany, a necessary measure to counter the perceived threat from communist East Germany.


Margareta von Ascheberg

Margareta von Ascheberg (9 July 1671 – 26 October 1753) was a Swedish land owner, noble and acting regiment colonel during the Great Northern War.
Margareta von Ascheberg was the youngest child of Field Marshal Rutger von Ascheberg and Magdalena Eleonora Busseck. On 26 January 1691, she married colonel count Kjell Christopher Barnekow (d. 1700) in Malmö. As was the custom of the Swedish nobility as that time, she kept her name after marriage and style herself »Grevinnan Ascheberg» (Countess Ascheberg). The couple had four children. She accompanied her spouse on his military commissions: she gave birth to their youngest sons during the Bombardment of Brussels in 1695.
At the outbreak of the Great Northern War, Kjell Christopher Barnekow was called to Sweden and appointed colonel of the Scanian dragoons, which he undertook to equip himself. However, he died very suddenly and unexpectedly of a fever 19 December 1700 before he had the time to fulfill his task.
As a widow, Margareta von Ascheberg was left with the responsibility of her four minor children and the management of their estates as well as the other responsibilities of her late spouse. This included the task of the command and equipment of his Scanian regiment. She was not freed from this responsibility, and the acting colonel Kr. A. v. Buchwaldt was appointed to see that she fulfilled her task. In the spring of 1702, she had performed the task of a colonel by having organized and equipped the regiment and appointed its officers ready for inspection by the royal command and ready to serve in the war. She also sat at the inspection office of the regiment when it was sent to war from Kristianstad.
During the war, she took care of the continued equipment and affairs of the regiment, and exchanged letters with Charles XII of Sweden about its appointments and promotions. She was called "Coloneless" or Madame Colonel.
She was admired for "The energy and care, with which she performed her unusual task, a circumstance, which in other cases would seem impossible for a woman".
Margareta von Ascheberg was also given the responsibility of the estates of her spouse, including Vittskövle, Rosendal and Örtofta in Scania, Gammel-Kjöge on Själland, Ralsvik and Streu on Rügen, and she also added the estate of Ugerup in Scania to it. She herself inherited and acquired the additional estates of Eliinge, Sövdeborg and Tosterup. She was a very successful business person and land owner and recommended for her efficiency. She founded schools, hospitals and gave anonymous donations to the poor in the parishes of her estates, and in contrast to other contemporary land owners, such as the hated Christina Piper, she managed to make herself popular among her employees. She was called "A true mother of the household" and was admired for her "unusual accomplishment, which should not be interpreted dishonestly, as the whole of Scania can testify for it to be truthful". In the parish of Vittskövle, where she preferred to reside, "The Ascheberg woman" became a respected figure of folklore.


Battle of Morvedre

The battle of Morvedre (1412) was an armed confrontation between supporters of Ferdinand of Antequera and James II of Urgell that occurred in the Kingdom of Valencia during the interregnum in the Crown of Aragon after the death of Martin I.
The battle.
Valencian troops favorable to James II of Urgell, headed by the governor of Valencia Arnau Guillem de Bellera, advanced towards Morella to face the trastamarists. But in Sagunto met an army of Castile, Aragon and valencian pro-Fernando led by Diego Gomez de Sandoval.
In the battle killed 2000 or 3000 people, among whom was Bellera. The victory of the troops of Ferdinand settled trastamarist's control in the Kingdom of Valencia.


Castle series stamps

The Castle series or Castle High Value series are two definitive stamp series issued in the United Kingdom during Queen Elizabeth II's reign. The common aspects of the two series are the four chosen castles, one for each country of the United Kingdom.
The first series, designed by Lynton Lamb was issued in September 1955. The second, created from pictures taken by Prince Andrew, Duke of York, the Queen's second son, was issued in October 1988.
The stamps bore the highest denominations completing the "Wilding" and "Machin" definitive series. Each Castle series was replaced by "Machin" stamps, respectively in 1969 and 1999.
The 1955 series.
Genesis.
The 1955 Castle series replaced another four stamp series of high value issued in 1951. They featured the profile of King George VI and were illustrated by two pictures (HMS "Victory", Lord Nelson's ship, on the 2 shillings and 6 pence, and the white cliffs of Dover on the 5 shillings) and two symbols (Saint George and the Dragon on the 10 shillings and the Royal Coat of arms on the one pound sterling stamp). The King's death, on 6 February 1952, provoked the preparation for a new series with Elizabeth II's effigy.
Because comments in the philatelic press were negative about the two pictorial stamps, the Postal Services Department proposed to replace the pictures with two new allegorical images. But its director decided the artists invited by the Council of Industrial Design must be free in the proposal they had to submit at the beginning of 1953.
In June 1953, the allegorical designs didn't please Postmaster General Herbrand Sackville and the Council of Industrial Design. Inspired by Mary Ashead's projects using non allegorical images, including castles, they let some artists and printers Waterlow and Sons create propositions with views of British monuments, known to the public and linked to Royal Family history. The initial list was: the Tower of London on the 2s 6d green, Caernarfon Castle on the 5s red, Edinburgh Castle on the 10s blue and Windsor Castle on the £1 brown.
When consulted, the Home Secretary, David Maxwell Fyfe, advised adding a castle from Northern Ireland: the Tower of London was replaced by Carrickfergus Castle, located on the north side of Belfast Lough. The proposed green colour for the 2s 6d stamp was changed to brown: the goal was to avoid evocations of Irish nationalist sentiment. The pound sterling stamp became black. The remaining artists prepared their projects during the summer of 1953. They created drawings of the castles helped by postmen's and public servants' pictures, and projects for the frame.
At the same time, H.J. Bard, an engraver at Waterlow and Sons, prepared the royal effigy reproducing Dorothy Wilding's photographic portrait already used on the definitive series.
In January 1954, Lynton Lamb's scenery, known as "broken grotto", was chosen: the castle is in the reader's sight through a hole in an old stone wall, next to which is standing the Queen's portrait. Under the guidance and requirements of officials, Lamb continued his work on the drawings of the castles during 1954, visiting in person Edinburgh and Windsor.
On 25 October 1954, Postmaster General Sackville thought the design was ready and brought it to the Council of Industrial Design in November. There, he defended the passage from two to one colour. Queen Elizabeth II approved the designs in March 1955. At Waterlow's, Ward under Lamb's attention made the master die for the printing in intaglio. The issue was finally accepted by the Queen on 29 June 1955.
British career.
The issue of the four stamps took place in two stages: 2 shillings 6 pence brown "Carrickfergus Castle" and 5s red "Caernarfon Castle" were issued on 1 September 1955, and the sale began on 23 September for the other two: 10 shillings blue "Edinburgh Castle" and 1 pound black "Windsor Castle".
From 1955 to 1957, the stamps were printed by Waterlow and Sons on watermarked paper: the St. Edward's Crown with the Royal Cypher ("E 2 R"). In 1958, with the same watermark, then a crowned watermark in 1959, the printing was given to De La Rue. The contract passed in 1967 to Bradbury Wilkinson who did not use watermarked paper anymore.
In the United Kingdom, the four stamps were withdrawn on 15 May 1970, one year after the issue of Machin high value stamps printed in high format in intaglio by Bradbury Wilkinson. The three lesser value of the Castle series were invalidated on 1 March 1972.
Overseas use.
The 2 shilling and 6 pence, 5 shilling and 10 shilling stamps were issued with overprints in British postal agencies overseas. Only Waterlow and Sons and De La Rue printed stamps were so issued. The overprint indicated the territory of use.
Around the Persian Gulf, stamps needed a new denomination in Indian rupees, later in Gulf rupees, being overprinted to be used in Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the Trucial States.
In Tangier, Morocco, the three Castle stamps were available at the British post office in 1955. When the office had to be closed in 1957, its centenary was celebrated with a second overprint ("1857 - 1957") on all Wilding and Castle stamps. Some Castle stamps are known without the hyphen or with one printed thanks to a third overprint.
Commemoratives.
On 22 March 2005, Royal Mail issued a minisheet for the 50th anniversary of the Castle series. Denominations were changed to 50 pence for a brown "Carrickfergus Castle" and a dark brown "Windsor Castle", and one pound for a red "Caernarfon Castle" and a blue "Edinburgh Castle". The Dutch printer Enschedé succeeded in using the original dies to create the new printing material, but for the Windsor Castle stamp digitalization of a 1955 stamp was necessary.
The 1988 series.
Description.
On 18 October 1988, the four large-format high value Machin stamps, printed in photogravure and issued since February 1977, were replaced by a new Castle series. The four new stamps were printed in intaglio, and their illustrations were based on photographs taken by Prince Andrew. The profile of Queen Elizabeth II appeared on one of the upper corners, and was based on Arnold Machin's sculpture that appears on the Machin series. The same castles were used as for the 1955 series: Carrickfergus on a £1 green stamp, Caernarfon on the £1.50 brown, Edinburgh on the £2 blue and Windsor on the £5 brown. The broken grotto design was replaced by a white background, and was considered austere compared to the romantic approach of Lyndon Lamb.
Career.
In 1992, the series was reissued with two changed elements, in order to fight counterfeiting. An elliptical perforation was added to the sides, and Optically Variable Ink (OVI), which appears green or gold depending on how it is viewed, was used to print the Queen's profile. The latter was no longer the Machin head with crown, but the monocolour profile created by Machin for commemorative stamps.
In 1995, the £1 Carrickfergus Castle stamp was reissued with a new denomination of three pounds, because inflation no longer justified the use of an expensive printing method like intaglio for the one pound value. A £1 Machin definitive stamp was created the same year, printed in a blue-violet metallic ink. On 9 March 1999, the second Castle series was replaced by four Machin stamps printed in intaglio from a gravure by Czesław Słania.


Communist Party of Sri Lanka

The Communist Party of Sri Lanka ( ) is a communist party in Sri Lanka. At the legislative elections of 2004, the party was part of the United People's Freedom Alliance that won 45.6% of the popular vote and 105 out of 225 seats.
History.
The CPSL was founded as the Communist Party of Ceylon in 1943, and was a continuation of the United Socialist Party. The USP had been formed out of the pro-Soviet Union wing of the Lanka Sama Samaja Party. The USP was proscribed by the colonial authorities.
The USP and then the CPC were initially led by Dr. S. A. Wickramasinghe.
In 1952 Wickremesinghe's wife, the English-born Doreen Young Wickremasinghe, a former leader of the Suriya-Mal Movement, was elected to the Sri Lankan parliament.
In 1963 the Communist Party, Lanka Sama Samaja Party and the Mahajana Eksath Peramuna formed the United Left Front (1963). The ULF broke down in 1964 when the then Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike offered ministerial posts to LSSP and the CP.
In the mid-1960s the U.S. State Department estimated the party membership to be approximately 1900.
In 1968, the CP joined the LSSP and the SLFP in the United Front. In the 1970 government, Pieter Keuneman became Minister of Housing and Construction and B. Y. Tudawe, Deputy Minister of Education. However, one faction of the party, led by S. A. Wickremasinghe and Indika Gunawardena, maintained a line of critical support for the government.
After the general election of 1977, for the first time in half a century, the CPSL found itself without parliamentary representation, receiving about 2% of the vote. However, after a subsequent election petition, Sarath Muttetuwegama was elected to the Kalawana seat in a by-election.
Later CPSL joined the People's Alliance, the front led by the Sri Lanka Freedom Party. When SLFP shelved the PA and formed the United People's Freedom Alliance together with Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna ahead of the 2004 elections, CPSL and LSSP initially stayed out. They did, however, sign a memorandum with the UPFA at a later stage and contested the elections on the UPFA platform. CPSL does not, however, consider itself a member of UPFA.
The CPSL had one member of parliament in 2004, party general secretary D.E.W. Gunasekara. Gunasekara expected to become the speaker of the Sri Lankan parliament, but lost by a handful of votes. Gunasekara was then sworn in as the Minister for Constitutional Affairs.
During the 2020 Parliamentary elections, the CPSL put forward two candidates, Mahesh Almedia in Colombo and Weerasumana Weerasinghe in Matara, under the SLPP's Pohottuwa symbol. Dr. G Weerasinghe was nominated for the party's National List. Weerasumana was the only candidate to successfully enter Parliament with 77,968 preferential votes.
Gunasekera stepped down as General Secretary of the CPSL on 30 August 2020. Dr. G. Weerasinghe was unanimously elected as the new General Secretary by the Central Committee.
Party organization.
The youth wing of CPSL is the Communist Youth Federation. CYF is a member organization of
the World Federation of Democratic Youth.
Allegations.
The CPSL and other Leftist parties were framed by the J R Jayawardane government for instigating the 1983 Black July pogroms against Tamil people. The party was banned and leaders including D.E.W. Gunasekera were imprisoned for over a year. The ban was lifted due to lack of evidence for the charges and intervention from the Soviet embassy. The ban on the JVP and NSSP stayed the same.
Publications.
"Aththa" (Truth) is the CPSL's flagship Sinhala newspaper, which was renowned for its high-standard of journalism, progressive editorials and Sinhala prose.
The English organ of the CPSL was the "Forward" weekly.


Soest-Bad Sassendorf Airfield

Soest-Bad Sassendorf Airfield (ICAO: EDLZ), located in the Sauerland region close to Soest and the Möhnesee, between the A 44 and B 1, is now a civilian airfield. It is rated/approved as a "special landing site". These are often used by aero clubs. Unlike a commercial airfield, only the operators and (upon request also third parties) may take off and land. There is no obligation to operate, and therefore opening times are not required.
In 2001, the airfield saw the rollout of the Airfisch Ground effect vehicle, designed to fly only two metres above the water's surface.
History.
In the latter part of the Cold War (late 1970s and early 1980s until 1993), 3 Regiment Army Air Corps was based here and operated Westland Scout, Westland Gazelle AH1 and Westland Lynx AH7 helicopters. AAC units based there included: 653, 654, 660, 662, and 663 squadrons. 3 Regiment Army Air Corps is currently at Wattisham.
Site/Services.
The length of the airfield main runway is 820 meters, while the glider winch launching distance is about 1,000 meters long. They are both grass runways with headings 07/25. The traffic pattern runs south as the northerly air space is reserved for skydivers. The airfield frequency is 122.600 MHz. There is a fuel station at the airfield with Avgas, Mogas and Jet A-1 available.
Flying operations.
Two clubs are based here: the Flugsportgemeinschaft Soest e.V (Soest Flying Club) operating powered-aircraft and gliders and the Fallschirmsportclub Soest-Bad Sassendorf e.V (Soest-Bad Sassendorf Skydiving Club). There is also a Gyrocopter-Flying school operating here, run by the "Flugdienst Sauerland". Flying is usually on Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays (occasionally also on normal business days), weather permitting. The gliding season runs regularly from late March / early April to late October / early November. Powered flight takes place year-round.
The small airfield also holds flying days where aerobatics and stunts are presented by professional pilots and aerobatic pilots.


El Carupanazo

El Carupanazo was a short-lived military rebellion against the government of Rómulo Betancourt, in which rebel military officers commanding the Third Marine Infantry Battalion and the 77th National Guard Detachment took over the city of Carúpano in May 1962. The rebellion was followed a month later by another in Puerto Cabello, "El Porteñazo".
At around midnight on 4 May 1962, military officers in rebellion against the government of Rómulo Betancourt took over the city of Carúpano. The insurgents, under control of Captain Jesús Teodoro Molina Villegas, Major Pedro New Vegas, and Lieutenant Héctor Fleming Mendoza, occupied the city's streets and buildings, the airport, and the radio station, Radio Carúpano, which they used to broadcast their message, calling themselves the "Movimiento de Recuperación Democrática" (Movement of Democratic Recuperation).
President Betancourt demanded that the rebels surrender, but at the same he ordered the air force to attack the city and the navy began blocking the seaport in an operation called "Operacion Tenaza". The following day, the government was able to take over Carúpano and its surroundings, arresting more than 400 military personnel and civilians that were involved in the rebellion.
Those involved were Congressman Eloy Torres of the Communist Party of Venezuela (PCV), as well as other members of that party and the "Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionaria" (MIR). As a result, Betancourt suspended constitutional guarantees, accused the PCV and MIR of being involved, and decreed both parties as illegal.


Battle of Medina de Rioseco

The Battle of Medina de Rioseco, also known as the Battle of Moclín, was fought during the Peninsular War on 14 July 1808 when a combined body of Spanish militia and regulars moved to rupture the French line of communications to Madrid. General Joaquín Blake's Army of Galicia, under joint command with General Gregorio de la Cuesta, was routed by Marshal Bessières after a badly coordinated but stubborn fight against the French corps north of Valladolid.
Bessières exploited the poor coordination between Blake and Cuesta to defeat the Spaniards in detail, with Blake being ejected from a low ridge while Cuesta sat to the rear, and Cuesta failing to recapture the ridge with his own troops. The Army of Galicia was the only formation capable of threatening the French advance into Old Castile—Cuesta's command having been destroyed earlier at Cabezón—and its destruction marked a serious blow to Spain's national uprising.
But in the event, Medina de Rioseco proved to be the solitary French triumph in an invasion of Spain that ultimately failed to seize the country's major cities or to pacify its rebellious provinces, and which met outright disaster at Bailén, forcing French forces—Bessières' victorious corps included—to fly over the Ebro in retreat. A fresh campaign, conducted by Napoleon himself with the bulk of the Grande Armée, would be needed to redress the situation.
Situation in northern Spain.
Recent French operations in the region had come far short of Napoleon's expectations. The Galician and Biscayan provinces were ideally suited as a base for resistance against France: remote and mountainous; out of the French Army's immediate reach yet flanking its long communications to occupied Madrid; its coastline largely secured by the allied Royal Navy, which disgorged supplies and materiel. In June, Marshal Bessières' flying column, marching on Santander in an attempt to secure French communications in Galicia and guard the coast against a possible British landing, had been forced back by popular resistance. Stung by these and other reverses, Napoleon committed more troops and formulated a new strategy. In July he ordered Bessières to renew his western offensive.
Snaking toward the French were the columns of the Army of Galicia under General Joaquín Blake who supplemented his force with Cuesta's motley levy of militia and regulars from isolated provincial garrisons—debris from Cuesta's destroyed Army of Old Castile.
Spanish preparations.
Cuesta, quite undeterred by his defeat the previous month, proposed a rapid coup de main toward Valladolid, astride the French communications (and incidentally his old seat of command as Captain General of Old Castile, from which he had been ejected after his rout at Cabezón.) Cuesta mustered some 350 horse—a precious, if token, force, considering Galicia and Asturias combined could not furnish as many—and several infantry battalions, but not a single cannon. The northern Juntas received Cuesta's proposals coolly; Asturias refused to be drawn into what it considered a foolhardy scheme but committed several battalions in a show of goodwill; Galicia, however, dispatched General Blake to liaison with Cuesta. A professional officer of considerable talent (albeit new to command), Blake questioned the wisdom of facing the Grande Armée in open country, preferring the broken ground and hills of the north to neutralize the superiority of French arms. Of particular concern to Blake was the dilapidated Spanish cavalry, with which a descent into the plains of Castile seemed a sorry prospect. The Galician commander advocated holding and fortifying the rugged terrain of Léon and Galicia, but deferred to Cuesta.
Between them the two Spanish generals raised about 25,000 men, many of them dispirited and in poor condition. In May British ships had disembarked some 5,000 former Spanish prisoners of war (largely captured in attacks on the Spanish colonial empire during the recent Anglo-Spanish War) with arms and munitions, notably Cuesta's 800 colonial regulars—the "Colorados" battalion—taken prisoner in Montevideo and, for lack of Spanish uniforms, bedecked in full redcoats. The "Colorados de Buenos Aires" had been taken prisoner during the unsuccessful British attacks on the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata. Cuesta, citing his seniority, claimed supreme command and set his columns marching on 12 July, against Blake's objections (although the Castilian was persuaded to detach a reserve at Benavente). Cuesta, for lack of cavalry, advanced blind to French movements, expecting to find Bessières concentrating near Valladolid.
By 14 July Cuesta had drawn up the Spanish force near Medina de Rio Seco, with Blake commanding the forward position on a small elevation and Cuesta hovering about a mile to the rear (near the village proper), with many of the best troops. Their meagre cavalry detachment stood by the road between the two corps.
French response.
Bessières, well-informed of the Spanish plans by virtue of an enterprising double-agent, advanced from Burgos 9 July in the aim of preventing Blake's junction with Cuesta, resolving to concentrate his effectives en route. Receiving part of a division at Palencia on 10 July, Bessières rapidly assembled 14,000 with 40 guns and marched to meet Blake and Cuesta, approaching the Spanish positions along the cultivated plains of Medina de Rio Seco at dawn on the 14th. The French army contained elements of three divisions, decidedly mixed in quality: a reserve division (with which French commanders in Spain often had to make do), a division of veterans expedited from France, and Imperial Guard units dispatched from Madrid.
The battle.
Blake, separated from Cuesta by a glaring gap, faced off against the French with his flanks uncovered and his line of retreat far from secure. Bessières immediately understood his enemies' weakness and moved to seize the central position, allowing him to dispatch the two Spanish wings in detail by keeping Cuesta at bay with a screening force (Major-General Mouton) while elements of two divisions stormed the ridge under his supervision. The Imperial artillery, with twenty pieces arrayed on the Monclin Mound opposite Blake, blasted terrible holes in the Spanish ranks. Major-General Merle led the attack against Blake on the left, reaching west toward the Spanish flank, while Mouton, on the right, put up a noisy demonstration against Cuesta.
Blake reacted promptly to the menace to his position, stretching his line right to ward off encirclement and replying to the devastating French cannonades with his own batteries. Bessières' cavalry reserves then charged into the gap kept open by Mouton and tore into Blake's right flank, cracking his fragile force and driving it off the ridge in a panicked rout. Blake was saved from complete annihilation by the self-sacrifice of a lone battalion of regular troops from Navarre which stood its ground against the swarming cavalry, keeping the French at bay while Blake's half of the army made good its escape over the Sequillo river.
Before Bessières could turn on Cuesta, the Spanish general, quite unwilling to follow Blake in retreat, formed his troops into columns and hurled them uphill at the Imperial army, now drawn up on the ridge. The tirailleurs screening Mouton's division were abruptly charged by 300 carabiniers and Spanish Guards and thrown into the ravine, with Spanish infantry columns advancing up the ridge behind the cavalry. The Imperial Guard horse managed temporarily to blunt the advance, flattening the weaker Spanish cavalry against its own supporting infantry columns. On the endemic weakness of the Spanish cavalry arm, see The Spanish foot, however, continued to gain ground, capturing two guns from the Artillery of the Guard and threatening the entire French position on the ridge.
Merle, however, continuing his march along its original axis, was now drawing his division upon the right flank of the second Spanish line; sensing this opportunity, Bessières ordered Merle to wheel right and plunge into the Spanish flank "à la baïonnette." Mouton's chasseurs appeared on the Spanish left, and under the combined pressure the Spanish line, overlapped and plunged into disorder, ruptured. The leading Spanish grenadier battalions struck their last determined blows against the French centre before being caught in this crossfire and brusquely forced off the ridge, convincing Cuesta to sound the retreat. As with Blake's retreat, a rearguard of regular battalions held off the French while the other formations flew north to Medina.
Aftermath.
While Cuesta and Blake both escaped the battlefield, in all other respects the rout was complete: the Army of Galicia, while numerically intact, all but ceased to exist as an army. Blake suffered most, losing 13 guns and as many as 3,000 casualties. Many veteran Spanish battalions were badly mauled in the fight for the ridge; the "Colorados", for instance, were destroyed as a unit. Fearing pursuit, Cuesta channeled his infantry north to Asturias and rode off with a small cavalry corps to Salamanca, while Blake returned to Galicia.
Following Medina de Rioseco Bessières seized Benavente, León and Zamora, but dallied in the area while his beaten foes made good their retreat. The French were guilty of savage reprisals against both the Spanish prisoners and the populace of the neighboring cities – which, ironically, had been among the very few not carried by popular uprisings. Bessières was informed that Blake and Cuesta had separated, the former to Manzanal and the latter into Léon; both were allowed to retire unmolested when General Lasalle was uncharacteristically recalled to headquarters.
Bessières' victory marked a great improvement to the strategic position of the French army in northern Spain, formerly the cause of much anxiety. A delighted Napoleon asserted, "if Marshal Bessières has been able to beat the Army of Galicia with few casualties and small effort, General Dupont will be able to overthrow everybody he meets." A few days later, Dupont's entire corps was broken in battle at Bailén and captured by General Castaños. With 20,000 French troops erased from the map, the French command panicked and ordered a general retreat to the Ebro, undoing Bessières' hard-fought gains. News of the disaster reached Bessières 22 July, forcing him to fall back towards Madrid.
Assessment.
Medina de Rioseco was a sorely contested battle, with the Spanish infantry attack upon the ridge—conducted with "precision and audacity"—coming close to victory. The latter action especially was lauded by contemporaries; in Britain, Hamilton applauded the Spanish troops' bitter fight against the much more seasoned French Imperial Army. Cuesta's divisions (though not the commander himself) received special praise for nearly securing a dramatic victory even after Blake's rout:


South African Army corps and branches

The South African Army is divided into functional branches, known as corps. Most consist of units, but some, such as the SA Staff Corps, consist only of personnel who are assigned to headquarters and units. The following is a list of corps established since 1912; those which still exist are shown in bold.
The SA Defence Act Amendment Act, No. 22 of 1922 re-organised the Permanent Force. From 1 February 1923 the Permanent Force consisted of:


Crown fortress

Crown fortress is a term still sometimes used for any fortress or castle that currently or historically belonged to the British Crown for military purposes (as opposed to Royal Castles, which were typically used as palaces).
Historical context.
Over the centuries, various types of Crown fortresses emerged. The oldest may be those built across England after the Norman Conquest. These are motte-and-bailey castles, many of which, though becoming private property of knights or aristocracy, began at the behest of the English king to help subjugate and control Norman-occupied England, and later Wales.
However, some of these motte and bailey castles were not handed over to the aristocracy, either because they were favoured as royal residences, or the monarch found it militarily useful to keep some. It is unlikely that much of a distinction was made between the two, but such castles were always useful for defence, as well as for providing a military presence in potentially rebellious areas, where perhaps the ambitions of the aristocracy meant they couldn't be entirely trusted. A fortified stronghold was also useful for tax collection and dispensing justice. These structures, like many motte and bailey castles, were rebuilt in stone. As time went on and the shires were established, many motte and bailey castles became the seats of sheriffs, as a result making the towns or cities around them the county towns, and latterly many came to house the Shire Halls, and county councils. Such examples survive (although not necessarily still in use) at Chester Castle, Exeter, Lancaster Castle, Leicester Castle, Lincoln Castle, Norwich Castle, Shrewsbury Castle, York Castle.
During the turbulent history of medieval England, many aristocratic strongholds were seized in the name of The Crown, following changes in regime or internal disputes that left certain members of the aristocracy out of favour with the Monarch. This often led to confiscation of property, including castles. Also, much like today, the Crown confiscated some for non-payment of taxes or duties.
As not all confiscated castles were desired for Royal use, many were simply designated "Crown Fortress", whether used as military garrisons or not. Many were given away as gifts or rewards, or sold off, rather than left to crumble away. Examples of these include Bolsover Castle and Brancepeth Castle.
During and after the reign of Henry VIII, the King and his adherents commissioned many new Crown fortresses. This was partly because many medieval castles could not cope with the increasing use of cannon in warfare. Also, with the long term threats of the French, and later the Spanish, they were felt particularly necessary on the southern coast of England. Examples of these include Deal Castle, Pendennis Castle, St Mawes Castle, and Walmer Castle.
During the English Civil War, many Crown Fortresses fell prey to the Parliamentarian forces, and due to their strategic value were greatly fought for. As many had been under the control of commanders appointed by The Crown, many naturally supported the King, and their knowledge of the fortresses they commanded made their defence easy and difficult for Parliamentarian forces to seize them. Also often, it did not take much for Royalist forces to retake them, and a lot for the Parliamentarian forces to take them back. As a result, Oliver Cromwell (who by then commanded the Parliamentarian forces) came to resent the large cost in forces often necessary to retake these castles. Subsequently, he ordered many re-captured castles demolished—two examples being Bridgnorth Castle and Pontefract Castle.
Following the Glorious Revolution of 1689 and the new threat posed by the Jacobites, numerous fortresses were built along the Scottish coastline, both to help control the Jacobite Highlanders and to help prevent the French from landing troops, supplies or insurgents. One example is Fort William.
During the Napoleonic Wars, many small Martello towers were constructed around the coastline of the British Isles.
Some of the last Crown fortresses were built in the 19th century—such as Coalhouse Fort in the Thames Estuary, built because of a perceived threat from the French Navy under Napoleon III. An even more historically recent fortress is Maunsell Sea Fort, built in the Thames Estuary during World War II.
Contemporary context.
Today, as changing warfare tactics have made traditional fortresses obsolete, the term "Crown Fortress" is rarely used, except in describing the use and ownership of such structures. Today many Crown Fortresses survive, even in state hands, although not necessarily as defensive structures—such as Fort George in the Scottish Highlands.


Carter Doctrine

The Carter Doctrine was a policy proclaimed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address on January 23, 1980, which stated that the United States would use military force, if necessary, to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf. It was a response to the Soviet Union's intervention in Afghanistan in 1979, and it was intended to deter the Soviet Union, the United States' Cold War adversary, from seeking hegemony in the Persian Gulf region.
The following key sentence, which was written by Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's National Security Adviser, concludes the section:
Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.
Brzezinski modeled the wording on the Truman Doctrine, and insisted the sentence to be included in the speech "to make it very clear that the Soviets should stay away from the Persian Gulf."
In "", author Daniel Yergin notes that the Carter Doctrine "bore striking similarities" to a 1903 British declaration in which British Foreign Secretary Lord Landsdowne warned Russia and Germany that the British would "regard the establishment of a naval base or of a fortified port in the Persian Gulf by any other power as a very grave menace to British interests, and we should certainly resist it with all the means at our disposal."
Background.
The Persian Gulf region was first proclaimed to be of national interest to the United States during World War II. Petroleum is centrally important to modern armies. The United States, the world's leading oil producer at the time, supplied most of the oil for the Allied armies. Many American strategists were concerned that the war would dangerously reduce the US's oil supply and so they sought to establish good relations with Saudi Arabia, a kingdom with large oil reserves. On February 16, 1943, US President Franklin Roosevelt said, "the defense of Saudi Arabia is vital to the defense of the United States."
On February 14, 1945, while he was returning from the Yalta Conference, Roosevelt met with Saudi Arabian King Ibn Saud on the Great Bitter Lake in the Suez Canal, the first time a US president had visited the Persian Gulf region. During Operation Desert Shield in 1990, US Defense Secretary Dick Cheney cited the landmark meeting between Roosevelt and Ibn Saud as one of the justifications for sending troops to protect Saudi Arabia's border.
The Persian Gulf region was still regarded as an area of vital importance to the US during the Cold War. Three Cold War American presidential doctrines (the Truman, Eisenhower, and Nixon Doctrines) played roles in forming the Carter Doctrine. The Truman Doctrine, which stated that the US would send military aid to countries threatened by Soviet communism, was used to strengthen both Iran and Saudi Arabia's security. In October 1950, President Truman wrote to Ibn Saud that "the United States is interested in the preservation of the independence and territorial integrity of Saudi Arabia. No threat to your Kingdom could occur which would not be a matter of immediate concern to the United States."
The Eisenhower Doctrine called for US troops to be sent to the Middle East to defend US allies against their Soviet-backed adversaries. Ultimately, the Nixon Doctrine's application provided military aid to Iran and Saudi Arabia so that US allies could ensure peace and stability there. In 1979, the Iranian Revolution and the Soviet intervention of Afghanistan prompted the restatement of US interests in the region in the form of the Carter Doctrine.
In July 1979, responding to a national energy crisis, President Carter delivered his "Crisis of Confidence" speech, urging Americans to reduce their energy use to help lessen American dependence on foreign oil supplies. Recently, some scholars have claimed that Carter's energy plan, if it had been fully enacted, would have prevented some of the current economic difficulties caused by the American dependency on foreign oil.
The doctrine.
President Carter, in his State of the Union Address on January 23, 1980, after stating that Soviet troops in Afghanistan posed "a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil," proclaimed:
Implementation.
The Carter administration began to build up the Rapid Deployment Force, which would eventually become CENTCOM. In the interim, the administration asked Congress to restart Selective Service registration, proposed a five percent increase in military spending for each of the next five years, and expanded the US naval presence in the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean.
A negative response came from retired strategist George F. Kennan. United States Senator Edward Kennedy charged that Carter had overreacted, exaggerated the Soviet threat, and failed to act diplomatically. Kennedy repeated these allegations during his 1980 Democratic presidential primary bid, in which he was defeated.
Carter's successor, Ronald Reagan, extended the policy in October 1981 with what is sometimes called the "Reagan Corollary to the Carter Doctrine," which proclaimed that the United States would intervene to protect Saudi Arabia, whose security was believed to be threatened during the Iran–Iraq War. Thus, while the Carter Doctrine warned away "outside" forces from the region, the Reagan Corollary pledged to secure "internal" stability. According to diplomat Howard Teicher, "with the enunciation of the Reagan Corollary, the policy groundwork was laid for Operation Desert Storm."


Capture of Oppenheim

The Capture of Oppenheim or the Spanish capture of Oppenheim took place on 14 September 1620, at Oppenheim, Electorate of the Palatinate, between the Spanish army commanded by Don Ambrosio Spinola, Marquis of the Balbases, against the forces of the Electoral Palatinate led by Joachim Ernst, Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach, during the Palatinate campaign, in the context of the Thirty Years' War. The Spanish troops under Spinola, with a great maneuver of distraction over Worms, deceived the Protestant army of Joachim Ernst, and captured the important town of Oppenheim without too much difficulty, causing a severe blow to the Protestant forces.
Background.
In 1620 the Spanish Monarchy entered the Thirty Years' War with the intention of conquering the Electoral Palatinate. The Spanish saw this as necessary because the Palatinate lay on the route from Italy to the Spanish Netherlands (the Spanish Road). Also, Spain was Catholic, so they naturally supported the Holy Roman Emperor against the Protestants in the Thirty Years' War. In August 1620, Don Ambrosio Spinola, as commander-in-chief of the Army of Flanders, invaded the Palatinate from the Spanish Netherlands and advanced over Frankfurt. The rapid relief introduced in this city by the Protestants dissuaded him from attack, and Spinola decided to march to Oppenheim. In early September the towns of Bad Kreuznach and Alsheim were captured by the Spaniards.
The primary objective of Spinola was to occupy a city of some entity that would allow him to secure their supplies and ammunition, thus anticipating the arrival of winter. The attention of the Marquis focused on Oppenheim, a town of strategic importance because their bridge guarded the entrance to the heart of the Electorate of the Palatinate. The town, however, was strongly garrisoned and was protected by strong fortifications, so an immediate assault was seen as an option inadvisable.
Capture of Oppenheim.
Spinola raised his camp at Alsheim, and performed a great maneuver of distraction, simulated a march over Worms to distract the forces of the Protestant Union. Joachim Ernst, Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach, who commanded the Protestant army stationed in Oppenheim and surroundings, about 24,000 soldiers, took the bait and went with most of his troops to Worms, leaving a small garrison in Oppehneim. Spinola, between therefore, taking advantage of the night approached to Oppenheim, where he arrived with his army at dawn on 14 September, with the assault on the positions of the town not long in coming.
The Protestant garrison, seeing such a formidable army, forsook their defenses in a hurry, and soon surrendered without suffering more than a few killed by the assailants. According to the correspondence of Spinola, the Protestant garrison consisted of 800 strong "musketeers" recruited in the Palatinate. Oppenheim was captured and the Protestant soldiers were disarmed and released. Besides several flags, the Spanish seized the baggage of Protestant soldiers in the barracks of the town.
Consequences.
The loss of Oppenheim was a severe blow to the Palatinate, as the town was a key to dominate the shore of the Rhine, because their bridge guarded the entrance to the heart of the Palatinate. The bridge had been destroyed and Spinola ordered it rebuilt. He also sent to reinforce the defenses and established his ammunition dump.
The various garrisons that had been left in the conquered places had driven down the number of the Spanish army, so that Spinola decided to quarter in Oppenheim, and requested reinforcements from Archduke Albert in Brussels. On 25 September, there was a council of the principal officers of the Spanish army, and that day it was learned that the Protestant cavalry were preparing an attack on their barracks. Spinola dispatched to Count Hendrik van den Bergh, in command of 2,200 cavalry, the regiment of the Count of Henden and 3 cannons, to ambush, but the fight did not occur.
At the onset of winter, the two opposing armies withdrew to their garrisons. By then, the Protestants had already received the expected reinforcements from England led by Sir Horace Vere. In the six months following, the Spaniards captured more than 30 towns and castles along the Lower Palatinate.


First Celtiberian War

The First Celtiberian (181–179 BC) was the first of three major rebellions by the Celtiberians against the Roman presence in Hispania. The other two were the Second Celtiberian War (154–151 BC) and the Numantine War (143–133 BC). Hispania was the name the Romans gave to the Iberian Peninsula. The peninsula was inhabited by various ethnic groups and numerous tribes. The Celtiberians were a confederation of five tribes which lived in a large area of east central Hispania, to the west of Hispania Citerior. The eastern part of their territory shared a stretch of the border of this Roman province. The Celtiberian tribes were the Pellendones, the Arevaci, the Lusones, the Titti and the Belli.
The Romans took over the territories of the Carthaginians in southern Hispania when they defeated them at the Battle of Ilipa in 206 BC during the Second Punic War (218–201 BC). After the war they remained and in 197 BC they established two Roman colonies: Hispania Citerior (Nearer Spain) along most of the east coast, an area roughly corresponding to the modern autonomous communities of Aragon, Catalonia and Valencia, and Hispania Ulterior (Further Spain) in the south, roughly corresponding to modern Andalusia. There were numerous rebellions by many tribes of Hispania, including tribes both inside and outside Roman territory, in most years for a period of 98 years, until the end of the First Celtiberian War in 179 BC. For details of these rebellions see the Roman conquest of Hispania article.
The First Celtiberian War (181–179 BC).
The siege of Aebura (Carpetania) (181 BC).
The praetors Publius Manlius and Quintus Fulvius Flaccus were given military command for Hispania Ulterior and Citerior respectively in 182 BC and this was extended to 181 BC. They received reinforcements of 3,000 Roman and 6,000 allied infantry and 200 Roman and 300 allied cavalry. The Celtiberians gathered 35,000 men. Livy wrote: ‘hardly ever before had they raised so large a force’. Quintus Fulvius Flaccus drew as many auxiliary troops from the friendly tribes as he could, but his numbers were inferior. He went to Carpetania (in south central Hispania, to the south Celtiberia) and encamped near Aebura (Talavera de la Reina, in western part of the modern province of Toledo; it was at the edge of the territory of the Vettones). He sent a small detachment to occupy the town. A few days later the Celtiberians encamped at the foot of a hill two miles from the Romans. The praetor sent his brother, Marcus Fulvius, with two squadrons of native cavalry for reconnaissance with instructions to get as close to the enemy rampart as possible to get an idea of the size of the camp. If enemy's cavalry spotted him he was to withdraw. For a few days nothing happened. Then the Celtiberian army drew up midway between the two camps, but the Romans did not respond. For four days, this continued. After this both sides withdrew to their camps. Both cavalries went out on patrol and collected wood at the rear of their camps without interfering with each other.
When the praetor thought that the enemy would not expect action, he sent Lucius Acilius to go around the hill behind the enemy camp with a contingent of troops of Latin allies and 6,000 native auxiliaries with orders to assault the camp. They marched at night to elude detection. At dawn Lucius Acilius sent Gaius Scribonius, the commander of the allies, to the enemy rampart with his cavalry. When the Celtiberians saw them they sent out their cavalry and signaled their infantry to advance. Gaius Scribonius turned round and made for the Roman camp as per instructions. When Quintus Fulvius Flaccus thought that the Celtiberians were sufficiently drawn away from their camp he advanced with his army, which had been drawn up in three separate corps behind the rampart. Meanwhile, the cavalry on the hill charged down, as instructed, on the enemy camp, which had no more than 5,000 guarding it. The camp was taken with little resistance. Acilius set fire to that part of it which could be seen from the battlefield. Word spread through the Celtiberian line that the camp was lost, throwing them into indecision. They then resumed the fight, as it was their only hope. The Celtiberian centre was hard pressed by the Fifth Legion. However, they advanced against the Roman left flank, which had native auxiliaries, and would have overrun it had the Seventh Legion not come to its aid. The troops which were at Aebura turned up and, as Acilius was at the enemy's rear, the Celtiberians were sandwiched and cut to pieces; 23,000 died and 4,700 were captured. On the other side, 200 Romans, 800 allies and 2,400 native auxiliaries fell. Aebura was seized.
Flaccus campaigns in Celtiberia (180–179 BC).
Quintus Fulvius Flaccus then marched across Carpetania and went to Contrebia. The townsfolk sent for Celtiberian assistance, but it did not come and they surrendered. The Celtiberians had been delayed by incessant winter rain which caused floods and made the roads impassable and the rivers difficult to cross. Heavy storms forced Flaccus to move his army into the city. When the rain stopped the Celtiberians went on the march without knowing about the city's surrender. They saw no Roman camp and thought that it had been moved elsewhere or that the Romans had withdrawn. They approached the city without taking precautions and without proper formation. The Romans made a sortie from the two city gates. Caught by surprise the Celtiberians were routed. Not being in formation made resistance impossible, but it helped the majority to escape. Still, 12,000 men died and 5,000 men and 400 horses were captured. The fugitives bumped into another body of Celtiberians on its way to Contrebia which, on being told about the defeat, dispersed. Quintus Fulvius marched through Celtiberian territory, ravaged the countryside and stormed many forts until the Celtiberians surrendered.
In 180 BC the praetor Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus was assigned the command of Hispania Citerior and the conduct of the war with the Celtiberians. Around this time, messengers arrived in Rome, bringing news of the Celtiberian surrender. They then told the senate that there was no need to send subsidies for the army, as Hispania Citerior was now able to sustain itself, and requested that Flaccus be allowed to bring back his army. Livy wrote that this was a must because the soldiers were determined to go back home and it seemed impossible to keep them in Hispania any longer, to the point where they might mutiny if not withdrawn. Tiberius Gracchus objected to this because he did not want to lose the veterans. A compromise was reached: Gracchus was ordered to levy two legions (5,200 infantry but only 400 cavalry instead of the usual 600) and an additional 1,000 infantry and 50 cavalry plus 7,000 Latin infantry and 300 cavalry (a total of 13,200 infantry and 750 cavalry); meanwhile, Flaccus was allowed to bring back home veterans who had been sent to Hispania before 186 BC, while those who arrived after that date were to remain. He could bring back any excess over Gracchus' assigned force of 14,000 infantry and 600 cavalry.
Since his successor was late, Flaccus started a third campaign against the Celtiberians who had not surrendered, ravaging the more distant parts of Celtiberia. The Celtiberians responded by secretly gathering an army to strike at the Manlian Pass, through which the Romans would have needed to pass. However, Gracchus told his colleague, Lucius Postumius, to inform Flaccus that he had nearly arrived from Rome, and that Flaccus was to bring his army to Tarraco (Tarragona), where Gracchus would disband the old army and incorporate the new troops. In the wake of this news, Flaccus abandoned his campaign and withdrew from Celtiberia. The Celtiberians thought that Flaccus was fleeing because he had become aware of their rebellion and continued to prepare their trap at the Manlian Pass. When the Romans entered the pass they were attacked on both sides. Quintus Fulvius ordered his men to hold their ground. The pack animals and the baggage were piled up in one place. The battle was desperate. The native auxiliaries could not hold their ground against men who were armed in the same way but were a better class of soldiers. Seeing that their regular order of battle was no match for the Roman legions, the Celtiberians bore down on them in wedge formation and almost broke their line. Flaccus ordered the Legion's cavalry to close ranks and charge the enemy wedge with loose reins, breaking the wedge and throwing the enemy into disarray. The apparent success of the tactic inspired the native auxiliary cavalry to also let their horses loose on the enemy. The enemy, now routed, scattered through the whole defile. The Celtiberians lost 17,000 men; 4,000 men and 600 horses were captured; 472 Romans, 1,019 Latin allies and 3,000 native auxiliaries died. The Romans encamped outside the pass and marched to Tarraco the next day. Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus had landed two days earlier. The two commanders selected the soldiers who were to be discharged and those who were to remain. Flaccus returned to Rome with his veterans and Gracchus went to Celtiberia.
In his account of this war, Appian wrote that the rebellion was by the tribes which lived along the River Iberus (the Greek name for the Ebro), including the Lusones (a small Celtiberian tribe in the north of Celtiberia, in the high Tajuña River valley, northeast of Guadalajara). He held that the rebellion was caused by the tribes having insufficient land. Whether this was the actual cause of the war is uncertain. He wrote that Quintus Fulvius defeated these tribes. Most of them scattered but those which were destitute and nomadic fled to Complega, a newly built and fortified city which had grown rapidly. They sent messengers who demanded that Flaccus compensate them with a sagos (a Celtic word for cloak), a horse and a sword for every man who was killed in the battle and that the Romans leave Hispania or suffer the consequences. Flaccus said that he would give them plenty of cloaks, followed the messengers and encamped in front of the city. The inhabitants, feeling intimidated, fled and plundered the fields of the neighbouring tribes along their way.
Gracchus and Albinus campaigns in the Celtiberia (179 BC).
In 179 BC, Gracchus and Lucius Postumius Albinus, who was in charge of the other Roman province (Hispania Ulterior), had their commands extended. They were reinforced with 3,000 Roman and 5,000 Latin infantry and 300 Roman and 400 Latin cavalry. They planned a joint operation. Albinus, whose province had been quiet, was to march against the Vaccaei (a people who lived to the east of Celtiberia) via eastern Lusitania and return to Celtiberia if there was a greater war there, while Gracchus was to head into the furthest part of Celtiberia. He first took the city of Munda by storm with an unexpected attack at night. He took hostages, left a garrison and burned the countryside until he reached the powerful town which the Celtiberians called Certima. A delegation from the town arrived while he was preparing the siege machines. They did not disguise the fact that they would fight to the end if they had the strength, as they asked to be allowed to go to the Celtiberian camp at Alce to ask for help. If this was rejected they would consult among themselves. Gracchus gave them permission. After a few days they returned with ten other envoys. They asked for something to drink. Then they asked for a second cup. Livy wrote that this caused 'laughter at such uncultured ignorance of all etiquette’. Then the oldest man said that they had been sent to enquire what the Romans relied on to attack them. Gracchus replied that he relied on an excellent army and invited them to see it for themselves. He ordered the entire army to march in review under arms. The envoys left and discouraged their people from sending aid to the besieged city. The townsfolk surrendered. An indemnity was imposed on them and they had to give forty young nobles to serve in the Roman army as a pledge of loyalty.
After Certima, Tiberius Gracchus went to Alce, where the Celtiberian camp the envoys had come from was. For a few days he just harassed the enemy by sending larger and larger contingents of skirmishers against their outposts, hoping to draw the enemy out. When the enemy responded he ordered the native auxiliaries to offer only slight resistance and then retreat hastily to the camp, pretending that they had been overwhelmed. He placed his men behind the gates of the rampant of the camp. When the enemy pursued the retreating units in a disorderly manner and came to close range, the Romans came out from all the gates. Caught by surprise, the enemy was routed and lost 9,000 men and 320 men and 112 horses where captured; 109 Romans fell. Gracchus then marched further into Celtiberia, which he plundered. The tribes submitted. In a few days 103 towns surrendered. He then returned to Alce and begun to besiege the city. The townsfolk resisted the first assaults, but when the siege engines were deployed they withdrew to the citadel and then sent envoys to offer their surrender. Many nobles were taken, including the two sons and the daughter of "Thurru", a Celtiberian chief. According to Livy he was by far the most powerful man in Hispania. Thurru asked for safe conduct to visit Tiberius Gracchus. He asked him whether he and his family would be allowed to live. When Gracchus replied affirmatively he asked if he was allowed to serve with the Romans. Gracchus granted this. From then on Thurru followed and helped the Romans in many places.
Ergavica, another powerful Celtiberian city, was alarmed about the defeats of its neighbours and opened its gates to the Romans. Livy noted that some of his sources held that these surrenders were in bad faith because whenever Gracchus left hostilities resumed and there was also a major battle near Mons Chaunus (probably Moncayo Massif), which lasted from dawn to midday with many casualties on both sides. His sources also claimed that three days later there was a bigger battle which cost the defeated Celtiberians 22,000 casualties and the capture of 300 men and 300 horses, a decisive defeat which ended the war in earnest. Livy also noted that according to these sources Lucius Postumius Albinus won a great battle against the Vaccaei, killing 35,000. Livy thought that ‘it would be nearer the truth to say that he arrived in his province too late in the summer to undertake a campaign’. Livy did not give any explanation for his doubts about this information about Lucius Postumius Albinus. He did not write anything about his campaigns on his own authority either. However, in an earlier passage, Livy wrote that he arrived in Hispania before Tiberius Gracchus, who gave him a message with instructions for his predecessor, Quintus Fulvius Flaccus.
Appian wrote about two more episodes about the campaign of Tiberius Gracchus. He wrote that the city of Caravis (Magallon, in north-western Aragon), an ally of Rome, was besieged by 20,000 Celtiberians. Gracchus was informed that it would fall soon. He hurried there, but he could not alert them that he was nearby. The commander of the cavalry, Cominius, had the idea of wearing a Hispanic sagum (a military cloak), mingling in the enemy camp and making his way to the town. He informed the townsfolk that Gracchus was nearby and told them to hold out a bit longer. Three days later Gracchus attacked the besiegers, who fled. At about the same time, the people of the town of Complega (location unknown) which, had 20,000 inhabitants, went to Gracchus’ camp pretending to be peace negotiators. They attacked unexpectedly, throwing the Romans into disarray. Gracchus quickly abandoned the camp in a feigned retreat, and then turned on them while they were plundering the camp, killing most of them. He went on to seize Complega. He then allocated land to the poor and made carefully defined treaties with the surrounding tribes and the surrounding country, binding them to be friends of Rome.
Gracchus founded the colony (settlement) of Gracchurris (Alfaro, in La Rioja, northern Hispania) in the Upper Ebro Valley. This marked the beginning of Roman influence in northern Hispania. It was thought that this was the only colony he founded. However, in the 1950s an inscription was found near Mangibar, on the banks of the River Baetis (Guadalquivir) which attests that he founded another one. It was Iliturgi, a mining town and a frontier outpost. Gracchus therefore established a colony outside his province as it was in Hispania Ulterior.
Aftermath.
Appian wrote that Gracchus' ‘treaties were longed for in subsequent wars’. Unlike previous praetors he spent time to negotiate and cultivate personal relations with tribal leaders. This was reminiscent of the friendly relations established by Scipio Africanus during the Second Punic War. Gracchus imposed the vicensima, the requisition of 5% of the grain harvest, a form of tax which was more efficient and less vulnerable to abuse than the usual Roman practice of delegating tax collection to private ‘tax farmers.’ Silva notes this is the first reference to a regulatory collection of revenue. His treaties stipulated that the allies were to provide the Romans with auxiliary troops. They also established that the natives could fortify existing cities, but not found new ones. There is some evidence that he introduced civilian administrative measures, such as the issuing of rights for mining to mint coins and the construction of roads. Gracchus is remembered for his administrative arrangements which ensured peace in the conquered territory for the next quarter of a century.
Apart from a few minor episodes, Hispania remained quiet until the outbreak of the Lusitanian War (155–150 BC) and the Second Celtiberian War (154–151 BC).


List of battles in South Africa

List of Battles in South Africa is a list of all military conflicts or battles fought within the borders of South Africa
Anglo-Dutch rivalry (1664–1804).
Bartolomeu Dias, a Portuguese navigator, discovered the Cape of Good Hope in 1488. The Dutch settlement in the area began in March 1647. A Dutch expedition of 90 Calvinist settlers, under the command of Jan van Riebeeck, founded the first permanent settlement near the Cape of Good Hope in 1652. Cape Colony established in 1652.
31 December 1687 a community of Huguenots arrived at the Cape from the Netherlands. See also Huguenots in South Africa.
Xhosa Wars.
also known as the Kaffir Wars or Cape Frontier Wars or Dispossession Wars
Ndwandwe–Zulu War (1817–19).
Also known as the Zulu Civil War. The fallout from this war led to the catastrophe known as the Mfeqane.
First Boer War (16 December 1880 – 23 March 1881).
The British recognised the two Boer Republics in 1852 and 1854, but the annexation of the Transvaal in 1877 led to the First Boer War in 1880 and 1881. After British defeats, most heavily at the Battle of Majuba Hill, Transvaal independence was restored subject to certain conditions, but relations were uneasy.
Second Boer War (11 October 1899 – 31 May 1902).
between the British Empire and the two independent Boer republics of the South African Republic (Transvaal Republic) and the Orange Free State.


Uganda National Rescue Front

The Uganda National Rescue Front (UNRF), refers to two former armed rebel groups in Uganda's West Nile sub-region that first opposed, then became incorporated into the Ugandan armed forces.
UNRF.
The first Uganda National Rescue Front was formed to oppose Milton Obote during his second term (1980–1985) as president of Uganda. The UNRF was composed of former supporters of Idi Amin, and headed by Brigadier Moses Ali, formerly Amin's Minister of Finance.
After the fall of Obote in July 1984/5, over 1000 of the UNRF joined Yoweri Museveni's government. Luwero Moses Ali held a large number and variety of positions in Museveni's government, including Minister of Tourism and Wildlife , and Minister of Youth, Culture and Sport. In April 1990 he was arrested on treason charges, and incarcerated until June 1992, when he was released and acquitted. This did not prevent his later being appointed Minister of Internal Affairs, Minister for Disaster Preparedness, and Deputy Prime Minister.
UNRF II.
The Uganda National Rescue Front II was a group that broke from the West Nile Bank Front in 1996, and included members of the original UNRF that did not make peace with Museveni. It operated mostly in Aringa County, Arua District, out of bases in southern Sudan, and received support from the Sudanese government (the National Islamic Front), in retaliation for Ugandan government support for the Sudan People's Liberation Army. It was led by Major General Ali Bamuze.
On December 24, 2002, the UNRF II signed a formal ceasefire with the government in the town of Yumbe in northwestern Uganda. Terms included a battalion of UNRF II soldiers being incorporated in the Ugandan army, and 4.2 billion Shs being distributed to the group. Moses Ali is reported to have participated in the negotiations.


Derby Scheme

The Derby Scheme was introduced during World War I in Britain in the autumn of 1915 by Herbert Kitchener's new Director General of Recruiting, Edward Stanley, 17th Earl of Derby (1865–1948) after which it was named. The war was lasting longer than had been anticipated and the British military required more recruits; 'Derby's scheme' was a survey to determine how many could be obtained, via the use of appointed canvassers visiting eligible men at home to persuade them to 'volunteer' for war service.
Every eligible man aged 18 to 41 who was not in a "starred" (essential) occupation was required to make a public declaration. When the scheme was announced, some went to the recruiting office rather than wait for the dreaded inevitable.
The process began with each eligible man’s registry card, from the August 1915 National Registry, being copied onto another card which was sent to his local constituency's Parliamentary recruiting committee. This Committee appointed 'canvassers' who they considered "tactful and influential men", and not themselves liable for service, to visit the men in their homes. Many canvassers were experienced in politics, though discharged veterans and the fathers of serving soldiers proved the most effective, while some just used threats to persuade. Although women were not allowed to canvas, they did contribute by tracking men who had moved address. <br>
Each man would be given a copy of a letter from the earl of Derby, explaining the programme and rather dramatically stating that they were in "a country fighting, as ours is, for its very existence". Faced with the canvasser, each man had to say whether or not he would attest to join the forces, no one was permitted to speak for him.
Those who did agree to attest had to promise to present themselves at their recruiting office within 48 hours, while some were accompanied there immediately to make sure. If found they passed a medical they were sworn in and paid a 'signing bonus' of 2s 9d. The next day they were transferred to Army Reserve B. A khaki armband bearing the Royal Crown was provided to all who had enlisted, or who had been rejected, as well as to starred and discharged men, pictured here: (This ceased once conscription was introduced, Jan.1916). The enlistee’s data was copied onto a white card, used to assign him to one of 46 married or unmarried age groups, and promised that only entire groups would be called for active service, after 14 days prior notice. Single men's groups would be called before married, any who wed after the day the scheme began were still classified as single. Married men were assured their group would not be called if too few single men attested - unless conscription was introduced.
The scheme was undertaken November and December 1915 and obtained 318,553 medically fit single men. However, 38% of single men and 54% of married men had resisted the mass orchestrated pressure to enlist in the war, so the British Government, determined to ensure a supply of replacements for the mounting casualties overseas, passed The Military Service Act of compulsory conscription into the war, 27 January 1916.


Battle of Gura

The Battle of Gura was fought on March 7–9, 1876 between the Ethiopian Empire and the Khedivate of Egypt near the town of Gura in Eritrea. It was the decisive battle of the Ethiopian–Egyptian War.
Background.
The Egyptians invaded Ethiopia from their coastal possessions in what is now Eritrea. The armies of Yohannes and Isma'il met at Gundet on the morning of 16 November 1875. After the defeat at Gundet, the Egyptians sent a much larger well-armed force to invade from the north. They moved to Gura plain, and made two forts there: "Gura" fort and "Khaya Khor" fort.
Battle.
After the Egyptians sallied out 5,000 men from Gura fort, they were surrounded and then routed at the hands of the defending Ethiopian force. News of this huge defeat was suppressed in Egypt for fear that it would undermine the government of the Khedivate. The victory helped Emperor Yohannes solidify his control over the Ethiopian Empire broadly, and control over the Mareb Melash specifically. He would appoint "Ras" Alula as the "Ras", in this context "governor" of this region.
Further reading.
"A Confederate Soldier in Egypt - W.W. Loring"


Tientsin Accord

The Tientsin Accord or Li–Fournier Convention, concluded on 11 May 1884, was intended to settle an undeclared war between France and China over the sovereignty of Tonkin (northern Vietnam). The convention, negotiated by Li Hongzhang for China and "capitaine de vaisseau" François-Ernest Fournier for France, provided for a Chinese troop withdrawal from Tonkin in return for a comprehensive treaty that would settle details of trade and commerce between France and China and provide for the demarcation of its disputed border with Vietnam.
Background.
Chinese opposition to French efforts to clamp a protectorate on Tonkin led to the outbreak of an undeclared war between France and China towards the end of 1883. Chinese troops fought alongside Liu Yung-fu's Black Flag Army during the Sơn Tây Campaign (December 1883). Although Admiral Courbet's capture of Son Tay paved the way for the eventual French conquest of Tonkin, the French now had to deal with open opposition from China as well as the Black Flag Army. Having exhausted diplomatic efforts to persuade the Chinese to withdraw their armies from Tonkin, the French government sanctioned an attack by General Charles Millot on the fortress of Bac Ninh, occupied since the autumn of 1882 by China's Guangxi Army. In March 1884, in the Bắc Ninh Campaign, Millot routed the Guangxi Army and captured Bắc Ninh.
The Chinese defeat at Bac Ninh, coming close on the heels of the fall of Sơn Tây, strengthened the hand of the moderate element in the Chinese government and temporarily discredited the extremist 'Purist' party led by Zhang Zhidong, which was agitating for a full-scale war against France. Further French successes in the spring of 1884, including the Capture of Hưng Hóa and Thái Nguyên, convinced the Empress Dowager Cixi that China should come to terms, and an accord was reached between France and China in May. The negotiations took place in Tianjin (Tientsin). Li Hongzhang, the leader of the Chinese moderates, represented China; and Captain François-Ernest Fournier, commander of the French cruiser "Volta", represented France. The Tientsin Accord, concluded on 11 May 1884, provided for a Chinese troop withdrawal from Tonkin in return for a comprehensive treaty that would settle details of trade and commerce between France and China and provide for the demarcation of its disputed border with Vietnam.
Text of the accord (original French).
The original French text of the accord, in five articles, is given below.
Art. 1. La France s’engage à respecter et à protéger contre toute agression d’une nation quelconque, et en toutes circonstances, les frontières méridionales de la Chine, limitrophes du Tonkin.
Art 2. Le Céleste Empire, rassuré par les garanties formelles de bon voisinage qui lui sont données par la France, quant à l’intégrité et à la sécurité des frontières méridionales de la Chine, s’engage : 1° à retirer immédiatement, sur ses frontières les garnisons chinoises du Tonkin ; 2° à respecter dans le présent et dans l’avenir, les traités directement intervenus ou à intervenir entre la France et la Cour de Hué.
Art. 3. En reconnaissance de l'attitude conciliante du Gouvernement du Céleste Empire, et pour rendre hommage à la sagesse patriotique de Son Excellence Li-Hong-Chang, négociateur de cette convention, la France renonce à demander une indemnité à la Chine. En retour, la Chine s'engage à admettre, sur toute l’étendue de ses frontières méridionales limitrophes du Tonkin, le libre trafic des marchandises entre l’Annam et la France d’une part, et la Chine de l'autre, réglé par un traité de commerce et de tarifs à intervenir, dans l’esprit le plus conciliant, de la part des négociateurs chinois, et dans des conditions aussi avantageuses que possible pour le commerce français.
Art. 4. Le Gouvernement français s'engage à n'employer aucune expression de nature à porter atteinte au prestige du Céleste Empire, dans la rédaction du traité définitif qu’il va contracter avec l’Annam et qui abrogera les traités antérieurs relatifs au Tonkin.
Art. 5. Dès que la présente Convention aura été signée, les deux Gouvernements nommeront leurs Plénipotentiaires, qui se réuniront, dans un délai de trois mois, pour élaborer un traité définitif sur les bases fixées par les articles précédents.
Conformément aux usages diplomatiques, le texte français fera foi.
Fait à Tien-Tsin, le 11 mai 1884, le dix-septième jour de la quatrième lune de la dixième année du Kouang-Sin, en quatre expéditions (deux en langue française et deux en langue chinoise), sur lesquelles les Plénipotentiaires respectifs ont signé et apposé le sceau de leurs armes.
Chacun des Plénipotentiaires a gardé un exemplaire de chaque texte.
Signé : Ll-HONG-TCHANG. Signé : FOURNIER.
Text of the accord (English translation).
Eastman's English translation, modified slightly where it departs too far from the original French, is given below.
Article I: France undertakes to respect and protect against aggression by any nation whatsoever, under any circumstances, the southern frontiers of China bordering on Tonkin.
Article II: The Celestial Empire, reassured by the formal guarantees of good-neighbourliness accorded to her by France as to the integrity and safety of the southern frontiers of China, undertakes: (1) to withdraw immediately to her borders the Chinese garrisons in Tonkin; and (2) to respect, now and in the future, the treaties directly concluded, or to be concluded, between France and the Court of Hue.
Article III: In recognition of the conciliatory attitude of the Government of the Celestial Empire, and as a tribute to the patriotic wisdom of His Excellency Li Hung-chang, the negotiator of this convention, France renounces her demand for an indemnity from China. In return, China undertakes to permit, over the whole extent of her southern frontiers bordering on Tonkin, free traffic in goods between Annam and France on the one part and China on the other, to be regulated by a commercial and customs treaty, which shall be drawn up in the most conciliatory spirit on the part of the Chinese negotiators and under the most advantageous conditions possible for French commerce.
Article IV: The French government engages not to employ any expression which might demean the prestige of the Celestial Empire in the drafting of the definitive treaty which it will shortly contract with Annam, which will abrogate existing treaties respecting Tonkin.
Article V: As soon as the present convention has been signed, the two governments shall name their plenipotentiaries, who shall meet in three months' time to work out the details of a definitive treaty on the bases established by the preceding articles.
In accordance with diplomatic usage, the French text shall be binding.
Done at Tientsin on 11 May 1884, the seventeenth day of the fourth month of the tenth year of Kwang-hsu, in four impressions (two in French and two in Chinese), which the respective plenipotentiaries have signed and impressed with their official seals.
Each of the plenipotentiaries has retained one copy of each text.
Signed: Li Hung-chang. Signed: Fournier.
Aftermath.
On 6 June 1884, pursuant to Article IV of the Tientsin Accord, the French concluded a fresh Treaty of Huế with the Vietnamese, which provided for a French protectorate over both Annam and Tonkin and allowed the French to station troops in both territories and to install residents in the main towns. The signature of the treaty, which replaced the punitive Harmand Treaty of August 1883, was accompanied by an important symbolic gesture. The seal presented by the emperor of China several decades earlier to the Vietnamese king Gia Long was melted down in the presence of the French and Vietnamese plenipotentiaries, betokening the renunciation by Vietnam of its traditional links with China.
In theory, the conclusion of the Tientsin Accord should have resolved the confrontation over Tonkin between France and China. Fournier was not a professional diplomat, however, and the agreement contained several loose ends. Crucially, it failed to explicitly state a deadline for the Chinese troop withdrawal from Tonkin. The French asserted that the troop withdrawal was to take place immediately, while the Chinese argued that the withdrawal was contingent upon the conclusion of the comprehensive treaty. In fact, the Chinese stance was an ex post facto rationalisation, designed to justify their unwillingness or inability to put the terms of the accord into effect. The accord was extremely unpopular in China, and provoked an immediate backlash. The war party called for Li Hongzhang's impeachment, and his political opponents intrigued to have orders sent to the Chinese troops in Tonkin to hold their positions.
The intransigence of the Chinese hardliners resulted in a bloody clash between French and Chinese troops near Bac Le on 23 June 1884, which plunged both countries into a fresh crisis. China's refusal to pay an indemnity for the Bắc Lệ ambush led directly to the outbreak of the Sino-French War on 23 August 1884.