text:
Battle of Poitiers

The Battle of Poitiers was fought on 19September 1356 between a French army commanded by King JohnII and an Anglo-Gascon force under Edward, the Black Prince, during the Hundred Years' War. It took place in western France, 5 mi south of Poitiers, when approximately 14,000 to 16,000 French attacked a strong defensive position held by 6,000 Anglo-Gascons.

Nineteen years after the start of the war, the Black Prince, eldest son and heir of the English King, set out on a major campaign in south-west France. His army marched from Bergerac to the River Loire, which they were unable to cross. John gathered a large and unusually mobile army and pursued Edward's forces. The Anglo-Gascons had by this point established a strong defensive position near Poitiers, and after unsuccessful negotiations between the two sides, were attacked by the French.

The first assault included two units of heavily armoured cavalry, a strong force of crossbowmen as well as many infantry and dismounted men-at-arms. They were driven back by the Anglo-Gascons, who were fighting entirely on foot. A second French attack by 4,000 men-at-arms on foot under John's son and heir Charles, the Dauphin, followed. After a prolonged fight this was also repulsed. As the Dauphin's division recoiled there was confusion in the French ranks: about half the men of their third division, under Philip, Duke of Orléans, left the field, taking with them all four of John's sons. Some of those who did not withdraw with Philip launched a weak and unsuccessful third assault. Those Frenchmen remaining gathered around the King and launched a fourth assault against the by now exhausted Anglo-Gascons, again all as infantry. The French sacred banner, the Oriflamme, was unfurled, the signal that no prisoners were to be taken. Battle was again joined, with the French slowly getting the better of it. Then a small, mounted, Anglo-Gascon force of 160 men, who had been sent earlier to threaten the French rear, appeared behind the French. Believing themselves surrounded, some Frenchmen fled, which panicked others, and soon the entire French force collapsed.

John was captured, as was one of his sons and between 2,000 and 3,000 men-at-arms. Approximately 2,500 French men-at-arms were killed. Additionally, either 1,500 or 3,800 French common infantry were killed or captured. The surviving French dispersed, while the Anglo-Gascons continued their withdrawal to Gascony. The following spring a two-year truce was agreed and the Black Prince escorted John to London. Populist revolts broke out across France. Negotiations to end the war and ransom John dragged out. In response Edward launched a further campaign in 1359. During this, both sides compromised and the Treaty of Brétigny was agreed in 1360 by which vast areas of France were ceded to England, to be ruled by the Black Prince, and John was ransomed for three million gold écu. At the time this seemed to end the war, but the French resumed hostilities in 1369 and recaptured most of the lost territory. The war eventually ended with a French victory in 1453.

Background
Since the Norman Conquest of 1066, English monarchs had held titles and lands within France, the possession of which made them vassals of the kings of France. By the first quarter of the fourteenth century, the only significant French possession still held by the English in France was Gascony in the south-west. But Gascony was disproportionately important: duty levied by the English Crown on wine from Bordeaux, the capital of Gascony, totalled more than all other English customs duties combined and was by far the largest source of state income. Bordeaux had a population of more than 50,000, greater than London's, and Bordeaux was possibly richer. Following a series of disagreements between Philip VI of France ((r. 1328 – 1350)) and Edward III of England ((r. 1327 – 1377)), on 24 May 1337 Philip's Great Council agreed that the lands held by EdwardIII in France should be taken back into Philip's hands on the grounds that EdwardIII was in breach of his obligations as a vassal. This marked the start of the Hundred Years' War, which was to last 116 years.

Although Gascony was the cause of the war, EdwardIII was able to spare few resources for its defence. In most campaigning seasons the Gascons had to rely on their own resources and had been hard-pressed by the French. Typically the Gascons could field 3,000 to 6,000 men, the large majority infantry, although up to two-thirds of them would be tied down in garrisoning their fortifications. In 1345 and 1346 Henry, Earl of Lancaster, led a series of successful Anglo-Gascon campaigns in Aquitaine and was able to push the focus of the fighting away from the heart of Gascony.

The French port of Calais fell to the English in August 1347 after the Crécy campaign. Shortly after this the Truce of Calais was signed, partially the result of both countries being financially exhausted. The same year the Black Death reached northern France and southern England and is estimated to have killed a third of the population of Western Europe; the death rate was over 40% in southern England. This catastrophe, which lasted until 1350, temporarily halted the fighting. The treaty was extended repeatedly over the years; this did not stop ongoing naval clashes, nor small-scale fighting – which was especially fierce in south-west France – nor occasional fighting on a larger scale.

A treaty to end the war was negotiated at Guînes and signed on 6 April 1354. However, the composition of the inner council of the French king, JohnII ((r. 1350 – 1364)), changed and sentiment turned against its terms. John decided not to ratify it, and it was clear that from the summer of 1355 both sides would be committed to full-scale war. In April 1355 EdwardIII and his council, with the treasury in an unusually favourable financial position, decided to launch offensives that year in both northern France and Gascony. John attempted to strongly garrison his northern towns and fortifications against the expected descent by EdwardIII, at the same time as assembling a field army; he was unable to, largely because of a lack of money.

Black Prince arrives

In 1355 EdwardIII's eldest son, Edward of Woodstock, later commonly known as the Black Prince, was given the Gascon command and began assembling men, shipping and supplies. He arrived in Bordeaux on 20September accompanied by 2,200 English soldiers. The next day he was formally acknowledged as the king's lieutenant in Gascony, with plenipotentiary powers, by the Gascon officials and dignitaries. Gascon nobles reinforced him to a strength of somewhere between 5,000 and 6,000 and provided a bridging train and a substantial supply train.

Edward set out on 5October on a chevauchée, which was a large-scale mounted raid. The Anglo-Gascon force marched from Bordeaux 300 mi to Narbonne – almost on the Mediterranean coast and deep in French-held territory – and back to Gascony. They devastated a wide swathe of French territory and sacked many French towns on the way. John, Count of Armagnac, who commanded the local French forces, avoided battle, and there was little fighting. While no territory was captured, enormous economic damage was done to France; the modern historian Clifford Rogers concluded "the importance of the economic attrition aspect of the chevauchée can hardly be exaggerated." The expedition returned to Gascony on 2December having marched 675 mi.

1356
The English troops resumed the offensive from Gascony after Christmas to great effect. More than 50 French-held towns or fortifications were captured during the following four months, including strategically important towns close to the borders of Gascony, and others more than 80 mi away. Local French commanders did not attempt countermeasures. Several members of the local French nobility changed allegiance to the English; the Black Prince received homage from them on 24April 1356.

Money and enthusiasm for the war were running low in France. The modern historian Jonathan Sumption describes the French national administration as "fall[ing] apart in jealous acrimony and recrimination". A contemporary chronicler recorded "the King of France was severely hated in his own realm". The town of Arras rebelled and killed loyalists. The major nobles of Normandy refused to pay taxes. On 5April 1356 John arrested the notoriously treacherous CharlesII, king of Navarre, one of the largest landholders in Normandy and nine more of his more outspoken critics; four were summarily executed. The Norman nobles who had not been arrested turned to Edward for assistance.

Seeing an opportunity, Edward III diverted an expedition planned for Brittany under Henry of Lancaster to Normandy in late June. Lancaster set off with 2,300 men and pillaged and burnt his way eastward across Normandy. King John moved to Rouen with a much stronger force, hoping to intercept Lancaster. After relieving and re-victualling the besieged fortifications of Breteuil and Pont-Audemer the English stormed and sacked the town of Verneuil. John pursued, but bungled several opportunities to bring the English to battle and they escaped. In three weeks the expedition had, with few casualties, seized a large amount of loot including many horses, cemented new alliances, and damaged the French economy and prestige. The French King returned to Breteuil and re-established the siege, where he continued to be distracted from the English preparations for a greater chevauchée from south-west France.

Manoeuvres

On 4August 1356 a combined force of 6,000 Gascon and English fighting men headed north from Bergerac. They were accompanied by approximately 4,000 non-combatants. All of the fighting men were mounted, including those who would always fight on foot, such as the archers. On 14August the Anglo-Gascon army separated into three divisions, which moved north abreast of each other and began to systematically devastate the countryside. There would be approximately 40 mi between the flanking units, enabling them to devastate a band of French territory more than 50 mi wide, yet be able to unite to face an enemy at approximately a day's notice. They advanced slowly, to facilitate their tasks of looting and destruction. The modern historian David Green describes the progress of the Black Prince's army as "deliberately destructive, extremely brutal... methodical and sophisticated." Several strong castles were assaulted and captured. The populaces of most towns fled, or surrendered at the first sight of Anglo-Gascon troops. Overall, there was little French resistance. If a French field army had been in the area, the Anglo-Gascon forces would have had to stay relatively close together, ready to support each other if attacked. The absence of any such French force enabled the Prince's formations to disperse widely to maximise their destructive effect on the French countryside.

The main French army remained in Normandy. Despite it being clear that Breteuil could be neither stormed nor starved, John felt unable to abandon its siege as this would undermine his prestige as a warrior-king. He declined to march against the Black Prince, declaring that the garrison of Breteuil posed a more serious threat. At some point in August an unusually large belfry, or mobile siege tower, was pushed up to the walls of Breteuil and a full-scale assault launched. The defenders set fire to the belfry and repulsed the attack. Sumption describes the French losses in this attack as "terrible" and the entire second siege as "a pointless endeavour". The historian Kenneth Fowler describes the siege as "magnificent but archaic". Eventually John had to give way to the pressure to do something to prevent the destruction being inflicted in south-west France. Sometime around 20August he offered the garrison of Breteuil free passage, a huge bribe and permission to take with them their valuables and goods, which persuaded them to vacate the town. The French army promptly marched south, as all available forces were concentrated against the Black Prince.

Hearing on 28August that John was marching on Tours and was prepared to give battle, the Black Prince moved his three divisions closer together and ordered them to move towards Tours. He was also willing to fight an open battle, if he could do so under the right circumstances. He still hoped to cross the Loire River, both to be able to come to grips with the French army and to link up with either Edward III's or Lancaster's army, if they were in the area. The French royal army from Breteuil had moved to Chartres, where it received reinforcements, particularly of men-at-arms. John sent home nearly all of the infantry contingents, which reduced the French wage bill and left an entirely mounted force that had the mobility and speed to match that of the Black Prince's all-mounted army. Two hundred Scottish picked men-at-arms under William, Lord of Douglas, joined John at Chartres. Once John felt he had an overwhelmingly strong force it set off south towards the Loire, and then south-west along its north bank. Early on 8September the Black Prince's army reached Tours, where he received news that Lancaster was not far to the east, on the other side of the Loire, and hoped to join him soon. The Anglo-Gascons prepared for battle and expected the imminent arrival of the French. But John had crossed the Loire at Blois, to the east of Tours, on 10September, where he was joined by the army of his son John, Count of Poitiers.

Meanwhile, the anticipated support from England failed to materialise. In early August an Aragonese galley fleet, which had sailed from Barcelona in April, arrived in the English Channel. The fleet hired by the French only contained nine galleys, but it caused panic among the English. Edward's attempts to raise an army to send to France were still underway and shipping was being assembled. The troops gathered were split up to guard the coast and the ships sailing to Southampton to transport the army were ordered to remain in port until the galleys had left. At some point in August Lancaster marched south from eastern Brittany with an army of 2,500 men or more. The unusual height of the Loire and the French control of its bridges meant Lancaster was unable to cross and effect a junction. In early September he abandoned the attempt to force a crossing at Les Ponts-de-Cé and returned to Brittany where he laid siege to its capital, Rennes.

Strategy
The Anglo-Gascon army was treading a balance. While there were no large French forces facing them they spread out to loot and despoil the land. But their primary objective was to use the threat of devastation to force, or perhaps persuade, the French army to attack them. The Anglo-Gascons were confident that fighting defensively on ground of their choosing they could defeat a numerically superior French force. In the event of the French being too numerous they were equally confident that they could avoid battle by manoeuvring. The French, aware of this approach, usually attempted to isolate English forces against a river or the sea, where the threat of starvation would force them to take the tactical offensive and attack the French in a prepared position. Once he crossed the Loire, John repeatedly attempted to interpose his army between the Anglo-Gascons and Gascony, so they would be forced to try and fight their way out. Meanwhile, the Black Prince did not wish to rapidly retreat to the safety of Gascony, but to manoeuvre in the vicinity of the French army so as to persuade it to attack on unfavourable terms, without himself becoming cut off. He was aware that John had been eager to fight Lancaster's force in Normandy in June and anticipated this enthusiasm for battle would continue.

Movement to contact
Once he had crossed the Loire on 10September and been reinforced John moved to cut off the Anglo-Gascon line of retreat. Hearing of this, and losing hope that Lancaster would be able to join him, the Black Prince moved his army some 8 mi south to Montbazon where he took up a fresh defensive position on 12September. The same day John's son and heir, Charles, the Dauphin, entered Tours, having travelled from Normandy with 1,000 men-at-arms, and Hélie de Talleyrand-Périgord, Cardinal of Périgord, arrived at the Black Prince's camp to attempt to negotiate a two-day truce on behalf of Pope Innocent VI. According to differing sources this was to be followed by peace negotiations or an arranged battle. The Black Prince dismissed Talleyrand and, happy to do battle, but concerned that a two-day delay would leave his army with its back to the Loire in an area with few supplies, marched hard and crossed the River Creuse at La Haye on 13September, 25 mi to the south. John, aware he outnumbered the Anglo-Gascons, was also eager to wipe them out in battle and so similarly ignored Talleyrand. The French army continued to march south parallel to the English, rather than moving directly towards them, with the aim of cutting their lines of retreat and supply. On 14September the English marched 15 mi south-west to Châtellerault on the Vienne.

At Châtellerault the Black Prince felt there were no geographical barriers against which the French could pin his army and that he was occupying an advantageous defensive position. He arrived there on 14September, the day Talleyrand had proposed for the two armies to engage in battle, and waited for the French to come to him. Two days later his scouts reported that John had bypassed his position and was about to cross the Vienne at Chauvigny. At this point the French had lost track of the Anglo-Gascon army and were unaware of its position, but were about to position themselves 20 mi south of the Anglo-Gascons and directly in their path back to friendly territory. The Black Prince saw an opportunity to attack the French while they were on the march, or possibly even while crossing the Vienne, and so set off at first light on 17September to intercept them, leaving his baggage train behind to follow on as best it could.

When the Anglo-Gascon vanguard reached Chauvigny most of the French army had already crossed and marched on towards Poitiers. A force of 700 men-at-arms of the French rearguard was intercepted near Savigny-Lévescault. Contemporary accounts note that they were not wearing helmets, suggesting they were completely unarmoured and not expecting battle. They were rapidly routed with 240 killed or captured, including 3 counts taken prisoner. Many Anglo-Gascons pursued the remaining, fleeing, French, although the Black Prince held back most of his army, not wishing to scatter it in the close vicinity of the enemy, and camped at Savigny-Lévescault. In response, John drew up his army outside Poitiers in battle order.

Negotiations
On 18September the Anglo-Gascons marched towards Poitiers arrayed for battle. They took up a strong, carefully selected position 5 mi south of Poitiers on a wooded hill in the Fôret de Nouaillé and began preparing it for a defensive battle: digging pits to impede the French advance (especially that of mounted troops) and trenches, and forming barricades to fight behind. They hoped that the French would launch an impromptu assault. Instead, Talleyrand rode up to negotiate. The Black Prince was initially disinclined to delay any battle. He was persuaded to discuss terms after Talleyrand pointed out that the two armies were now so close that if the French declined to attack, the Anglo-Gascons would find it almost impossible to withdraw. If they attempted to the French would attack, aiming to defeat them in detail, and if they stood their position they would run out of supplies before the French. The Anglo-Gascons needed to stay concentrated in the presence of the French army and several days' hard marching had reduced the opportunities to forage. Because of this, food was almost exhausted. Unknown to Talleyrand the Anglo-Gascons were already unable to find sufficient water for their horses.

After lengthy negotiations the Black Prince agreed extensive concessions in exchange for free passage to Gascony. However, they were dependent on the agreement being ratified by his father, EdwardIII. Unknown to Talleyrand or the French, Edward had given his son written permission to, in such circumstances, "help himself by making a truce or armistice, or in any other way that seems best to him." This has caused modern historians to doubt the Prince's sincerity. The French discussed these proposals at length, with John in favour. Several senior advisers felt it would be humiliating to, as they saw it, have at their mercy the Anglo-Gascon army which had devastated so much of France and to tamely allow it to escape. John was persuaded and Talleyrand informed the Black Prince he could expect a battle. Attempts to agree a site for the battle failed, as the French wished the Anglo-Gascons to move out of their strong defensive position and the English wished to remain there. At dawn on 19September Talleyrand again attempted to arrange a truce, but as his army's supplies were already running out the Black Prince rejected this.

Anglo-Gascon army
The Anglo-Gascon army is generally considered by modern historians to have consisted of 6,000 men: 3,000 men-at-arms, 2,000 English and Welsh longbowmen and 1,000 Gascon infantry. The latter included many equipped with either crossbows or javelins, both classed as light infantry. Some contemporary accounts give lower numbers of 4,800 or 5,000. The division of the men-at-arms between English and Gascons is not recorded, but the previous year, when campaigning with a similarly sized army, 1,000 of the Prince's men-at-arms had been English. All of the Anglo-Gascons travelled on horses, but all or nearly all of them dismounted to fight.

The men-at-arms of both armies were, broadly, knights or knights in training. They were drawn from the landed gentry and ranged from great lords to the relatives and attendants of minor landowners. They needed to be able to equip themselves with a full suit of armour and a warhorse. They wore a quilted gambeson under chain mail which covered the body and limbs. This was supplemented by varying amounts of plate armour on the body and limbs, more so for wealthier and more experienced men. Heads were protected by bascinets: open-faced military iron or steel helmets, with mail attached to the lower edge of the helmet to protect the throat, neck and shoulders. A moveable visor (face guard) protected the face. Heater shields, typically made from thin wood overlaid with leather, were carried. The English men-at-arms were all dismounted. The weapons they used are not recorded, but in similar battles they used their lances as pikes, cut them down to use as short spears, or fought with swords and battle-axes.

The longbow used by the English and Welsh archers was unique to them; it took up to ten years to master and an experienced archer could discharge up to ten arrows per minute well over 330 yd. Computer analysis by Warsaw University of Technology in 2017 demonstrated that heavy bodkin point arrows could penetrate typical plate armour of the time at 250 yd. The depth of penetration would be slight at that range; predicted penetration increased as the range closed or against armour of less than the best quality available at the time. At short range longbow arrows could pierce any practicable thickness of plate armour if they struck at the correct angle. Archers carried one quiver of 24 arrows as standard. There may have been a resupply of ammunition from the wagons to the rear during the battle to at least some longbowmen; the archers also ventured forward during pauses in the fighting to retrieve arrows.

The Anglo-Gascons were divided into three divisions or "battles". The one on the left was commanded by Thomas, Earl of Warwick, marshal of England and a veteran of the Battle of Crecy, where he had been guardian to the Black Prince. He had as deputies John, Earl of Oxford, and the Gascon lord Jean, Captal de Buch; they were assisted by mostly Gascon lords. As well as 1,000 men-at-arms, Warwick's division contained approximately 1,000 archers. The archers were positioned to the left of the men-at-arms. The right flank was under William, Earl of Salisbury, deputised by Robert, Earl of Suffolk, and Maurice, Baron Berkeley. Salisbury's division, like Warwick's, consisted of about 1,000 men-at-arms and 1,000 Welsh and English longbowmen. Again the archers were positioned on the flank of the men-at-arms, in this case the right. The Black Prince took command of the centre division, which consisted of men-at-arms and Gascon infantry: about 1,000 of each, only the flanking divisions contained longbowmen. He had two veteran campaigners, John Chandos and James Audley, as his deputies. Initially the Prince's force was held back behind the other two divisions as a reserve. Each division deployed four to five men deep. It is possible a further, small, reserve was held back behind the Prince's division.

French army

The French army was made up of between 14,000 and 16,000 men: 10,000 to 12,000 were men-at-arms, 2,000 were crossbowmen and 2,000 were infantrymen who were not classed as men-at-arms. Although most or all of the French had travelled mounted, they all fought dismounted at Poitiers except for two small groups of mounted knights, totalling either 300 or 500. These were selected from the Frenchmen who had the best armour, especially on their horses; horse armour is known as barding and the use of plate armour for this was a recent innovation in Western Europe. Their riders were equipped as the dismounted men-at-arms, apart from the superior quality of their armour. They wielded wooden lances, usually ash, tipped with iron and approximately 13 ft long; their dismounted colleagues retained their lances, but cut them down to 5 to 6 ft in order to use them as short spears. The crossbowmen wore metal helmets, brigandines (thick leather jerkins with varying amounts of small pieces of plate armour sewn to them) and possibly chain-mail hauberks. Crossbowmen usually fought from behind pavises – very large shields with their own bearers, behind each of which three crossbowmen could shelter. A trained crossbowman could shoot his weapon approximately twice a minute and had a shorter effective range than a longbowman of about 200 m.

The French army was divided into four battles. The foremost division was led by the constable of France, Walter, Count of Brienne. As well as a large core of French men-at-arms it included 200 Scottish men-at-arms under William Douglas, most of the French infantry and crossbowmen and all of their cavalry. The two small groups of cavalry were each led by one of the two marshals of France: Arnoul d'Audrehem and Jean de Clermont. The leading French were approximately 500 yd from the English. Behind this was a division led jointly by John's 19-year-old son and heir and John's uncle: Charles, the Dauphin, and Peter, Duke of Bourbon, respectively; Charles was experiencing his first taste of war. This formation consisted entirely of dismounted men-at-arms, 4,000 of them. The third division was led by John's younger brother, Philip, Duke of Orléans, also inexperienced in war, and was made up of approximately 3,200 men-at-arms. The rearmost division, of 2,000 men-at-arms and an uncertain number of crossbowmen, was commanded by the king himself.

First attack
The English had slept in or near their defensive positions and just after dawn – which would have been at 5:40 am – the French drew themselves up in battle order with their leading men about 500 yd from the English positions. After the two armies had been facing each other for about two hours the French detected movement among the English, and believed the Black Prince's personal standard was withdrawing. There is modern debate as to what movement took place. Some scholars have proposed that the movement was of wagons, escorted by cavalry from Warwick's division; the wagons may have been empty and returning to their laager in the rear, or full and moving to a safer position away from the front line, or both and the start of a staged withdrawal by the English. If the latter their escort may have been most or all of Warwick's division and the movement of the standard was possibly his being mistaken for the Prince's or the Prince moving back as the second part of the disengagement. Another proposal is that the Black Prince deliberately had his troops move to simulate a withdrawal and provoke a French attack. The commanders of the leading French division took the movement to be a full-scale English withdrawal and ordered their men to advance, thinking this movement would effectively be a pursuit, thus starting the fighting.

Audrehem's cavalry attacked Warwick's division on the English left, while Clermont charged Salisbury's on the right. In both cases the French plan was that they clear away the English archers, while given fire support by their own crossbowmen. However, the archers in Warwick's division were positioned in the edge of a marsh and this terrain prevented the French cavalry from getting to grips with them. The archers in turn found that the French armour and barding prevented them from firing effectively. To get close enough to penetrate the French armour, the longbowmen would have had to leave the protection of the marsh, which would have exposed them to the risk of being ridden down by the French. Instead, they turned their fire on the supporting crossbowmen and, having a superior rate of fire, were able to suppress them. Oxford realised the French horses were mostly only barded on their forequarters. He led some of the archers along the edge of the marsh to a position from which they could shoot into the horses' unprotected hindquarters. The French cavalry took heavy casualties and withdrew; Audrehem was captured.

On the English right Clermont advanced more cautiously, not far ahead of Brienne's dismounted troops. He discovered that Salisbury's men were defending a thick hedge with a single passable gap, wide enough for four horses abreast. Already committed to the attack, the French attempted to smash through the men-at-arms defending the gap. The English archers positioned in trenches near and to the right of the hedge are calculated to have fired 50 arrows per second at Clermont's group of cavalry. Gascon crossbowmen joined in; although they had a much lower rate of fire, they could penetrate plate armour at longer ranges. Despite this fire, the cavalry were able to reach the gap in the hedge with few casualties. Here a fierce melee broke out. With the French now halted and at close range, the longbowmen were more effective against them. The French were also heavily outnumbered by the English men-at-arms and were forced back with heavy losses, including Clermont killed.

The sources contain only details concerning the rest of the attack by the first French division, made up of a mixed force of French and foreign men-at-arms, and common heavy infantry. The bolts from their supporting crossbowmen were recorded as falling thickly, but with the cavalry repulsed the longbowmen turned against them and, having a superior rate of fire, were able to force them to withdraw despite their use of pavises. The division's leader, Brienne, the constable of France, was killed, as was one of Talleyrand's nephews, Robert of Durazzo, who had accompanied the Cardinal during his negotiations. Douglas either fled to save his life or was badly wounded and carried from the field. Given the heavy French casualties, it is assumed the attack was strongly pressed. As some contemporary sources summarise this phase of the fighting with "the first French division was defeated by the arrows of the English" it is also assumed by many modern historians that the longbowmen, still well supplied with ammunition able to punch straight through armour at close range, played a prominent part in the attack's repulse. The Black Prince was infuriated by the participation of Talleyrand's relatives and companions, and when told that a relative of the Cardinal, the châtelain d'Emposte, had been captured he ordered him beheaded; he was rapidly persuaded to withdraw the order by his advisers.

Second attack

There was no pursuit of the French survivors of the first attack as they retreated. The English were ordered to hold their positions and to take the opportunity to reform, as the next French division was already moving towards them. This, 4,000 strong, attacked vigorously. The French advanced against the steady fire of the English and Welsh archers, which caused many casualties, and were disordered by the retreating members of the first assault. The French had to force their way through the hedge the English were defending, which put them at a disadvantage, but they closed with the Anglo-Gascons in ferocious hand-to-hand fighting which went on for two hours.

They massed against two gaps in the hedge, on one occasion succeeding in driving back their opponents and breaking through; a force of archers had been deployed to cover this position and their fire cut down the leading Frenchmen, giving the Anglo-Gascons the opportunity to counter-attack and reform their line. Suffolk, aged almost 60, rode behind the Anglo-Gascon line, shouting encouragement, directing reinforcements to threatened points and telling the archers where to direct their fire. Throughout the battle the experienced English and Gascon commanders were able to manoeuvre and redeploy their troops in a way the French were not. The French commanders, mostly, carried out their orders and their men fought with reckless bravery, but they were inflexible. The Anglo-Gascons were able to respond in the heat of battle to French threats. Sumption describes this as "remarkable", David Green refers to "an extremely flexible tactical response". The historian Peter Hoskins states that most of the Anglo-Gascons having served together for a year "contributed to the discipline that the Anglo-Gascons displayed" and suggests that the French attack was ineptly handled.

A contemporary French chronicler described this second attack as "more amazing, harder and more lethal than the others". An English account states "Man fought frenziedly against man, each one striving to bring death to his opponent so that he himself might live." As the fighting went on, the Black Prince was forced to commit almost all of his reserves to reinforce weak spots. Both sides suffered many casualties. Audley was noted for being wounded in the body, head and face, and fighting on for the English. One of the French joint commanders, Bourbon, was killed, and the Dauphin's standard-bearer was captured. The Dauphin was accompanied by two of his brothers, Louis and John, and the trio's advisers and bodyguards were perturbed by the intensity of the fighting in their vicinity and forced them to withdraw from the front line to a safer position. Seeing this, the rest of the division, exhausted after two hours fighting and already demoralised by the death of Bourbon and the loss of the Dauphin's standard, withdrew as well. There was no panic and the disengagement was orderly. The senior surviving commanders of the division confirmed the movement and the surviving men-at-arms marched away from the Anglo-Gascons.

It is unclear if the Anglo-Gascons pursued the French, and if so, to what extent. Some modern historians state that the Anglo-Gascons again remained in their positions, as they had after the repulse of the first French division. Others write of a limited pursuit by individuals breaking ranks or of a full-blooded one by Warwick's division causing many French casualties. In any event, most of the Anglo-Gascons stood their ground, tended their wounded, knifed the French wounded and stripped their bodies and those of the already dead, and recovered what arrows they could find in the immediate vicinity, including those impaling dead and wounded Frenchmen. There were many English and Gascons wounded or dead and those still standing were exhausted from three hours of ferocious and near-continuous fighting.

Third attack
As the Dauphin's division recoiled there was confusion in the French ranks. The third French division contained 3,200 men-at-arms. Their commander, John's brother the Duke of Orléans, marched away from the battle with half of them and many of the survivors of the first two attacks. The contemporary sources contradict each other regarding the reasons for this. Orléans may have thought that the orderly withdrawal of the Dauphin's division marked a general retreat. There were official accounts after the battle that John had ordered Orléans to escort his four sons to safety, but these were widely disbelieved and rumoured to have been invented after the event to excuse the behaviour of Orléans and the men who had retreated with him. Three of John's four sons, including the Dauphin, did leave the field at this point; one, Philip, returned to his father's side and took part in the final attack. Of the 1,600 men who did not flee the scene, who included some from Orléans' inner circle, many joined the King's division behind. The rest advanced against the Anglo-Gascons and launched a feeble attack, which was repelled easily.

In the aftermath of this failure a number, possibly a large number, of men from Warwick's division left their positions and pursued the French. One motivation for this would have been their intention to take prisoners, the ransoming of whom could be extremely lucrative. Many of the English and Welsh archers again scavenged longbow arrows from the immediate vicinity. Of those men-at-arms who did not pursue, the majority were carrying wounds of varying degrees of severity and treating them was a preoccupation.

Fourth attack

John's fourth French division had started the battle with 2,000 men-at-arms, including 400 picked men under his personal command. Many of the surviving men-at-arms of the first two attacks had rallied to the King, as had many of those from the third division who had not withdrawn with Orléans. Some survivors of the botched third assault also fell back to join the King. These reinforcements probably brought the number of men-at-arms in the division to about 4,000. John's division also had a large but unspecified number of crossbowmen attached to it, and they had been joined by many surviving crossbowmen from the first attack. Modern scholars differ as to whether the French or the Anglo-Gascons had more men at this stage of the battle. This very large division marched across the 1 mi gap towards the by now exhausted Anglo-Gascons, again all as infantry. The King ordered the French sacred banner, the Oriflamme, to be unfurled, which signalled that no prisoners were to be taken, on pain of death.

It was normal for medieval armies to form up in three divisions; having overcome three French divisions, many in the Anglo-Gascon army thought the battle was over. The sight of a further major force, under the royal standard and with the Oriflamme flying, dispirited them. One chronicler reports the Black Prince prayed aloud as this last division approached. The Prince harangued his exhausted men in an attempt to stiffen their morale, but they remained doubtful of their ability to repulse the approaching force. The Anglo-Gascon command group conferred. It seemed probable that if they stood to face a fourth attack they would be defeated. They decided to attempt a stratagem. Perhaps remembering a similar ploy by a French force at the 1349 Battle of Lunalonge it was agreed to send a small mounted group under the Gascon lord Jean, the Captal de Buch, on a circuitous march around the French flank in an attempt to launch a surprise attack on the French rear. The account by one contemporary chronicler that all of the Anglo-Gascon men-at-arms remounted at this point is generally discounted by modern historians. Some modern sources have a force of volunteers led by the wounded Audley mounting and being tasked with launching an attack against King John personally once the two forces came to battle – only 4 men by some modern accounts, 400 in others. The modern historian Michael Jones describes this as a "suicide mission". Other modern sources maintain that other than the Captal de Buch's small force all of the Anglo-Gascons remained dismounted.

The sight of the Captal de Buch and his men making for the rear further disheartened the Anglo-Gascons, who believed that they were fearfully escaping an inevitable defeat. Some men fled. Concerned his army would break and rout in the face of the French assault, the Black Prince gave the order for a general advance. This bolstered Anglo-Gascon morale and shook the French. Discipline reasserted itself and the Anglo-Gascons moved forward, out of their defensive positions. The French crossbowmen advanced in front of their men-at-arms, and as the English longbowmen on the flanks of the Anglo-Gascon men-at-arms came within range they attempted to establish fire superiority. The French crossbow bolts are said to have "darkened the sky". The men firing them were able to shelter behind pavises and the English archers were running short of arrows after the desperate fighting of the morning. Nevertheless, the English were able to largely suppress this fire until the crossbowmen drew aside to let the French men-at-arms through for their final charge. As the English archers expended the last of their ammunition these 4,000 or so men-at-arms attempted to use their shields, ducked their heads against the arrows and charged home into the survivors of the 3,000 English and Gascon men-at-arms who had started the battle. The longbowmen threw their bows aside and joined the melee armed with swords and hand axes.

Battle was again joined, with fierce fighting. The impetus of the Anglo-Gascon charge was halted by the French, who slowly got the better of the struggle. Rogers is of the opinion that the French would have won this fight if no other factors had intervened. The Anglo-Gascon line was starting to break when it was reinforced by men of Warwick's division returning from their pursuit. This heartened the Anglo-Gascons and discouraged the French. If it occurred, it was at this point that Audley led a cavalry charge aimed directly at the French king. The fighting continued, with the French focused on the opponents in front of them. With the battle in the balance, the Captal de Buch's 160 men arrived undetected in the French rear. His 100 archers dismounted and opened an effective fire into the French rear – a contemporary account states they "greatly and horribly pierced" the French – and his 60 mounted men-at-arms charged into the rear of the French line.

The 2,000 men who had originally made up John's division were all assigned to its front line when it advanced. Men who joined after their original divisions had been defeated in the previous three attacks filled in behind them. They were more tired than those in the front ranks and, having already having taken part in a failed assault, their morale was brittle. Dismayed by Warwick's reinforcement and shocked by the Captal de Buch's sudden arrival behind them, some started to run from the field. Once this movement had started others copied them and the division fell apart. Most of the first to run were able to reach their horses and escape, as the Anglo-Gascons concentrated on dealing with their enemies who were still fighting. These were pushed back as the Anglo-Gascons were reinvigorated by the prospect of victory. The French still fighting around their King were forced into a loop of the River Miosson, known as the Champ d'Alexandre. By now they had been surrounded and split into small groups.

Many of these men were the elite of the French army: John's personal bodyguards, senior nobles or members of the Order of the Star. (The latter had all sworn not to retreat from a battle.) The fighting was brutal as these men refused to surrender. Their cause was clearly hopeless and the Anglo-Gascons were eager to take them prisoner – in order that they could be ransomed – rather than kill them, so many were captured. The standard-bearer of the Oriflamme was killed and the sacred banner captured. Surrounded by enemies, John and his youngest son, Philip, surrendered.

Mopping up
Frenchmen who had fled soon after the Captal de Buch's force arrived generally reached their horses and were able to escape. Once John's division was clearly retreating many Anglo-Gascons mounted and pursued. A large number pursued the Frenchmen fleeing towards what they thought was the safety of Poitiers. Its citizens, fearing the Anglo-Gascons, had closed the gates and manned the walls, and refused access. The mounted Anglo-Gascons caught the French soldiers as they milled outside the gate and slaughtered them. The lack of mention of any quarter being offered suggests that the French were common soldiers, rather than men-at-arms whom it would have been financially advantageous to capture in order to hold for ransom. The French camp was overrun by Anglo-Gascon cavalry. Elsewhere the Anglo-Gascons spread out in a helter-skelter chase. French men-at-arms who failed to reach their horses were captured or, occasionally, killed. Those who did mount were frequently pursued: some were caught and captured, some fought off their pursuers, while most escaped. It was evening before the last Anglo-Gascons returned to their camp with their prisoners.

Casualties
According to different modern sources 2,000 to 3,000 French men-at-arms and either 500 or 800 common soldiers were taken prisoner during the battle. As well as the King and his youngest son they included the archbishop of Sens, one of the two marshals of France, and the seneschals of Saintonge, Tours and Poitou. Approximately 2,500 French men-at-arms were killed, as were 3,300 common soldiers according to English accounts or 700 by French ones. Among the slain were the French King's uncle; the grand constable of France; the other marshal; the Bishop of Châlons; and John's standard bearer, Geoffroi de Charny. A contemporary opined that the French had suffered "a great harm, a great pity, and damage irreparable". The Anglo-Gascons suffered many wounded but reported a mere 40 to 60 killed, of whom only 4 were men-at-arms. Hoskins comments that these "seem improbably low". Modern sources estimate Anglo-Gascon fatalities at about 40 men-at-arms and an uncertain but much larger number of bowmen and other infantry.

March to Bordeaux
The French were concerned the victorious Anglo-Gascons would attempt to storm Poitiers or other towns, or continue their devastation. The Black Prince was more concerned with getting his army with its prisoners and loot safely back to Gascony. He was aware many Frenchmen had survived the battle, but unaware of their state of cohesion or morale. The Anglo-Gascons moved 3 mi south on 20September and tended the wounded, buried the dead, paroled some of their prisoners, and reorganised their formations. On 21September the Anglo-Gascons continued their interrupted march south, travelling slowly, overladen as they were with plunder and prisoners. On 2 October they entered Libourne and rested while a triumphal entrance was arranged at Bordeaux. Two weeks later the Black Prince escorted John into Bordeaux amid ecstatic scenes.

Peace

The Black Prince's chevauchée is described by Rogers as "the most important campaign of the Hundred Years' War". In its aftermath English and Gascon forces raided widely across France, against little or no opposition. With no effective central authority France dissolved into near anarchy. In March 1357 a truce was agreed for two years. In April the Black Prince sailed for England, accompanied by his prisoner, John, and landed at Plymouth on 5 May. They proceeded to London and a rapturous reception. Protracted negotiations between John and Edward III led to the First Treaty of London in May 1358, which would have ended the war with a large transfer of French territory to England and the payment of a ransom for John's freedom. The French government was unenthusiastic and was anyway unable to raise the first instalment of the ransom, causing the treaty to lapse. A peasant revolt known as the jacquerie broke out in northern France during the spring of 1358 and was bloodily put down in June. At length John and Edward agreed the Second Treaty of London, which was similar to the first except that even larger swathes of French territory would be transferred to the English. In May 1359 this was similarly rejected by the Dauphin and the Estates General.

In October 1359 Edward III led another campaign in northern France. It was unopposed by French forces but was unable to take any strongly fortified places. Instead the English army spread out and for six months devastated much of the region. Both countries were finding it almost impossible to finance continued hostilities, but neither was inclined to change their attitude to the proposed peace terms. On 13 April 1360, near Chartres, a sharp fall in temperature and a heavy hail storm killed many English baggage horses and some soldiers. Taking this as a sign from God, Edward reopened negotiations, directly with the Dauphin. By 8 May the Treaty of Brétigny had been agreed, which largely replicated the First Treaty of London or the Treaty of Guînes. By this treaty vast areas of France were ceded to England, to be personally ruled by the Black Prince, and John was ransomed for three million gold écu. Rogers states "Edward gained territories comprising a full third of France, to be held in full sovereignty, along with a huge ransom for the captive King John – his original war aims and much more." As well as John, sixteen of the more senior nobles captured at Poitiers were finally released with the sealing of this treaty. At the time it seemed this was the end of the war, but large-scale fighting broke out again in 1369 and the Hundred Years' War did not end until 1453, with a French victory which left only Calais in English hands.

title: Battle of Poitiers


text:
Talk:Biotechnology

when has this article last been updated? 2008?!?
I am reading this article in May 2013 and it states "Revenue in the industry is expected to grow by 12.9% in 2008".

Wiki Education assignment: Developmental and Molecular Biology Spring 2024
— Assignment last updated by Tomascasas00 (talk) 14:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Biotechnology


text:
Backbone cabal

The backbone cabal was an informal organization of large-site news server administrators of the worldwide distributed newsgroup-based discussion system Usenet. It existed from about 1983 at least into the 2000s.

The cabal was created in an effort to facilitate reliable propagation of new Usenet posts. While in the 1970s and 1980s many news servers only operated during night time to save on the cost of long-distance communication, servers of the backbone cabal were available 24 hours a day. The administrators of these servers gained sufficient influence in the otherwise anarchic Usenet community to be able to push through controversial changes, for instance the Great Renaming of Usenet newsgroups during 1987.

History
Mary Ann Horton recruited membership in and designed the original physical topology of the Usenet Backbone in 1983. Gene "Spaf" Spafford then created an email list of the backbone administrators, plus a few influential posters. This list became known as the Backbone Cabal and served as a "political (i.e. decision making) backbone". Other prominent members of the cabal were Brian Reid, Richard Sexton, Chuq von Rospach and Rick Adams.

In internet culture
During most of its existence, the cabal (sometimes capitalized) steadfastly denied its own existence; those involved would often respond "There is no Cabal" (sometimes abbreviated as "TINC"' ).

The result of this policy was an aura of mystery, even a decade after the cabal mailing list disbanded in late 1988 following an internal fight.

title: Backbone cabal


text:
Bongo (antelope)

The bongo (Tragelaphus eurycerus) is a large, mostly nocturnal, forest-dwelling antelope, native to sub-Saharan Africa. Bongos are characterised by a striking reddish-brown coat, black and white markings, white-yellow stripes, and long slightly spiralled horns. It is the only tragelaphid in which both sexes have horns. Bongos have a complex social interaction and are found in African dense forest mosaics. They are the third-largest antelope in the world.

The western or lowland bongo, T. e. eurycerus, faces an ongoing population decline, and the IUCN Antelope Specialist Group considers it to be Near Threatened on the conservation status scale.

The eastern or mountain bongo, T. e. isaaci, of Kenya, has a coat even more vibrant than that of T. e. eurycerus. The mountain bongo is only found in the wild in a few mountain regions of central Kenya. This bongo is classified by the IUCN Antelope Specialist Group as Critically Endangered, with fewer individuals in the wild than in captivity (where it breeds readily).

In 2000, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums in the USA (AZA) upgraded the bongo to a Species Survival Plan participant and in 2006 added the Bongo Restoration to Mount Kenya Project to its list of the Top Ten Wildlife Conservation Success Stories of the year. However, in 2013, it seems, these successes have been compromised by reports of possibly only 100 mountain bongos left in the wild due to logging and poaching.

Taxonomy
The scientific name of the bongo is Tragelaphus eurycerus, and it belongs to the genus Tragelaphus and family Bovidae. It was first described by Irish naturalist William Ogilby in 1837. The generic name Tragelaphus is composed of two Greek words: trag-, meaning a goat; and elaphos, meaning deer. The specific name eurycerus originated from the fusion of eurus (broad, widespread) and keras (an animal's horn). The common name "bongo" originated probably from the Kele language of Gabon. The first known use of the name "bongo" in English dates to 1861.

Bongos are further classified into two subspecies: T. e. eurycerus, the lowland or western bongo, and the far rarer T. e. isaaci, the mountain or eastern bongo, restricted to the mountains of Kenya only. The eastern bongo is larger and heavier than the western bongo. Two other subspecies are described from West and Central Africa, but taxonomic clarification is required. They have been observed to live up to 19 years.

Appearance
Bongos are one of the largest of the forest antelopes. In addition to the deep chestnut colour of their coats, they have bright white stripes on their sides to help with camouflage.

Adults of both sexes are similar in size. Adult height is about 1.1 to 1.3 m at the shoulder and length is 2.15 to 3.15 m, including a tail of 45 - 65 cm. Females weigh around 150 –, while males weigh about 220 –. Its large size puts it as the third-largest in the Bovidae tribe of Strepsicerotini, behind both the common and greater eland by about 300 kg, and above the greater kudu by about 40 kg.

Both sexes have heavy spiral horns; those of the male are longer and more massive. All bongos in captivity are from the isolated Aberdare Mountains of central Kenya.

Coat and body
The bongo sports a bright auburn or chestnut coat, with the neck, chest, and legs generally darker than the rest of the body, especially in males. Coats of male bongos become darker as they age until they reach a dark mahogany-brown colour. Coats of female bongos are usually more brightly coloured than those of males. The eastern bongo is darker in color than the western and this is especially pronounced in older males which tend to be chestnut brown, especially on the forepart of their bodies.

The smooth coat is marked with 10–15 vertical white-yellow stripes, spread along the back from the base of the neck to the rump. The number of stripes on each side is rarely the same. It also has a short, bristly, brown ridge of dorsal hair from the shoulder to the rump; the white stripes run into this ridge.

A white chevron appears between the eyes, with two large white spots on each cheek. Another white chevron occurs where the neck meets the chest. Bongos have no special secretion glands, so rely likely less on scent to find one another than do other similar antelopes. The lips of a bongo are white, topped with a black muzzle.

Horns
Bongos have two heavy and slightly spiralled horns that slope over their backs. Bongo males have larger backswept horns, while females have smaller, thinner, and more parallel horns. The size of the horns range between 75 and 99 cm. The horns of bongos are spiraled, and share this trait with those of the related antelope species of nyalas, sitatungas, bushbucks, kudus, and elands. The horns of bongos twist once.

Unlike deer, which have branched antlers shed annually, bongos and other antelopes have unbranched horns they keep throughout their lives.

Like all other horns of antelopes, the core of a bongo's horn is hollow and the outer layer of the horn is made of keratin, the same material that makes up human fingernails, toenails, and hair. The bongo runs gracefully and at full speed through even the thickest tangles of lianas, laying its heavy spiralled horns on its back so the brush cannot impede its flight. Bongos are hunted for their horns by humans.

Social organization and behavior
Like other forest ungulates, bongos are seldom seen in large groups. Males, called bulls, tend to be solitary, while females with young live in groups of six to eight. Bongos have seldom been seen in herds of more than 20. Gestation is about 285 days (9.5 months), with one young per birth, and weaning occurs at six months. Sexual maturity is reached at 24–27 months. The preferred habitat of this species is so dense and difficult to operate in, that few Europeans or Americans observed this species until the 1960s. As young males mature and leave their maternal groups, they most often remain solitary, although rarely they join an older male. Adult males of similar size/age tend to avoid one another. Occasionally, they meet and spar with their horns in a ritualised manner and it is rare for serious fights to take place. However, such fights are usually discouraged by visual displays, in which the males bulge their necks, roll their eyes, and hold their horns in a vertical position while slowly pacing back and forth in front of the other male. They seek out females only during mating time. When they are with a herd of females, males do not coerce them or try to restrict their movements as do some other antelopes.

Although mostly nocturnal, they are occasionally active during the day. However, like deer, bongos may exhibit crepuscular behaviour. Bongos are both timid and easily frightened; after a scare, a bongo moves away at considerable speed, even through dense undergrowth. Once they find cover, they stay alert and face away from the disturbance, but peek every now and then to check the situation. The bongo's hindquarters are less conspicuous than the forequarters, and from this position the animal can quickly flee.

When in distress, the bongo emits a bleat. It uses a limited number of vocalisations, mostly grunts and snorts; females have a weak mooing contact-call for their young. Females prefer to use traditional calving grounds restricted to certain areas, while newborn calves lie in hiding for a week or more, receiving short visits by the mother to suckle.

The calves grow rapidly and can soon accompany their mothers in the nursery herds. Their horns grow rapidly and begin to show in 3.5 months. They are weaned after six months and reach sexual maturity at about 20 months.

Distribution and habitat
Bongos are found in tropical jungles with dense undergrowth up to an altitude of 4000 m in Central Africa, with isolated populations in Kenya, and these West African countries: Cameroon, the Central African Republic, the Republic of the Congo, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Ivory Coast, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, South Sudan. Historically, bongos are found in three disjunct parts of Africa: East, Central, and West. Today, all three populations' ranges have shrunk in size due to habitat loss for agriculture and uncontrolled timber cutting, as well as hunting for meat.

Bongos favour disturbed forest mosaics that provide fresh, low-level green vegetation. Such habitats may be promoted by heavy browsing by elephants, fires, flooding, tree-felling (natural or by logging), and fallowing. Mass bamboo die-off provides ideal habitat in East Africa. They can live in bamboo forests.

Diet
Like many forest ungulates, bongos are herbivorous browsers and feed on leaves, bushes, vines, bark and pith of rotting trees, grasses/herbs, roots, cereals, and fruits.

Bongos require salt in their diets, and are known to regularly visit natural salt licks. Bongos are also known to eat burnt wood after a storm, as a rich source of salt and minerals. This behavior is believed to be a means of getting salts and minerals into their diets. This behavior has also been reported in the okapi. Another similarity to the okapi, though the bongo is unrelated, is that the bongo has a long prehensile tongue which it uses to grasp grasses and leaves.

Suitable habitats for bongos must have permanent water available. As a large animal, the bongo requires an ample amount of food, and is restricted to areas with abundant year-round growth of herbs and low shrubs.

Population and conservation
Few estimates of population density are available. Assuming average population densities of 0.25 animals per km2 in regions where it is known to be common or abundant, and 0.02 per km2 elsewhere, and with a total area of occupancy of 327,000 km2, a total population estimate of around 28,000 is suggested. Only about 60% are in protected areas, suggesting the actual numbers of the lowland subspecies may only be in the low tens of thousands. In Kenya, their numbers have declined significantly and on Mount Kenya, they were extirpated within the last decade due to illegal hunting with dogs. Although information on their status in the wild is lacking, lowland bongos are not presently considered endangered.

Bongos are susceptible to diseases such as rinderpest, which almost exterminated the species during the 1890s. Tragelaphus eurycerus may suffer from goitre. Over the course of the disease, the thyroid glands greatly enlarge (up to 10 x 20 cm) and may become polycystic. Pathogenesis of goiter in the bongo may reflect a mixture of genetic predisposition coupled with environmental factors, including a period of exposure to a goitrogen. Leopards and spotted hyenas are the primary natural predators (lions are seldom encountered due to differing habitat preferences); pythons sometimes eat bongo calves. Humans prey on them for their pelts, horns, and meat, with the species being a common local source for "bush meat". Bongo populations have been greatly reduced by hunting, poaching, and animal trapping, although some bongo refuges exist.

Although bongos are quite easy for humans to catch using snares, many people native to the bongos' habitat believed that if they ate or touched bongo, they would have spasms similar to epileptic seizures. Because of this superstition, bongos were less harmed in their native ranges than expected. However, these taboos are said no longer to exist, which may account for increased hunting by humans in recent times.

Zoo programmes
An international studbook is maintained to help manage animals held in captivity. Because of its bright colour, it is very popular in zoos and private collections. In North America, over 400 individuals are thought to be held, a population that probably exceeds that of the mountain bongo in the wild.

In 2000, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) upgraded the bongo to a Species Survival Plan participant, which works to improve the genetic diversity of managed animal populations. The target population for participating zoos and private collections in North America is 250 animals. Through the efforts of zoos in North America, a reintroduction to the population in Kenya is being developed.

At least one collaborative effort for reintroduction between North American wildlife facilities has already been carried out. In 2004, 18 eastern bongos born in North American zoos gathered at White Oak Conservation in Yulee, Florida for release in Kenya. White Oak staff members traveled with the bongos to a Mount Kenya holding facility, where they stayed until being reintroduced.

Conservation
In the last few decades, a rapid decline in the numbers of wild mountain bongo has occurred due to poaching and human pressure on their habitat, with local extinctions reported in Cherangani and Chepalungu hills, Kenya.

The Bongo Surveillance Programme, working alongside the Kenya Wildlife Service, have recorded photos of bongos at remote salt licks in the Aberdare Forests using camera traps, and, by analyzing DNA extracted from dung, have confirmed the presence of bongo in Mount Kenya, Eburru, and Mau forests. The programme estimate as few as 140 animals left in the wild – spread across four isolated populations. Whilst captive breeding programmes can be viewed as having been successful in ensuring survival of this species in Europe and North America, the situation in the wild has been less promising. Evidence exists of bongo surviving in Kenya. However, these populations are believed to be small, fragmented, and vulnerable to extinction.

Animal populations with impoverished genetic diversity are inherently less able to adapt to changes in their environments (such as climate change, disease outbreaks, habitat change, etc.). The isolation of the four remaining small bongo populations, which themselves would appear to be in decline, means a substantial amount of genetic material is lost each generation. Whilst the population remains small, the impact of transfers will be greater, so the establishment of a "metapopulation management plan" occurs concurrently with conservation initiatives to enhance in situ population growth, and this initiative is both urgent and fundamental to the future survival of mountain bongo in the wild.

The western/lowland bongo faces an ongoing population decline as habitat destruction and hunting pressures increase with the relentless expansion of human settlement. Its long-term survival will only be assured in areas which receive active protection and management. At present, such areas comprise about 30,000 km2, and several are in countries where political stability is fragile. So, a realistic possibility exists whereby its status could decline to Threatened in the near future.

As the largest and most spectacular forest antelope, the western/lowland bongo is both an important flagship species for protected areas such as national parks, and a major trophy species which has been taken in increasing numbers in Central Africa by sport hunters during the 1990s. Both of these factors are strong incentives to provide effective protection and management of populations.

Trophy hunting has the potential to provide economic justification for the preservation of larger areas of bongo habitat than national parks, especially in remote regions of Central Africa, where possibilities for commercially successful tourism are very limited.

The eastern/mountain bongo's survival in the wild is dependent on more effective protection of the surviving remnant populations in Kenya. If this does not occur, it will eventually become extinct in the wild. The existence of a healthy captive population of this subspecies offers the potential for its reintroduction.

Groups supporting bongo conservation in Kenya
In 2004, Dr. Jake Veasey, the head of the Department of Animal Management and Conservation at Woburn Safari Park and a member of the European Association of Zoos and Aquariums Population Management Advisory Group, with the assistance of Lindsay Banks, took over responsibility for the management and coordination of the European Endangered Species Programme for the eastern bongo. This includes some 250 animals across Europe and the Middle East.

Along with the Rothschild giraffe, the eastern bongo is arguably one of the most threatened large mammals in Africa, with recent estimates numbering less than 140 animals, below a minimum sustainable viable population. The situation is exacerbated because these animals are spread across four isolated populations. Whilst the bongo endangered species program can be viewed as having been successful in ensuring survival of this species in Europe, it has not yet become actively involved in the conservation of this species in the wild in a coordinated fashion. The plan is to engage in conservation activities in Kenya to assist in reversing the decline of the eastern bongo populations and genetic diversity in Africa, and in particular, applying population management expertise to help ensure the persistence of genetic diversity in the free ranging wild populations.

To illustrate significance of genetic diversity loss, assume the average metapopulation size is 35 animals based on 140 animals spread across four populations (140/4=35). Assuming stable populations, these populations will lose 8% of their genetic diversity every decade. By managing all four populations as one, through strategic transfers, gene loss is reduced from 8% to 2% per decade, without any increase in bongo numbers in Kenya. By managing the European and African populations as one – by strategic exports from Europe combined with in situ transfers, gene loss is reduced to 0.72% every 100 years, with both populations remaining stable. If populations in Kenya are allowed to grow through the implementation of effective conservation, including strategic transfers, gene loss can be effectively halted in this species and its future secured in the wild.

The initial aims of the project are:
 * 1) Through faecal DNA analysis, estimate the genetic diversity of the remaining wild bongos and calculate the relatedness of the isolated wild populations.
 * 2) More accurately estimate the total population of wild bongos through faecal DNA analysis, camera trapping, and transect surveying.
 * 3) Through direct sampling, estimate the genetic diversity of the captive bongo population and calculate its relatedness with the remaining isolated wild populations.
 * 4) Collect DNA samples from western bongos to calculate the relatedness of the two subspecies.
 * 5) Fund rangers to collect the above data in Kenya, enhance the degree of protection afforded to and level of understanding of the eastern bongos' ecological needs.
 * 6) To realise such a metapopulation management plan, work with local communities is essential to reverse the decline and allow for the implementation of a transfer strategy. A substantial proportion of wild genetic diversity likely will have already been lost.

If effective protection were implemented immediately and bongo populations allowed to expand without transfers, then this would create a bigger population of genetically impoverished bongos. These animals would be less able to adapt to a dynamic environment. Whilst the population remains small, the impact of transfers will be greater. For this reason, the 'metapopulation management plan' must occur concurrently with conservation strategies to enhance in situ population growth. This initiative is both urgent and fundamental to the future survival of the mountain bongo in the wild.

In 2013, SafariCom telecommunications donated money to the Bongo Surveillance Programme to try to keep tabs on what are thought to be the last 100 eastern bongos left in the wild in the Mau Eburu Forest in central Kenya, whose numbers are still declining due to logging of their habitat and illegal poaching.

Mount Kenya Wildlife Conservancy runs a bongo rehabilitation program in collaboration with the Kenya Wildlife Service. The Conservancy aims to prevent extinction of the bongo through breeding and release back into the wild.

Status
The IUCN Antelope Specialist Group considers the western or lowland bongo, T. e. eurycerus, to be Lower Risk (Near Threatened) and the eastern or mountain bongo, T. e. isaaci, of Kenya, to be Critically Endangered. These bongos may be endangered due to human environmental interaction, as well as hunting and illegal actions towards wildlife.

CITES lists bongos as an Appendix III species, only regulating their exportation from a single country, Ghana. It is not protected by the US Endangered Species Act and is not listed by the USFWS.

title: Bongo (antelope)


text:
Bunyip

The bunyip is a creature from the aboriginal mythology of southeastern Australia, said to lurk in swamps, billabongs, creeks, riverbeds, and waterholes.

Name
The origin of the word bunyip has been traced to the Wemba-Wemba or Wergaia language of the Aboriginal people of Victoria, in South-Eastern Australia.

The word bunyip is usually translated by Aboriginal Australians today as "devil" or "evil spirit". This contemporary translation may not accurately represent the role of the bunyip in pre-contact Aboriginal mythology or its possible origins before written accounts were made. Some modern sources allude to a linguistic connection between the bunyip and Bunjil, "a mythic 'Great Man' who made the mountains, rivers, man, and all the animals".

The word bahnyip first appeared in the Sydney Gazette in 1812. It was used by James Ives to describe "a large black animal like a seal, with a terrible voice which creates terror among the blacks".

Distribution
The bunyip is part of traditional Aboriginal beliefs and stories throughout Australia, while its name varies according to tribal nomenclature. In his 2001 book, writer Robert Holden identified at least nine regional variations of the creature known as the bunyip across Aboriginal Australia.

Characteristics

The bunyip has been described as amphibious, almost entirely aquatic (there are no reports of the creature being sighted on land) inhabiting lakes, rivers, swamps, lagoons, billabongs, creeks, waterholes, sometimes "particular waterholes in the riverbeds".

Physical descriptions of bunyips vary widely. George French Angus may have collected a description of a bunyip in his account of a "water spirit" from the Moorundi people of the Murray River before 1847, stating it is "much dreaded by them ... It inhabits the Murray; but ... they have some difficulty describing it. Its most usual form ... is said to be that of an enormous starfish." The Challicum bunyip, an outline image of a bunyip carved by Aboriginal people into the bank of Fiery Creek, near Ararat, Victoria, was first recorded by The Australasian newspaper in 1851. According to the report, the bunyip had been speared after killing an Aboriginal man. Antiquarian Reynell Johns claimed that until the mid-1850s, Aboriginal people made a "habit of visiting the place annually and retracing the outlines of the figure [of the bunyip] which is about 11 paces long and 4 paces in extreme breadth". The outline image no longer exists. Robert Brough Smyth's Aborigines of Victoria (1878) devoted ten pages to the bunyip, but concluded "in truth little is known among the blacks respecting its form, covering or habits; they appear to have been in such dread of it as to have been unable to take note of its characteristics". Eugénie Louise McNeil recalled from her childhood memory in the 1890s that the bunyip supposedly had a snout like an owl ("a mopoke"), and was probably a nocturnal creature by her estimation.

The bunyips presumably seen by witnesses, according to their descriptions, most commonly fit one of two categories: 60% of sightings resemble seals or swimming dogs, and 20% of sightings are of long-necked creatures with small heads; the remaining descriptions are ambiguous beyond categorisation. The seal-dog variety is most often described as being between 4 and 6 feet long with a shaggy black or brown coat. According to reports, these bunyips have round heads resembling a bulldog, prominent ears, no tail, and whiskers like a seal or otter. The long-necked variety is allegedly between 5 and 15 feet long, and is said to have black or brown fur, large ears, small tusks, a head like a horse or emu, an elongated, maned neck about three feet long and with many folds of skin, and a horse-like tail. The bunyip has been described by natives as amphibious, nocturnal, reclusive, and inhabiting lakes, rivers, and swamps. Bunyips, according to Aboriginal mythology, can swim swiftly with fins or flippers, have a loud, roaring call, and feed on crayfish, though some legends portray them as bloodthirsty predators of humans, particularly women and children. As a result, Aboriginal People purposely avoided unfamiliar bodies of water lest there were bunyips lurking in the depths. Bunyip eggs are allegedly laid in platypus nests.

The bunyip appears in Ngarrindjeri dreaming as a water spirit called the Mulyawonk, which would get anyone who took more than their fair share of fish from the waterways, or take children if they got too close to the water. The stories taught practical means of ensuring long-term survival for the Ngarrindjeri, embodying care for country and its people.

Debate over origins
There have been various attempts to understand and explain the origins of the bunyip as a physical entity over the past 150 years. Writing in 1933, Charles Fenner suggested that it was likely that the "actual origin of the bunyip myth lies in the fact that from time to time seals have made their way up the Murray and Darling (Rivers)". He provided examples of seals found as far inland as Overland Corner, Loxton, and Conargo and reminded readers that "the smooth fur, prominent 'apricot' eyes, and the bellowing cry are characteristic of the seal", especially southern elephant seals and leopard seals.

Another suggestion is that the bunyip may be a cultural memory of extinct Australian marsupials such as the Diprotodon, Zygomaturus, Nototherium, or Palorchestes. This connection was first formally made by Dr George Bennett of the Australian Museum in 1871. In the early 1990s, palaeontologist Pat Vickers-Rich and geologist Neil Archbold also cautiously suggested that Aboriginal legends "perhaps had stemmed from an acquaintance with prehistoric bones or even living prehistoric animals themselves ... When confronted with the remains of some of the now extinct Australian marsupials, Aborigines would often identify them as the bunyip." They also note that "legends about the mihirung paringmal of western Victorian Aborigines ... may allude to the ... extinct giant birds the Dromornithidae."

In a 2017 Australian Birdlife article, Karl Brandt suggested Aboriginal encounters with the southern cassowary inspired the myth. According to the first written description of the bunyip from 1845, the creature laid pale blue eggs of immense size, possessed deadly claws, powerful hind legs, a brightly coloured chest, and an emu-like head, characteristics shared with the Australian cassowary. As the creature's bill was described as having serrated projections, each "like the bone of the stingray", this bunyip was associated with the indigenous people of Far North Queensland, renowned for their spears tipped with stingray barbs and their proximity to the cassowary's Australian range.

Another association to the bunyip is the shy Australasian bittern (Botaurus poiciloptilus). During the breeding season, the male call of this marsh-dwelling bird is a "low pitched boom"; hence, it is occasionally called the "bunyip bird".

Early accounts of European settlers

During the early settlement of Australia by Europeans, the notion became commonly held that the bunyip was an unknown animal that awaited discovery. Unfamiliar with the sights and sounds of the island continent's peculiar fauna, early Europeans believed that the bunyip described to them was one more strange Australian animal and they sometimes attributed unfamiliar animal calls or cries to it. Scholars suggest also that 19th-century bunyip lore was reinforced by imported European folklore, such as that of the Irish Púca.

A large number of bunyip sightings occurred during the 1840s and 1850s, particularly in the southeastern colonies of Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia, as European settlers extended their reach. The following is not an exhaustive list of accounts:

First written use of the word bunyip, 1845
In July 1845, The Geelong Advertiser announced the discovery of fossils found near Geelong, under the headline "Wonderful Discovery of a new Animal". This was a continuation of a story on 'fossil remains' from the previous issue. The newspaper continued, "On the bone being shown to an intelligent black, he at once recognised it as belonging to the bunyip, which he declared he had seen. On being requested to make a drawing of it, he did so without hesitation." The account noted a story of an Aboriginal woman being killed by a bunyip and the "most direct evidence of all" – that of a man named Mumbowran "who showed several deep wounds on his breast made by the claws of the animal".

The account provided this description of the creature:

"The Bunyip, then, is represented as uniting the characteristics of a bird and of an alligator. It has a head resembling an emu, with a long bill, at the extremity of which is a transverse projection on each side, with serrated edges like the bone of the stingray. Its body and legs partake of the nature of the alligator. The hind legs are remarkably thick and strong, and the fore legs are much longer, but still of great strength. The extremities are furnished with long claws, but the blacks say its usual method of killing its prey is by hugging it to death. When in the water it swims like a frog, and when on shore it walks on its hind legs with its head erect, in which position it measures twelve or thirteen feet in height."

Shortly after this account appeared, it was repeated in other Australian newspapers. This appears to be the first use of the word bunyip in a written publication.

Australian Museum's bunyip of 1847

In January 1846, a peculiar skull was taken by a settler from the banks of Murrumbidgee River near Balranald, New South Wales. Initial reports suggested that it was the skull of something unknown to science. The squatter who found it remarked, "all the natives to whom it was shown called [it] a bunyip". By July 1847, several experts, including W. S. Macleay and Professor Owen, had identified the skull as the deformed foetal skull of a foal or calf. At the same time, the purported bunyip skull was put on display in the Australian Museum (Sydney) for two days. Visitors flocked to see it, and The Sydney Morning Herald reported that many people spoke out about their "bunyip sightings". Reports of this discovery used the phrase 'Kine Pratie' as well as Bunyip. Explorer William Hovell, who examined the skull, also called it a 'katen-pai'.

In March of that year "a bunyip or an immense Platibus" (Platypus) was sighted "sunning himself on the placid bosom of the Yarra, just opposite the Custom House" in Melbourne. "Immediately a crowd gathered" and three men set off by boat "to secure the stranger" which "disappeared" when they were "about a yard from him".

William Buckley's account of bunyips, 1852
Another early written account is attributed to escaped convict William Buckley in his 1852 biography of thirty years living with the Wathaurong people. His 1852 account records "in ... Lake Moodewarri [now Lake Modewarre] as well as in most of the others inland ... is a ... very extraordinary amphibious animal, which the natives call Bunyip." Buckley's account suggests he saw such a creature on several occasions. He adds, "I could never see any part, except the back, which appeared to be covered with feathers of a dusky grey colour. It seemed to be about the size of a full grown calf ... I could never learn from any of the natives that they had seen either the head or tail." Buckley also claimed the creature was common in the Barwon River and cites an example he heard of an Aboriginal woman being killed by one. He emphasized the bunyip was believed to have supernatural powers.

Stocqueler's sightings and drawings, 1857
In an article titled, 'The Bunyip', a newspaper reported on the drawings made by Edwin Stocqueler as he travelled on the Murray and Goulburn rivers: 'Amongst the latter drawings we noticed a likeness of the Bunyip, or rather a view of the neck and shoulders of the animal. Mr. Stocqueler informs us that the Bunyip is a large freshwater seal, having two small padules or fins attached to the shoulders, a long swan like neck, a head like a dog, and a curious bag hanging under the jaw, resembling the pouch of the pelican. The animal is covered with hair, like the platypus, and the colour is a glossy black. Mr. Stocqueler saw no less than six of these curious animals at different times; his boat was within thirty feet of one near M'Guire's punt on the Goulburn, and he fired at the Bunyip, but did not succeed in capturing him. The smallest appeared to be about five feet in length, and the largest exceeded fifteen feet. The head of the largest was the size of a bullock's head, and three feet out of water. After taking a sketch of the animal, Mr. Stocqueler showed it to several blacks of the Goulburn tribe, who declared that the picture was "Bunyip's brother," meaning a duplicate or likeness of the bunyip. The animals moved against the current, at the rate of about seven miles an hour, and Mr. Stockqueler states that he could have approached close to the specimens he observed, had he not been deterred by the stories of the natives concerning the power and fury of the bunyip, and by the fact that his gun had only a single barrel, and his boat was of a very frail description.'

The description varied across newspaper accounts: 'The great Bunyip question seems likely to be brought to a close, as a Mr. Stocqueler, an artist and gentleman, who has come up the Murray in a small boat, states that he saw one, and was enabled to take a drawing of this "vexed question," but could not succeed in catching him. We have seen the sketch, and it puts us in mind of an hybrid between the water mole and the great sea serpent.' 'Mr. Stocqueler, an artist, and his mother are on an expedition down the Murray, for the purpose of making some faithful sketches of the views on this fine stream, as well as of the creatures frequenting it. I have seen some of their productions, and as they pourtray localities with which I am well acquainted, can pronounce the drawings faithful representations. Mother and son go down the stream in a canoe. The lady paints flowers, &c.; the son devotes himself to choice views on the river's side. One of the drawings represents a singular creature, which the artist is unable to classify. It has the appearance in miniature of the famous sea-serpent, as that animal is described by navigators. Mr. Stocqueler was about twenty-five yards distant from it at first sight as it lay placidly on the water. On being observed, the stranger set-off, working his paddles briskly, and rapidly disappeared. Captain Cadell has tried to solve the mystery, but is not yet satisfied as to what the animal really is. Mr. Stocqueler states that there were about two feet of it above water when he first saw it, and he estimated its length at from five to six feet. The worthy Captain says, that unless the creature is the "Musk Drake" (so called from giving off a very strong odour of musk), he cannot account for the novelty.'

Stocqueler disputed the newspaper descriptions in a letter; stating that he never called the animal a bunyip, it did not have a swan like neck, and he never said anything about the size of the animal as he never saw the whole body. He went on to write that all would be revealed in his diorama as an 'almost life size portrait of the beast' would be included. The diorama took him four years to paint and was reputed to be a mile (1.6 km) long and made of 70 individual pictures. The diorama has long since disappeared and may no longer exist.

Figure of speech and eponymy
By the 1850s, bunyip was also used as a "synonym for impostor, pretender, humbug and the like", although this use of the word is now obsolete in Australian English. The term bunyip aristocracy was first coined in 1853 to describe Australians aspiring to be aristocrats. In the early 1990s, Prime Minister Paul Keating used this term to describe members of the conservative Liberal Party of Australia opposition.

The word bunyip can still be found in a number of Australian contexts, including place names such as the Bunyip River (which flows into Westernport Bay in southern Victoria) and the town of Bunyip, Victoria.

In popular culture and fiction

 * The Bunyip is a local weekly newspaper published in the town of Gawler, South Australia. First published as a pamphlet by the Gawler Humbug Society in 1863, the name was chosen because "the Bunyip is the true type of Australian Humbug!"
 * The House of the Gentle Bunyip, built in the 1860s, is located in Clifton Hill, Victoria. It has been redeveloped as housing for low-income people.

Numerous tales of the bunyip in written literature appeared in the 19th and early 20th centuries. One of the earliest known is a story in Andrew Lang's The Brown Fairy Book (1904), adapted from a tale collected and published in the Journal of the Anthropological Institute in 1899.

 * Well-known Australian author Colin Thiele wrote Gloop The Gloomy Bunyip, an illustrated children's book published in 1962.
 * The character Alexander Bunyip, created by children's author and illustrator Michael Salmon, first appeared in print in The Monster That Ate Canberra (1972). Salmon featured the Bunyip character in many other books and adapted his work as a live-action television series, Alexander Bunyip's Billabong. A statue of Alexander Bunyip by Anne Ross, called A is for Alexander, B is for Bunyip, C is for Canberra, was commissioned by the ACT Government for Gungahlin's $3.8 million town park and installed in front of the Gungahlin Library in 2011.
 * (1916) ragtime musical comedy The Bunyip or The Enchantment of Fairy Princess Wattle Blossom by Ella Palzier Campbell (AKA Ella Airlie) toured nine venues in three states for a year with Fuller Brothers theatre circuit. Music was supplied by a number of Australian stage personalities including Vince Courtney, Herbert De Pinna, Fred Monument and James Kendis.

The Australian tourism boom of the 1970s brought a renewed interest in bunyip mythology.
 * (1972) A coin-operated bunyip was built by Dennis Newell at Murray Bridge, South Australia, at Sturt Reserve on the town's riverfront.
 * Jenny Wagner published a children's picture book, The Bunyip of Berkeley's Creek (1973).
 * (1977) The film Dot and the Kangaroo contains a song "The Bunyip (Bunyip Moon)". The bunyip was the subject of Dot and the Smugglers where the title character, Dot, and her animal friends foil a circus-ringmaster's plan to capture a bunyip. The bunyip turns out to be a gentle, shy creature.
 * (1982) Children's picture book The Ballad of the Blue Lake Bunyip
 * (1996) Australian children's author Jackie French wrote several bunyip tales, including the short story "Bunyip's Gift", collected in the anthology Mind's Eye.
 * An episode of The Silver Brumby featured a friendly, prank-playing bunyip.
 * Wommy, a character on Noah's Island, keeps mentioning bunyips and mistook Noah, the noble polar bear who's the title character, and feral cats for bunyips.
 * (1986) The Australian film Frog Dreaming centres around the search for a bunyip called Donkegin.
 * (2016) The independent Australian film Red Billabong was released in 2016. It tells of two estranged brothers who find themselves stalked by the Bunyip.

Bunyip stories have also been published outside Australia.

 * (1937) Bibhutibhushan Bandyopadhyay wrote a Bengali novel Chander Pahar (Mountain of the Moon) that included an account of a bunyip. The novel was adapted as a film of the same name, released in late 2013. The bunyip was portrayed as the primary threat to the treasure seekers in the wilderness of the Richtersveld mountains in southern Africa. In the novel, the bunyip is described as a three-toed ape-like hominid.
 * From 1954 to 1966, Bertie the Bunyip was the lead puppet character on a popular children's series on Channel 3 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
 * (1992) The roleplaying game, Werewolf: The Apocalypse, appropriates the Bunyip legend, having the Bunyip actually be a tribe of Australian native Garou, or werewolves. However, they are not playable in the game as, according to the game's lore, they were driven to extinction by the European werewolves during the colonisation of Australia.

The Bunyip has been featured in films as well.

 * In the 1978 Ozploitation eco-horror film Long Weekend, a bunyip is featured as a creature that terrorizes the main couple in the film, who trash a peaceful Australian beach.

In the 21st century the bunyip has been featured in works around the world.

 * (2002) The video game series Ty the Tasmanian Tiger portrays Bunyips as peaceful, mystical elders who inhabit the world of The Dreaming, though not as ferocious as their namesake and resembling primates. The robotic suits that Ty can pilot in Ty the Tasmanian Tiger 2: Bush Rescue and Ty the Tasmanian Tiger 3: Night of the Quinkan are named after the Bunyips, such as Shadow Gunyip, Battle Gunyip and Missile Gunyips.
 * (2008) The MMORPG Runescape features a familiar Bunyip, whom largely represents the folkore description.
 * (2009) A character named Bruce Bunyip appears in the children's book The Neddiad by American Daniel Pinkwater. He is initially described as "big and swarthy, and had tiny eyes, a scowl and his eyebrows grew together" and later says he is a monster.
 * (2009) Bunyips appeared as the focus cryptids in an episode of The Secret Saturdays; however, they were depicted as small, troublemaking creatures instead of monsters.
 * (2010) Bunyips appear in Naomi Novik's fantasy novel Tongues of Serpents, where they are depicted as relatives of dragons that have adapted to the extreme conditions of the Outback.
 * (2011) An episode of Prank Patrol (Australia) Season 2 involved a prank called Bunyip Hunters.
 * (2014) In the novel Afterworlds, one of the characters is the author of a fictional book named Bunyip.
 * (2014) The fantasy novel, Queen of the Dark Things, by C. Robert Cargill, features the Bunyip throughout the story.
 * (2016) A "tri-horned" bunyip appears in the My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic episode "P.P.O.V (Pony Point Of View)" after being revealed to be the cause of a shipwreck that is recollected differently by three of the series' main characters.
 * (2021) Bunyip appears in the match 3 RPG mobile game Tower of Saviors as Vitriolic Savagery - Bunyip
 * (2022) In the novel The Island by Adrian McKinty, which takes place in Australia, an antagonist fearfully refers to the bunyip before dying.

title: Bunyip


text:
Brabant

Brabant is a traditional geographical region (or regions) in the Low Countries of Europe. It may refer to:

Belgium

 * Province of Brabant, which in 1995 was split up into two provinces and an autonomous region:
 * Flemish Brabant, in the Flanders region; the Dutch speaking part of the former Brabant province.
 * Walloon Brabant, in the Wallonia region; the French speaking part of the former Brabant province.
 * Brussels-Capital Region, bilingual between French and Dutch.
 * Klein-Brabant, the municipalities Bornem, Puurs and Sint-Amands in the Antwerp province of Flanders region
 * East Brabant, or Hageland, an area east of Brussels between the cities of Leuven, Aarschot, Diest and Tienen

Netherlands

 * North Brabant province

France

 * Brabant-en-Argonne, commune in the Meuse department
 * Brabant-le-Roi, commune in the Meuse department
 * Brabant-lès-Villers (1973–1982), former commune, amalgamation of Brabant-le-Roi and Villers-aux-Vents

Geology

 * London-Brabant Massif, a geological structure stretching from England to northern Germany

Historical use

 * Pagus of Brabant, the original, early medieval territory, divided between several counts, core of the later Landgraviate
 * Landgraviate of Brabant (1085–1183), an expansive medieval lordship including Brussels, core of the later Duchy
 * Duchy of Brabant, a duchy of the Holy Roman Empire from 1183 until the French Revolution, by which time the northern half had been lost to the Dutch Republic
 * Staats-Brabant, a territory of the Dutch Republic directly governed by the States-General from 1588 until the French Revolution
 * Département of Brabant, a département under various forms of French control, formed from an earlier French Département of the Dommel, and predecessor of modern North Brabant.
 * Province of Brabant (called South Brabant, 1815–1830), part of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, based on earlier French département of the Dyle, became part of Belgium in 1830, now divided into three parts (see above)

Royalty and nobility

 * House of Brabant descended from the Reginarid family of Lotharingia
 * Duke of Brabant, a dynastic title of the modern Belgian royal family

Place names outside Europe

 * Brabant Lake, Saskatchewan, Canada
 * Port Brabant, former name of Tuktoyaktuk, Canada
 * Brabant, West Virginia, United States
 * Le Morne Brabant, a mountain on Mauritius
 * Brabant Island, Antarctica

Other uses

 * Brabant (or Brabançon), other names for the Belgian Draught, a Belgian breed of horse
 * Brabantian dialect, a dialect that formed the basis of the Dutch language
 * Brabançonne (or "the Brabantian"), the national anthem of Belgium
 * Brabant killers, a 1980s terrorist group
 * HNLMS Noord-Brabant ('North Brabant'), several ships of the Dutch navy
 * Brabant Company, precursor of the Dutch East India Company (VOC)
 * Brabant (train), a Paris-Brussels express train 1963–1995
 * Brabant (cruise ship), operated by Fred. Olsen Cruise Lines

title: Brabant