text:
Battle of Bir Hakeim

The Battle of Bir Hakeim took place at Bir Hakeim, an oasis in the Libyan desert south and west of Tobruk, during the Battle of Gazala (26 May – 21 June 1942). The 1st Free French Brigade under Général de brigade Marie-Pierre Kœnig defended the position from 26 May – 11 June against Axis forces of Panzerarmee Afrika commanded by Generaloberst Erwin Rommel. The Panzerarmee captured Tobruk ten days later.

The delay imposed on the Axis offensive by the defence of Bir Hakeim influenced the cancellation of Operation Herkules, the Axis invasion of Malta. Rommel invaded Egypt, slowed by British delaying actions until the First Battle of El Alamein in July, where the Axis advance was stopped. Both sides used the battle for propaganda, Winston Churchill declared the Free French to be the "Fighting French".

Eighth Army
At the beginning of 1942, after its defeat in western Cyrenaica during Unternehmen Theseus, the British Eighth Army under Lieutenant-General Neil Ritchie faced the Axis troops in Libya roughly 30 mi west of the port of Tobruk, along a line running from the coast at Gazala, southwards for about 30 mi. Both sides accumulated supplies for an offensive to forestall their opponent and General Claude Auchinleck, Commander in Chief of Middle East Command, hoped for the Eighth Army to be ready by May. British code-breakers tracked the dispatch of convoys to Libya as the British offensive on Axis shipping to North Africa was neutralised by Axis bombing of Malta and forecast that the Axis would attack first.

As the Eighth Army was not ready to take the offensive, Ritchie planned to fight a defensive battle on the Gazala line. Auchinleck's appreciation of the situation to Ritchie in mid-May expected either a frontal attack in the centre of the Gazala line, followed by an advance on Tobruk or a flanking move to the south, looping around the Gazala line towards Tobruk. Auchinleck saw the former as more likely (with a feint on the flank to draw away the Eighth Army tanks) while Ritchie favoured the latter. Auchinleck suggested that British armour be concentrated near El Adem, where it would be well placed to meet either threat.

Since Operation Crusader in late 1941, the Eighth Army had received American M3 Grant medium tanks with a 37 mm gun in a turret and a 75 mm gun in a hull sponson, which could penetrate the armour of the opposing Panzer III Ausf. H and J and the Panzer IV tank models at 650 –. The frontal armour of the Grant was thick enough to withstand the 50 mm Pak 38 anti-tank gun at 1000 yd and the short-barrelled 50 mm KwK 38 gun of the Panzer III at 250 yd. The first 112 of the new British 6-pounder (57 mm) anti-tank guns had arrived and been allotted to the motor brigades of the armoured divisions.

Panzerarmee Afrika/Armata Corazzata Africa
At the meeting of Axis leaders at Berchtesgaden on 1 May, it was agreed that Rommel should attack at the end of the month to capture Tobruk. The Panzer Army Africa (Panzerarmee Afrika/Armata Corazzata Africa) was to pause at the Egyptian border, while the Axis captured Malta in Operation Herkules and then Rommel was to invade Egypt. The Panzerarmee had finished converting to the up-armoured Panzer III Ausf. H and had received nineteen Panzer III Ausf. J, known to the British as Mark III Specials, with long-barrelled 5 cm KwK 39 guns. Four Panzer IV Ausf. G (Mark IV Specials) with long-barrelled 7.5 cm KwK 40 guns had also arrived. Abwehr (German military intelligence) had broken British codes and in late 1941 penetrated Black, the code used by Bonner Fellers, a US military attaché in Egypt. The British divulged much tactical information to Fellers, who unwittingly reported it to the Axis as well as the US government.

Air attacks by the Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica on Malta reduced its offensive capacity and supply convoys from Italy reached the Axis forces in Africa with fewer losses. Until May, Axis monthly deliveries to Libya averaged 60000 LT, less than a smaller Axis force received from June to October 1941 but sufficient for an offensive. The 900 mi advance to Gazala succeeded because the port of Benghazi was open, reducing the transport distance for about 33 per cent of the supplies of the Panzerarmee to 280 mi. The capture of Malta would not alter the constraints of port capacity and distance; protecting convoys and the use of a large port close to the front would still be necessary.

Unternehmen Venezia (Operation Venice), the Axis plan,, was for tanks to advance around the brigade forming the Bir Hakeim "box" at the southern extremity of the Gazala line. On the left side of the manoeuvre, the Italian 132nd Armoured Division "Ariete" would neutralise the Bir Hakeim box. Further south, the 21st Panzer Division and 15th Panzer Division would advance through the desert, move east, then turn north behind the Gazala line to destroy the British armour and cut off the infantry divisions in the line. The most southerly part of the attacking formation, a Kampfgruppe (battle group) of the 90th Light Afrika Division (90. leichte Afrika Division), Generalmajor Ulrich Kleemann), was to advance to El Adem south of Tobruk, cut the supply routes from the port to the Gazala line and hold British troops at Tobruk by a ruse; aircraft-engines mounted on trucks were to raise dust, simulating the presence of a big armoured force. The Germans had combed the French Foreign Legion in French North Africa and press-ganged some 2,000 German légionnaires into the 90th Light Afrika Division.

The rest of the Italian XX Motorised Corps, the 101st Motorized Division "Trieste", would open a gap in the minefield north of Bir Hakeim, near the Sidi Muftah box, to create a supply route to the panzers. Rommel anticipated that having dealt with the British tanks, he would have captured El Adem, Ed Duda and Sidi Rezegh by nightfall and later the Knightsbridge defensive box, about 40 km north-east of Bir Hakeim. The Axis tanks would be in a position next day to thrust westwards against the Eighth Army defensive boxes between Gazala and Alem Hamza, meeting the eastwards attack by the Italian X Corps and XXI corps. By late May, the Axis forces comprised 90,000 men, 560 tanks and 542 aircraft.

Gazala line
Between Gazala and Timimi (just west of Tobruk), the Eighth Army was able to concentrate its forces sufficiently to turn and fight. By 4 February, the Axis advance had been halted and the front line had been stabilised, from Gazala on the coast 48 km west of Tobruk, to the old Ottoman fortress of Bir Hakeim, 80 km to the south. The Gazala line was a series of defensive boxes accommodating a brigade each, laid out across the desert behind minefields and wire, watched by regular patrols between the boxes. The Free French were in the south at the Bir Hakeim box, 13 mi south of the 150th Infantry Brigade box, which was 6 mi south of the 69th Infantry Brigade box. The line was not evenly manned, with a greater number of troops covering the coast road, leaving the south less protected but deep minefields had been laid in front of the boxes.

The longer line made an attack around the southern flank harder to supply. Behind the Gazala line were the Commonwealth Keep, Acroma, Knightsbridge and El Adem boxes, sited to block tracks and junctions. The box at Retma was finished just before the Axis offensive but work on the Point 171 and Bir el Gubi boxes did not begin until 25 May. By late May, the 1st South African Division was dug in nearest the coast, with the 50th (Northumbrian) Infantry Division to the south and 1st Free French Brigade furthest left at Bir Hakeim. The British 1st and 7th Armoured divisions waited behind the main line as a mobile counter-attack force, the 2nd South African Division garrisoned Tobruk and 5th Indian Infantry Division was in reserve. The British had 110,000 men, 843 tanks and 604 aircraft.

Bir Hakeim
The fortress at Bir Hakeim (Old Man's Well) had been built by the Ottomans and later used as a station by the Italian Meharist (Camel Corps) to control movement at the crossroads of two Bedouin paths. The wells had long been dry and had been abandoned but Indian troops re-occupied the site to build a strongpoint surrounded by 50,000 mines. The fortification was a rough pentagon pointing north, about 4 × wide. On 14 February, the 150th Infantry Brigade was relieved at the box by the 1st Free French Brigade (Général Marie Pierre Kœnig), part of XXX Corps (Lieutenant-General Willoughby Norrie). With a fighting strength of 3,000 men and a rear echelon of about 600 men based 15 mi to the east behind the line, the brigade comprised the 13th Demi-Brigade of the Foreign Legion (13e DBLE), an established unit and the backbone of the Free French, with the 2nd Colonial Demi-Brigade.

The 13e DBLE had been formed to fight in Finland but was used in the Norwegian campaign and was the first unit to join the Free French in England. It was a veteran of the fighting in Italian Eritrea and French Syria against Vichy; the half-brigade was reinforced by c. 1,000 légionnaires and two officers of the defeated 6th Foreign Infantry Regiment (6e REI), which now formed a third battalion. By mid-May the perimeter and central areas were honeycombed with 1,200 entrenchments, foxholes, gun emplacements and underground bunkers, deep camouflaged hides for vehicles and supply dumps. The interior of the fort was divided into zones, each the responsibility of a unit, with Kœnig's headquarters near the centre, at the crossroads. The V-shaped anti-tank and anti-personnel minefields were patrolled by the 3rd Foreign Legion Battalion (Lamaze), in 63 Bren Gun Carriers divided into three squadrons. The patrols moved along lanes in the minefields, paying particular attention to the area north to the Sidi Muftah box at Got el Ualeb, held by the 150th Brigade.

Battle of Gazala
At 2:00 p.m. on 26 May, the Italian X and XXI Corps began a frontal attack on the central Gazala line. A few elements of the Afrika Korps and the Italian XX Motorised Corps participated and during the day the bulk of the Afrika Korps moved north, to give the impression that it was the main attack. After dark, the armoured formations turned south in a sweeping move around the southern end of the Gazala line. Early on 27 May, the main force of Panzerarmee Afrika, the Afrika Korps, XX Motorised Corps and the 90th Light Division, went round the southern end of the Gazala line, using the British minefields to protect the Axis flank and rear. The Ariete Division was held up for about an hour by the 3rd Indian Motor Brigade (7th Armoured Division), dug in about 6 km south-east of Bir Hakeim.

The 15th Panzer Division engaged the 4th Armoured Brigade, which had come south to support the 3rd Indian and 7th Motorised brigades. The Germans were surprised by the range and power of the 75 mm guns on the new M3 Grants but by late morning, the 4th Armoured Brigade had withdrawn toward El Adem and Axis armoured units had advanced more than 25 mi north. Their advance was stopped around noon by the 1st Armoured Division, in mutually-costly fighting. On the right, the 90th Light Division forced the 7th Motorised Brigade out of Retma eastwards on Bir el Gubi. Advancing toward El Adem at mid-morning, armoured cars of the 90th Light Division overran and scattered the advanced HQ of the 7th Armoured Division (Major-General Frank Messervy), near Bir Beuid. Messervy was captured and removed his insignia, persuading the Germans that he was a batman; he escaped with several other men to rejoin the division. The 90th Light Division reached the El Adem area by mid-morning and captured several supply bases. The following day, the 4th Armoured Brigade moved on El Adem and forced the 90th Light Division to retire to the south-west.

27 May
The 15th and 21st Panzer divisions, the rest of the 90th Light Division and the "Ariete" Division began their large encircling move south of Bir Hakeim as planned. The 3rd Indian Motor Brigade was surprised at 6:30 a.m. on 27 May and overrun at Point 171, 4 mi south-east of Bir Hakeim, by the 132nd Tank Infantry Regiment of the "Ariete" Division and some German tanks, losing about 440 men and most of its equipment. The 7th Motor Brigade was then attacked at Retma and forced back to Bir el Gubi. The 4th Armoured Brigade advanced in support and collided with the 15th Panzer Division; the 8th Hussars were destroyed and the 3rd Royal Tank Regiment (3rd RTR) lost many tanks. The British inflicted considerable losses in return but then retired to El Adem.

After over-running the 3rd Indian Motor Brigade, the VIII, IX, and X Medium Tank battalions of the 132nd Tank Infantry Regiment moved to the north-east of Bir Hakeim and the IX Battalion (Colonel Prestisimone) with 60 tanks, changed direction towards the fort. The IX Battalion arrived before the Bir Hakeim minefield and barbed wire at 8:15 a.m., charged and lost 31 tanks and a Semovente self-propelled gun. Ten tanks got through the minefield and were knocked out by 75 mm anti-tank guns, causing 124 Italian casualties. The remnants of the IX Battalion retired to the main body of the "Ariete" Division, which moved north towards Bir el Harmat around noon, following Rommel's original plan.

28–30 May
On 28 May, the Desert Air Force (DAF) made a maximum effort to attack Axis columns around El Adem and Bir Hakeim but in the poor visibility, bombed Bir Hakeim and its surroundings, misled by the Italian tank wrecks around the position and Kœnig sent a detachment to destroy the wrecks to avoid any more mistakes. A French column was sent to make contact with the 150th Infantry Brigade, stationed further to the north. After a few hours, Italian artillery forced them to retire but the French column destroyed seven half-tracks. On 29 May, the detachment of Capitaine Gabriel de Sairigné destroyed three German tanks, British air attacks intercepted two raids by Junkers Ju 87 (Stuka) dive-bombers and fighter-bombers attacked Axis supply lines south and east of Bir Hakeim. On 30 May, 620 soldiers from the 3rd Indian Motor Brigade, captured by the Axis and then released in the desert, reached the fort and added to the 243 prisoners already there, making the water shortage worse. The detachment of Capitaine Lamaze, at the request of the 7th Armoured Division, sealed off the breach opened the day before by the Axis tanks in the minefields. Led by Colonel Dimitri Amilakhvari, the legionnaires were ambushed but managed to retreat with the help of the Bren carriers of the 9th Company (Pierre Messmer).

31 May–1 June
On 31 May, during a two-day sandstorm, fifty supply trucks of the 101st Transport Company (Captaine Dulau), reached Bir Hakeim with water and took the Indians, prisoners and seriously wounded back to the British lines. A raid by the detachments Messmer, de Roux and de Sairigné, led by Amilakhvari, destroyed five tanks and an armoured vehicle repair workshop. The Panzerarmee had been forced to retreat westwards, to an area north of Bir Hakeim, which became known as the Cauldron, having attacked the 150th Infantry Brigade box since 28 May. During the day, the DAF lost fifteen fighters and a bomber, fifteen in combat with Axis fighters and one to flak, the worst daily loss of the battle; the Luftwaffe lost nine aircraft. On the west side of the Cauldron, the 150th Infantry Brigade was overrun late on 1 June, despite British relief attempts. The Axis troops that had been trapped gained a supply route through the Eighth Army minefields north of Bir Hakeim and next morning the encirclement of the fort was resumed by the 90th Light Division, Trieste Division and three armoured reconnaissance companies from the 17th Infantry Division "Pavia". At 8:00 a.m. German troops approached from the south and Italian forces advanced from the north. Two Italian officers presented themselves at 10:30 a.m. to the 2nd Foreign Legion Battalion lines, asking for the capitulation of the fort, which Kœnig refused.

2–4 June
From 10:00 a.m. on 2 June, both sides exchanged artillery fire but the French field guns were out-ranged by German medium artillery and the fort was bombed by German and Italian aircraft. Stuka dive bombers raided Bir Hakeim more than twenty times but the French positions were so well built as to be almost invulnerable. The British were unable to reinforce the French, who repulsed the "Ariete" Division attack but on 2 June, the DAF had an easily observed bomb line around the fort and concentrated on the area with fighter patrols and fighter-bomber attacks. The sight of scores of burning vehicles helped to maintain the morale of the defenders, who harassed Axis communications around the fort, as did the 7th Motor Brigade and the 29th Indian Infantry Brigade which were in the vicinity. On 4 June, DAF fighters and fighter-bombers disrupted Stuka attacks and bombed Axis vehicles, blowing up an ammunition wagon in view of the French but losing seven aircraft. Kœnig signalled Air Vice-Marshal Arthur Coningham. "Bravo! Merci pour la R.A.F" which brought the reply "Merci pour le sport".

5–7 June
From 5 to 6 June, the DAF flew fewer sorties at Bir Hakeim, concentrating on the Knightsbridge Box and around 11:00 a.m. on 6 June, the 90th Light Division attacked with the support of pioneers to try to clear a passage through the minefield. The pioneers got within 800 m of the fort, having breached the outer minefield and during the night they managed to clear several passages into the inner perimeter. German infantry gained a foothold but the French troops in foxholes, dug outs and blockhouses, maintained a great volume of small-arms fire, which forced the Germans under cover. Operation Aberdeen, an attempt to destroy Axis forces in the Cauldron, which had begun on the night of 4/5 June, was a débâcle. Ritchie considered withdrawing the French from the fort to release the 7th Motor Brigade but decided to keep possession and on 7 June, four DAF raids were made against the Germans in the minefields. That night, a last convoy approached the fort and Aspirant Bellec got through the German lines, in thick fog, to guide the convoy in. The Germans used the fog to prepare a final assault; tanks, 88 mm guns and the pioneers of Gruppe Hecker formed up in front of the fort.

8–9 June
On the morning of 8 June, after the defeat of Operation Aberdeen, Rommel had released part of the 15th Panzer Division and Gruppe Hecker for the siege. Rommel commanded an attack from the north, approaching as close as possible in thick fog, with artillery firing directly against the fortifications. The Luftwaffe made constant attacks, including a raid by 45 Ju 87 Stukas, three Junkers Ju 88 bombers and ten Messerschmitt Bf 110 twin-engined fighters escorted by 54 fighters. Just before 10:00 a.m. the attack began, aiming at a low rise which would overlook the French defences. The Chadian and Congolese defenders held on despite many casualties and in the afternoon another 60 Stukas bombed the perimeter and an attack was made all round the northern defences. An ammunition dump was blown up and the perimeter forced back. Kœnig reported that the garrison was exhausted, had suffered many casualties and was down to its reserve supplies; he asked for more air support and a relief operation. The DAF made another maximum effort, flew a record 478 sorties and during the night, Hawker Hurricane fighters and Douglas Boston bombers dropped supplies to the garrison. The DAF lost eight fighters (three to Italian Macchi C.202s) and two bombers; the Luftwaffe lost two aircraft and the Regia Aeronautica one.

On the morning of 9 June, 20 Ju 88s and 40 Ju 87 Stukas escorted by 50 Bf 110 and Bf 109 fighters, attacked Bir Hakeim. The Germans waited for the rest of the 15th Panzer Division to arrive as German artillery and aircraft bombarded the fort, then a two-pronged attack struck the perimeter. Italian infantry fought alongside Kampfgruppe Wolz, the German and Libyan infantry of Sonderverband 288 (Special Commando 288) from the 90th Light Division, elements of the reconnaissance and infantry units of 15th and 21st Panzer Divisions and Kampfgruppe Kiehl a company of 11 tanks. The objective was Point 186, the top of a gentle rise in the ground which acted as a fire-control position for the garrison. A few skirmishes occurred between the 66th Infantry Regiment "Trieste" of the "Trieste" Division and the men commanded by Lieutenant Bourgoin, whose unit was down only to hand grenades. The Bataillon de Marche made a determined defence but was forced back, despite reinforcements of the 22nd North African Company.

In the afternoon, to the south, near the old fort, Oberstleutnant Ernst-Günther Baade led two battalions of Rifle Regiment 115 into the assault and in a costly advance, it established a position 200 yd of the fort by nightfall. At 1:00 p.m., as 130 aircraft bombed the north face of the fort, the German infantry and the 15th Panzer Division attacked behind an artillery barrage. The attackers breached the 9th Company lines and the central position of Aspirant Morvan but the situation was restored with a Bren carrier counter-attack. Many DAF aircraft were unserviceable and the effort for the day was much reduced but two Hurricanes dropped medical supplies; diversions attempted by columns from the 7th Motor Brigade and the 29th Indian Infantry Brigade were too small to have much effect. In the afternoon Messervy, the commander of the 7th Armoured Division, signalled that a break-out might be necessary and Kœnig asked for DAF protection for an evacuation at 11:00 p.m. that night. The request was made at too short notice and the garrison had to wait until the night of 10/11 June for a rendezvous to be arranged by the British to the south.

Retreat, 10–11 June
During 10 June, the French hung on and suffered many casualties; with only two hundred 75 mm rounds and 700 mortar rounds left, another attack on the northern sector against the Oubangui-Chari and 3rd Foreign Legion Battalion lines was contained by a counter-attack by the Messmer and Lamaze units, supported by Bren carriers and the last mortar rounds. In the afternoon, the biggest air attack of the siege, a raid by 100 Stukas dropped 130 LT of bombs. The last rounds of ammunition were issued and bodies searched for more; Rommel predicted that Bir Hakeim would fall the next day but resisted pressure to attack with tanks, fearing that many would be lost in the minefields.

As darkness fell, sappers began to clear mines from the western face of the fortress, heavy equipment was prepared for demolition and two companies were detailed to stay behind to disguise the retirement. A rendezvous was arranged with the 7th Motor Brigade, which ran a convoy of lorries and ambulances to a point 7 km south of the fort. Mine clearance by the sappers took longer than expected and they were only able to clear a narrow passage, rather than a 200 m corridor. Vehicles went astray and the ambulances and walking-wounded left the perimeter 75 minutes late at 8:30 p.m. Kœnig put the fort under the command of Amilakhvari, the Foreign Legion commander and left the fort at the head of the column in his Ford, driven by Susan Travers, an Englishwoman, the only female member of French Foreign Legion (and one of several women, mostly British, present at the siege).

A flare rose and the Axis troops nearby opened fire. The guide of the HQ column got lost and during the retirement was blown up three times by mines. When Kœnig caught up with the main column, it was blocked by troops of the 90th Light Division and he ordered a rush, regardless of the mines; Lamaze, Capitaine Charles Bricogne and Lieutenant Dewey were killed in the mêlée. The reception was organised by 550 Company Royal Army Service Corps (RASC) which drove lorries and guided extra field ambulances, with inexperienced rear-area crews, escorted by the 2nd King's Royal Rifle Corps (KRRC) and the 2nd Rifle Brigade on either side. The ambulances became separated in the dark but were found and guided to the rendezvous. The commander of the 3rd Battalion was captured but most of the brigade managed to break out, reach Bir el Gubi, then withdraw to Gasr-el-Arid by 7:00 a.m. on 11 June. About 2,700 men of the original 3,600 men escaped, including 200 wounded; during the day British patrols picked up stragglers.

Analysis
The Free French occupation of Bir Hakeim had lengthened the Axis supply route around the south end of the Gazala line, caused them losses and gave the British more time to recover in the wake of their defeat at the Cauldron. From 2 to 10 June the DAF had flown about 1,500 sorties and lost 19 fighters over the fort, against about 1,400 Axis sorties in which 15 German and five Italian aircraft were shot down; the 7th Motor Brigade ran four supply convoys into Bir Hakeim from 31 May to 7 June. Free French morale was raised by its performance in the battle; a victory had been badly needed to show the Allies that they were a serious force, which could contribute to the war against Germany. The term Free French was replaced by Fighting French, because the battle had shown the world that a revival after the defeat in 1940 was under way; De Gaulle used it to undermine co-operation with the Vichy regime. In 1960, the British official historian Ian Playfair wrote

"At the outset it had made longer and more difficult the enemy's temporary supply route; it had caused him many casualties and it gave the British a chance to recover from their defeat in the Cauldron. General Kœnig's brigade made a great impression upon the enemy by their courageous and enterprising resistance and their success gave a well-won fillip to the pride of the Free French, who, for the first time in the Middle East, had fought the Germans and Italians in a complete formation on their own."

and Auchinleck said on 12 June 1942, "The United Nations need to be filled with admiration and gratitude in respect of these French troops and their brave General Kœnig". After the war, Generalmajor Friedrich von Mellenthin wrote, "Some British officers have insinuated that French morale gave way but in the whole course of the desert war, we never encountered a more heroic and well-sustained defence".

Casualties
Thomas Buell in 2002 and Ken Ford in 2008 wrote of 141 French dead, 229 wounded and 814 men taken prisoner, with the loss of 53 guns and 50 vehicles. The British lost 86 aircraft shot down by aircraft and 24 by flak. The Axis forces suffered casualties of 3,300 dead or wounded, 227 captured, 164 vehicles destroyed and 49 aircraft shot down. The Regia Aeronautica lost 21 aeroplanes, eight in air fighting. In 2004, Douglas Porch recorded that the Axis took 845 prisoners at Bir Hakeim, only ten per cent of whom were French; Hitler had ordered that captured German political refugees were to be killed, an order that Rommel ignored.

Order of battle
1st Free French Brigade

Infantry
 * 13e Demi-Brigade de Légion Étrangère (Colonel Dimitri Amilakvari)
 * 2nd Bataillon (II/13e DBLE)
 * 3rd Bataillon (III/13e DBLE) (63 × Bren Gun Carriers)
 * 2nd Colonial Demi-Brigade (Lieutenant-Colonel Roux)
 * 2nd Bataillon de marche de l'Oubangui
 * 1st Bataillon du Pacifique (Lieutenant-Colonel Broche)
 * 1st Bataillon d'infanterie de Marine (Coloniale) (Major Jacques Savey)
 * 22nd North African Company (Captain Lequesne)
 * 2nd Anti-tank Company (Captain Jacquin)
 * Signal, engineer and medical companies

Artillery
 * 1st Artillery Regiment (Colonel Laurent-Champrosay)
 * 24 × 75 mm guns (30 × used as anti-tank guns)
 * 7 × 47 mm APX anti-tank gun
 * 18 × 25 mm Hotchkiss anti-tank gun
 * 46 × Boys anti-tank rifles (British-supplied)
 * 18 × Bofors 40 mm gun anti-aircraft guns
 * 44 × 81 mm and 90 mm mortars
 * 72 × Hotchkiss machine guns
 * 8 × heavy anti-aircraft machine-guns

Anti-aircraft
 * 1 Bataillon de Fusiliers Marins (Commander Hubert Amyot d'Inville)
 * 12 × Bofors guns
 * D Troop, 43rd Battery, 11th City of London Yeomanry (Rough Riders) Light Anti-Aircraft Regiment RA, 84 gunners
 * 6 × Bofors guns
 * 2 × 25-pounder guns

Ammunition
 * 20,000 × 75 mm shells.

title: Battle of Bir Hakeim


text:
Eudaimonia

Eudaimonia (εὐδαιμονία ), sometimes anglicized as eudaemonia or eudemonia, is a Greek word literally translating to the state or condition of 'good spirit', and which is commonly translated as 'happiness' or 'welfare'.

In the works of Aristotle, eudaimonia was the term for the highest human good in older Greek tradition. It is the aim of practical philosophy-prudence, including ethics and political philosophy, to consider and experience what this state really is and how it can be achieved. It is thus a central concept in Aristotelian ethics and subsequent Hellenistic philosophy, along with the terms aretē (most often translated as 'virtue' or 'excellence') and phronesis ('practical or ethical wisdom').

Discussion of the links between ēthikē aretē (virtue of character) and eudaimonia (happiness) is one of the central concerns of ancient ethics, and a subject of disagreement. As a result, there are many varieties of eudaimonism.

Definition and etymology
In terms of its etymology, eudaimonia is an abstract noun derived from the words eû ('good, well') and daímōn ('dispenser, tutelary deity'), the latter referring maybe to a minor deity or a guardian spirit.

Semantically speaking, the word δαίμων derives from the same root of the Ancient Greek verb δαίομαι (, "to divide") allowing the concept of eudaimonia to be thought of as an "activity linked with dividing or dispensing, in a good way".

Definitions, a dictionary of Greek philosophical terms attributed to Plato himself but believed by modern scholars to have been written by his immediate followers in the Academy, provides the following definition of the word eudaimonia: "The good composed of all goods; an ability which suffices for living well; perfection in respect of virtue; resources sufficient for a living creature."

In his Nicomachean Ethics (§21; 1095a15–22), Aristotle says that everyone agrees that eudaimonia is the highest good for humans, but that there is substantial disagreement on what sort of life counts as doing and living well; i.e. eudaimon:"Verbally there is a very general agreement; for both the general run of men and people of superior refinement say that it is [eudaimonia], and identify living well and faring well with being happy; but with regard to what [eudaimonia] is they differ, and the many do not give the same account as the wise. For the former think it is some plain and obvious thing like pleasure, wealth or honour... [1095a17]" So, as Aristotle points out, saying that a eudaimonic life is a life that is objectively desirable and involves living well is not saying very much. Everyone wants to be eudaimonic; and everyone agrees that being eudaimonic is related to faring well and to an individual's well-being. The really difficult question is to specify just what sort of activities enable one to live well. Aristotle presents various popular conceptions of the best life for human beings. The candidates that he mentions are a (1) life of pleasure, (2) a life of political activity, and (3) a philosophical life.

Eudaimonia and areté
One important move in Greek philosophy to answer the question of how to achieve eudaimonia is to bring in another important concept in ancient philosophy, aretē ('virtue'). Aristotle says that the eudaimonic life is one of "virtuous activity in accordance with reason" [1097b22–1098a20]; even Epicurus, who argues that the eudaimonic life is the life of pleasure, maintains that the life of pleasure coincides with the life of virtue. So, the ancient ethical theorists tend to agree that virtue is closely bound up with happiness (areté is bound up with eudaimonia). However, they disagree on the way in which this is so. A major difference between Aristotle and the Stoics, for instance, is that the Stoics believed moral virtue was in and of itself sufficient for happiness (eudaimonia). For the Stoics, one does not need external goods, like physical beauty, in order to have virtue and therefore happiness.

One problem with the English translation of areté as 'virtue' is that we are inclined to understand virtue in a moral sense, which is not always what the ancients had in mind. For Aristotle, areté pertains to all sorts of qualities we would not regard as relevant to ethics, for example, physical beauty. So it is important to bear in mind that the sense of 'virtue' operative in ancient ethics is not exclusively moral and includes more than states such as wisdom, courage, and compassion. The sense of virtue which areté connotes would include saying something like "speed is a virtue in a horse," or "height is a virtue in a basketball player." Doing anything well requires virtue, and each characteristic activity (such as carpentry, flute playing, etc.) has its own set of virtues. The alternative translation 'excellence' (or 'a desirable quality') might be helpful in conveying this general meaning of the term. The moral virtues are simply a subset of the general sense in which a human being is capable of functioning well or excellently.

Eudaimonia and happiness
Eudaimonia implies a positive and divine state of being that humanity is able to strive toward and possibly reach. A literal view of eudaimonia means achieving a state of being similar to a benevolent deity, or being protected and looked after by a benevolent deity. As this would be considered the most positive state to be in, the word is often translated as 'happiness' although incorporating the divine nature of the word extends the meaning to also include the concepts of being fortunate, or blessed. Despite this etymology, however, discussions of eudaimonia in ancient Greek ethics are often conducted independently of any supernatural significance.

In his Nicomachean Ethics (1095a15–22) Aristotle says that eudaimonia means 'doing and living well'. It is significant that synonyms for eudaimonia are living well and doing well. In the standard English translation, this would be to say that 'happiness is doing well and living well'. The word happiness does not entirely capture the meaning of the Greek word. One important difference is that happiness often connotes being or tending to be in a certain pleasant state of mind. For example, when one says that someone is "a very happy person", one usually means that they seem subjectively contented with the way things are going in their life. They mean to imply that they feel good about the way things are going for them. In contrast, Aristotle suggests that eudaimonia is a more encompassing notion than feeling happy since events that do not contribute to one's experience of feeling happy may affect one's eudaimonia.

Eudaimonia depends on all the things that would make us happy if we knew of their existence, but quite independently of whether we do know about them. Ascribing eudaimonia to a person, then, may include ascribing such things as being virtuous, being loved and having good friends. But these are all objective judgments about someone's life: they concern whether a person is really being virtuous, really being loved, and really having fine friends. This implies that a person who has evil sons and daughters will not be judged to be eudaimonic even if he or she does not know that they are evil and feels pleased and contented with the way they have turned out (happy). Conversely, being loved by your children would not count towards your happiness if you did not know that they loved you (and perhaps thought that they did not), but it would count towards your eudaimonia. So, eudaimonia corresponds to the idea of having an objectively good or desirable life, to some extent independently of whether one knows that certain things exist or not. It includes conscious experiences of well-being, success, and failure, but also a whole lot more. (See Aristotle's discussion: Nicomachean Ethics, book 1.10–1.11.)

Because of this discrepancy between the meanings of eudaimonia and happiness, some alternative translations have been proposed. W.D. Ross suggests 'well-being' and John Cooper proposes 'flourishing'. These translations may avoid some of the misleading associations carried by "happiness" although each tends to raise some problems of its own. In some modern texts therefore, the other alternative is to leave the term in an English form of the original Greek, as eudaimonia.

Socrates
What is known of Socrates' philosophy is almost entirely derived from Plato's writings. Scholars typically divide Plato's works into three periods: the early, middle, and late periods. They tend to agree also that Plato's earliest works quite faithfully represent the teachings of Socrates and that Plato's own views, which go beyond those of Socrates, appear for the first time in the middle works such as the Phaedo and the Republic.

As with all ancient ethical thinkers, Socrates thought that all human beings wanted eudaimonia more than anything else (see Plato, Apology 30b, Euthydemus 280d–282d, Meno 87d–89a). However, Socrates adopted a quite radical form of eudaimonism (see above): he seems to have thought that virtue is both necessary and sufficient for eudaimonia. Socrates is convinced that virtues such as self-control, courage, justice, piety, wisdom and related qualities of mind and soul are absolutely crucial if a person is to lead a good and happy (eudaimon) life. Virtues guarantee a happy life eudaimonia. For example, in the Meno, with respect to wisdom, he says: "everything the soul endeavours or endures under the guidance of wisdom ends in happiness" (Meno 88c).

In the Apology, Socrates clearly presents his disagreement with those who think that the eudaimon life is the life of honour or pleasure, when he chastises the Athenians for caring more for riches and honour than the state of their souls."Good Sir, you are an Athenian, a citizen of the greatest city with the greatest reputation for both wisdom and power; are you not ashamed of your eagerness to possess as much wealth, reputation, and honors as possible, while you do not care for nor give thought to wisdom or truth or the best possible state of your soul? (29e) ... [I]t does not seem like human nature for me to have neglected all my own affairs and to have tolerated this neglect for so many years while I was always concerned with you, approaching each one of you like a father or an elder brother to persuade you to care for virtue. (31a–b; italics added)"It emerges a bit further on that this concern for one's soul, that one's soul might be in the best possible state, amounts to acquiring moral virtue. So Socrates' pointing out that the Athenians should care for their souls means that they should care for their virtue, rather than pursuing honour or riches. Virtues are states of the soul. When a soul has been properly cared for and perfected, it possesses the virtues. Moreover, according to Socrates, this state of the soul, moral virtue, is the most important good. The health of the soul is incomparably more important for eudaimonia than (e.g.) wealth and political power. Someone with a virtuous soul is better off than someone who is wealthy and honoured but whose soul is corrupted by unjust actions. This view is confirmed in the Crito, where Socrates gets Crito to agree that the perfection of the soul, virtue, is the most important good: "And is life worth living for us with that part of us corrupted that unjust action harms and just action benefits? Or do we think that part of us, whatever it is, that is concerned with justice and injustice, is inferior to the body? Not at all. It is much more valuable...? Much more... (47e–48a)" Here, Socrates argues that life is not worth living if the soul is ruined by wrongdoing. In summary, Socrates seems to think that virtue is both necessary and sufficient for eudaimonia. A person who is not virtuous cannot be happy, and a person with virtue cannot fail to be happy. We shall see later on that Stoic ethics takes its cue from this Socratic insight.

Plato
Plato's great work of the middle period, the Republic, is devoted to answering a challenge made by the sophist Thrasymachus, that conventional morality, particularly the 'virtue' of justice, actually prevents the strong man from achieving eudaimonia. Thrasymachus's views are restatements of a position which Plato discusses earlier on in his writings, in the Gorgias, through the mouthpiece of Callicles. The basic argument presented by Thrasymachus and Callicles is that justice (being just) hinders or prevents the achievement of eudaimonia because conventional morality requires that we control ourselves and hence live with un-satiated desires. This idea is vividly illustrated in book 2 of the Republic when Glaucon, taking up Thrasymachus' challenge, recounts a myth of the magical ring of Gyges. According to the myth, Gyges becomes king of Lydia when he stumbles upon a magical ring, which, when he turns it a particular way, makes him invisible, so that he can satisfy any desire he wishes without fear of punishment. When he discovers the power of the ring he kills the king, marries his wife and takes over the throne. The thrust of Glaucon's challenge is that no one would be just if he could escape the retribution he would normally encounter for fulfilling his desires at whim. But if eudaimonia is to be achieved through the satisfaction of desire, whereas being just or acting justly requires suppression of desire, then it is not in the interests of the strong man to act according to the dictates of conventional morality. (This general line of argument reoccurs much later in the philosophy of Nietzsche.) Throughout the rest of the Republic, Plato aims to refute this claim by showing that the virtue of justice is necessary for eudaimonia.

The argument of the Republic is lengthy and complex. In brief, Plato argues that virtues are states of the soul, and that the just person is someone whose soul is ordered and harmonious, with all its parts functioning properly to the person's benefit. In contrast, Plato argues that the unjust man's soul, without the virtues, is chaotic and at war with itself, so that even if he were able to satisfy most of his desires, his lack of inner harmony and unity thwart any chance he has of achieving eudaimonia. Plato's ethical theory is eudaimonistic because it maintains that eudaimonia depends on virtue. On Plato's version of the relationship, virtue is depicted as the most crucial and the dominant constituent of eudaimonia.

Aristotle
Aristotle's account is articulated in the Nicomachean Ethics and the Eudemian Ethics. In outline, for Aristotle, eudaimonia involves activity, exhibiting virtue (aretē sometimes translated as excellence) in accordance with reason. This conception of eudaimonia derives from Aristotle's essentialist understanding of human nature, the view that reason (logos sometimes translated as rationality) is unique to human beings and that the ideal function or work (ergon) of a human being is the fullest or most perfect exercise of reason. Basically, well-being (eudaimonia) is gained by proper development of one's highest and most human capabilities and human beings are "the rational animal". It follows that eudaimonia for a human being is the attainment of excellence (areté) in reason.

According to Aristotle, eudaimonia actually requires activity, action, so that it is not sufficient for a person to possess a squandered ability or disposition. Eudaimonia requires not only good character but rational activity. Aristotle clearly maintains that to live in accordance with reason means achieving excellence thereby. Moreover, he claims this excellence cannot be isolated and so competencies are also required appropriate to related functions. For example, if being a truly outstanding scientist requires impressive math skills, one might say "doing mathematics well is necessary to be a first rate scientist". From this it follows that eudaimonia, living well, consists in activities exercising the rational part of the psyche in accordance with the virtues or excellency of reason [1097b22–1098a20]. Which is to say, to be fully engaged in the intellectually stimulating and fulfilling work at which one achieves well-earned success. The rest of the Nicomachean Ethics is devoted to filling out the claim that the best life for a human being is the life of excellence in accordance with reason. Since the reason for Aristotle is not only theoretical but practical as well, he spends quite a bit of time discussing excellence of character, which enables a person to exercise his practical reason (i.e., reason relating to action) successfully.

Aristotle's ethical theory is eudaimonist because it maintains that eudaimonia depends on virtue. However, it is Aristotle's explicit view that virtue is necessary but not sufficient for eudaimonia. While emphasizing the importance of the rational aspect of the psyche, he does not ignore the importance of other 'goods' such as friends, wealth, and power in a life that is eudaimonic. He doubts the likelihood of being eudaimonic if one lacks certain external goods such as 'good birth, good children, and beauty'. So, a person who is hideously ugly or has "lost children or good friends through death" (1099b5–6), or who is isolated, is unlikely to be eudaimon. In this way, "dumb luck" (chance) can preempt one's attainment of eudaimonia.

Pyrrho
Pyrrho was the founder of Pyrrhonism. A summary of his approach to eudaimonia was preserved by Eusebius, quoting Aristocles of Messene, quoting Timon of Phlius, in what is known as the "Aristocles passage".

"Whoever wants eudaimonia must consider these three questions: First, how are pragmata (ethical matters, affairs, topics) by nature? Secondly, what attitude should we adopt towards them? Thirdly, what will be the outcome for those who have this attitude?' Pyrrho's answer is that 'As for pragmata they are all adiaphora (undifferentiated by a logical differentia), astathmēta (unstable, unbalanced, not measurable), and anepikrita (unjudged, unfixed, undecidable). Therefore, neither our sense-perceptions nor our doxai (views, theories, beliefs) tell us the truth or lie; so we certainly should not rely on them. Rather, we should be adoxastoi (without views), aklineis (uninclined toward this side or that), and akradantoi (unwavering in our refusal to choose), saying about every single one that it no more is than it is not or it both is and is not or it neither is nor is not."

With respect to aretē, the Pyrrhonist philosopher Sextus Empiricus said:

"If one defines a system as an attachment to a number of dogmas that agree with one another and with appearances, and defines a dogma as an assent to something non-evident, we shall say that the Pyrrhonist does not have a system. But if one says that a system is a way of life that, in accordance with appearances, follows a certain rationale, where that rationale shows how it is possible to seem to live rightly ('rightly' being taken, not as referring only to aretē, but in a more ordinary sense) and tends to produce the disposition to suspend judgment, then we say that he does have a system."

Epicurus
Epicurus' ethical theory is hedonistic. (His view proved very influential on the founders and best proponents of utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.) Hedonism is the view that pleasure is the only intrinsic good and that pain is the only intrinsic bad. An object, experience or state of affairs is intrinsically valuable if it is good simply because of what it is. Intrinsic value is to be contrasted with instrumental value. An object, experience or state of affairs is instrumentally valuable if it serves as a means to what is intrinsically valuable. To see this, consider the following example. Suppose a person spends their days and nights in an office, working at not entirely pleasant activities for the purpose of receiving money. Someone asks them "why do you want the money?", and they answer: "So, I can buy an apartment overlooking the ocean, and a red sports car." This answer expresses the point that money is instrumentally valuable because its value lies in what one obtains by means of it—in this case, the money is a means to getting an apartment and a sports car and the value of making this money dependent on the price of these commodities.

Epicurus identifies the good life with the life of pleasure. He understands eudaimonia as a more or less continuous experience of pleasure and, also, freedom from pain and distress. But Epicurus does not advocate that one pursue any and every pleasure. Rather, he recommends a policy whereby pleasures are maximized "in the long run". In other words, Epicurus claims that some pleasures are not worth having because they lead to greater pains, and some pains are worthwhile when they lead to greater pleasures. The best strategy for attaining a maximal amount of pleasure overall is not to seek instant gratification but to work out a sensible long term policy.

Ancient Greek ethics is eudaimonist because it links virtue and eudaimonia, where eudaimonia refers to an individual's well-being. Epicurus' doctrine can be considered eudaimonist since Epicurus argues that a life of pleasure will coincide with a life of virtue. He believes that we do and ought to seek virtue because virtue brings pleasure. Epicurus' basic doctrine is that a life of virtue is the life which generates the most pleasure, and it is for this reason that we ought to be virtuous. This thesis—the eudaimon life is the pleasurable life—is not a tautology as "eudaimonia is the good life" would be: rather, it is the substantive and controversial claim that a life of pleasure and absence of pain is what eudaimonia consists in.

One important difference between Epicurus' eudaimonism and that of Plato and Aristotle is that for the latter virtue is a constituent of eudaimonia, whereas Epicurus makes virtue a means to happiness. To this difference, consider Aristotle's theory. Aristotle maintains that eudaimonia is what everyone wants (and Epicurus would agree). He also thinks that eudaimonia is best achieved by a life of virtuous activity in accordance with reason. The virtuous person takes pleasure in doing the right thing as a result of a proper training of moral and intellectual character (See e.g., Nicomachean Ethics 1099a5). However, Aristotle does not think that virtuous activity is pursued for the sake of pleasure. Pleasure is a byproduct of virtuous action: it does not enter at all into the reasons why virtuous action is virtuous. Aristotle does not think that we literally aim for eudaimonia. Rather, eudaimonia is what we achieve (assuming that we are not particularly unfortunate in the possession of external goods) when we live according to the requirements of reason. Virtue is the largest constituent in a eudaimon life. By contrast, Epicurus holds that virtue is the means to achieve happiness. His theory is eudaimonist in that he holds that virtue is indispensable to happiness; but virtue is not a constituent of a eudaimon life, and being virtuous is not (external goods aside) identical with being eudaimon. Rather, according to Epicurus, virtue is only instrumentally related to happiness. So whereas Aristotle would not say that one ought to aim for virtue in order to attain pleasure, Epicurus would endorse this claim.

The Stoics

Stoic philosophy begins with Zeno of Citium c. 300 BC, and was developed by Cleanthes (331–232 BC) and Chrysippus (c. 280) into a formidable systematic unity. Zeno believed happiness was a "good flow of life"; Cleanthes suggested it was "living in agreement with nature", and Chrysippus believed it was "living in accordance with experience of what happens by nature." Stoic ethics is a particularly strong version of eudaimonism. According to the Stoics, virtue is necessary and sufficient for eudaimonia. (This thesis is generally regarded as stemming from the Socrates of Plato's earlier dialogues.)

We saw earlier that the conventional Greek concept of arete is not quite the same as that denoted by virtue, which has Christian connotations of charity, patience, and uprightness, since arete includes many non-moral virtues such as physical strength and beauty. However, the Stoic concept of arete is much nearer to the Christian conception of virtue, which refers to the moral virtues. However, unlike Christian understandings of virtue, righteousness or piety, the Stoic conception does not place as great an emphasis on mercy, forgiveness, self-abasement (i.e. the ritual process of declaring complete powerlessness and humility before God), charity and self-sacrificial love, though these behaviors/mentalities are not necessarily spurned by the Stoics (they are spurned by some other philosophers of Antiquity). Rather Stoicism emphasizes states such as justice, honesty, moderation, simplicity, self-discipline, resolve, fortitude, and courage (states which Christianity also encourages).

The Stoics make a radical claim that the eudaimon life is the morally virtuous life. Moral virtue is good, and moral vice is bad, and everything else, such as health, honour and riches, are merely "neutral". The Stoics therefore are committed to saying that external goods such as wealth and physical beauty are not really good at all. Moral virtue is both necessary and sufficient for eudaimonia. In this, they are akin to Cynic philosophers such as Antisthenes and Diogenes in denying the importance to eudaimonia of external goods and circumstances, such as were recognized by Aristotle, who thought that severe misfortune (such as the death of one's family and friends) could rob even the most virtuous person of eudaimonia. This Stoic doctrine re-emerges later in the history of ethical philosophy in the writings of Immanuel Kant, who argues that the possession of a "good will" is the only unconditional good. One difference is that whereas the Stoics regard external goods as neutral, as neither good nor bad, Kant's position seems to be that external goods are good, but only so far as they are a condition to achieving happiness.

"Modern Moral Philosophy"
Interest in the concept of eudaimonia and ancient ethical theory more generally had a revival in the 20th century. G. E. M. Anscombe in her article "Modern Moral Philosophy" (1958) argued that duty-based conceptions of morality are conceptually incoherent for they are based on the idea of a "law without a lawgiver". She claims a system of morality conceived along the lines of the Ten Commandments depends on someone having made these rules. Anscombe recommends a return to the eudaimonistic ethical theories of the ancients, particularly Aristotle, which ground morality in the interests and well-being of human moral agents, and can do so without appealing to any such lawgiver.

Julia Driver in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains: Anscombe's article Modern Moral Philosophy stimulated the development of virtue ethics as an alternative to Utilitarianism, Kantian Ethics, and Social Contract theories. Her primary charge in the article is that, as secular approaches to moral theory, they are without foundation. They use concepts such as "morally ought", "morally obligated", "morally right", and so forth that are legalistic and require a legislator as the source of moral authority. In the past God occupied that role, but systems that dispense with God as part of the theory are lacking the proper foundation for meaningful employment of those concepts.

Modern psychology

Models of eudaimonia in psychology and positive psychology emerged from early work on self-actualization and the means of its accomplishment by researchers such as Erik Erikson, Gordon Allport, and Abraham Maslow (hierarchy of needs).

Theories include Diener's tripartite model of subjective well-being, Ryff's Six-factor Model of Psychological Well-being, Keyes work on flourishing, and Seligman's contributions to positive psychology and his theories on authentic happiness and P.E.R.M.A. Related concepts are happiness, flourishing, quality of life, contentment, and meaningful life.

The Japanese concept of Ikigai has been described as eudaimonic well-being, as it "entails actions of devoting oneself to pursuits one enjoys and is associated with feelings of accomplishment and fulfillment."

Positive psychology on eudaimonia
The "Questionnaire for Eudaimonic Well-Being" developed in Positive Psychology lists six dimensions of eudaimonia:
 * 1) self-discovery;
 * 2) perceived development of one's best potentials;
 * 3) a sense of purpose and meaning in life;
 * 4) investment of significant effort in pursuit of excellence;
 * 5) intense involvement in activities; and
 * 6) enjoyment of activities as personally expressive.

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

title: Eudaimonia


text:
USS Massachusetts

Eight ships of the United States Navy and Revenue-Marine have been named USS Massachusetts, after the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

 * USRC Massachusetts (1791), a topsail schooner, was the first Revenue-Marine cutter of the United States, sold in 1792.
 * USRC Massachusetts II (1793), a sloop built to replace USRC Massachusetts (1791).
 * USS Massachusetts (1845), was a wooden steamer that saw action during the Mexican–American War and in Puget Sound.
 * USS Massachusetts (1860), was an iron screw steamer that saw action during the American Civil War.
 * USS Massachusetts (1869), was the never-launched Kalamazoo-class monitor monitor Passaconaway renamed first to Thunderer then to Massachusetts before being scrapped in 1884.
 * USS Massachusetts (BB-2) was an Indiana-class battleship commissioned in 1896 and the second battleship procured by the United States Navy, saw action in the Spanish–American War, scuttled in 1921.
 * USS Massachusetts (1917), was purchased by the U.S. Navy as SS Massachusetts from the Eastern Steamship Co. in 1917; commissioned 7 December 1917 and renamed Shawmut 7 January 1918.
 * USS Massachusetts (BB-54) would have been a battleship of the first South Dakota class, canceled by the Washington Naval Treaty in 1923.
 * USS Massachusetts (BB-59) is a battleship of the second South Dakota class, commissioned in 1942 and which saw action in World War II, now a museum ship in Fall River, Massachusetts.
 * USS Massachusetts (SSN-798) is a Virginia-class submarine laid down in 2020.

title: USS Massachusetts


text:
USS Massachusetts (BB-2)

USS Massachusetts was an Indiana-class battleship, pre-dreadnought battleship and the second United States Navy ship comparable to foreign battleships of its time. Authorized in 1890, and commissioned six years later, she was a small battleship, though with heavy armor and ordnance. The ship class also pioneered the use of an intermediate battery. She was designed for coastal defense and as a result, her decks were not safe from high waves on the open ocean.

Massachusetts served in the Spanish–American War as part of the Flying Squadron and took part in the blockades of Cienfuegos and Santiago de Cuba. She missed the decisive Battle of Santiago de Cuba after steaming to Guantánamo Bay the night before to resupply coal. After the war she served with the North Atlantic Squadron, performing training maneuvers and gunnery practice. During this period she suffered an explosion in an 8 in gun turret, killing nine, and ran aground twice, requiring several months of repair both times. She was decommissioned in 1906, for modernization.

Although considered obsolete in 1910, the battleship was recommissioned and used for annual cruises for midshipmen during the summers, and otherwise laid up in the reserve fleet, until her decommissioning in 1914. In 1917, she was recommissioned to serve as a training ship for gun crews during World War I. She was decommissioned for the final time in March 1919, under the name Coast Battleship Number 2 in anticipation that her name could be reused for USS Massachusetts (BB-54) (laid down April 1921). In 1921, she was scuttled in shallow water in the Gulf of Mexico, off Pensacola, Florida, and used as a target for experimental artillery. The wreck was never scrapped, and in 1956, it was declared the property of the State of Florida. Since 1993, the wreck has been a Florida Underwater Archaeological Preserve and it is included in the National Register of Historic Places. It serves as an artificial reef and diving spot.

Design
Massachusetts was constructed from a modified version of a design drawn up by a policy board in 1889 for a short-range battleship. The original design was part of an ambitious naval construction plan to build 33 battleships and 167 smaller ships. The United States Congress saw the plan as an attempt to end the US policy of isolationism and did not approve it, but a year later approved funding for three coast defense battleships, which would become Massachusetts and her sister ships USS Indiana (BB-1) and USS Oregon (BB-3). The ships were limited to coastal defense due to their moderate endurance, relatively small displacement and low freeboard which limited seagoing capability. The ships proved to be disappointments in service, as they were badly overweight upon completion, their low freeboard hampered operations at sea, and they handled poorly. Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships describes her design as "attempting too much on a very limited displacement." They were nevertheless the first modern battleships for the American fleet.

Massachusetts was 351 ft long overall and had a beam of 69 ft and a draft of 24 ft. She displaced 10288 LT as designed and up to 11688 LT at full load. The ship was powered by two-shaft triple-expansion steam engines rated at 9000 ihp and four coal-fired fire-tube boilers, generating a top speed of 15 kn. She had a cruising radius of 5640 nmi at a speed of 10 kn. As built, she was fitted with a heavy military mast, this was later supplemented by a stern cage mast in 1910–1911. She had a crew of 32 officers and 441 enlisted men, which increased to a total of 586–636 officers and enlisted.

The ship was armed with a main battery of four 13 in /35 caliber guns in two twin gun turrets on the centerline, one forward and aft. The secondary battery consisted of eight 8 in /35 cal. guns, which were placed in four twin wing turrets. These were supported by a battery of six 6 in /40 cal. guns in a casemate battery amidships. For close-range defense against torpedo boats, she carried twenty 6-pounder guns and six 1-pounder guns in individual mounts. As was standard for capital ships of the period, Massachusetts carried 18 in torpedo tubes in above-water mounts, though the number is unclear. According to Conway's, she was fitted with six tubes, though the naval historian Norman Friedman states she was ordered with seven but completed with five.

Massachusetts's main armored belt was 18 in thick over the magazines and the machinery spaces and was reduced to 4 in at the bow and stern. The main battery gun turrets had 17 in thick sides, and the supporting barbettes had the same thickness of armor plate on their exposed sides. The 8 in turrets had 6 in of armor plating and the casemate battery had 5 in. The conning tower had 10 in thick sides.

Construction and early career
Construction of the ships was authorized on 30 June 1890, and the contract for Massachusetts—not including guns and armor—was awarded to William Cramp & Sons of Philadelphia, who offered to build it for $3,020,000. The total cost of the ship was almost twice as high, approximately $6,000,000. The contract specified the ship had to be built in three years, but slow delivery of armor plates and guns caused a delay. Her keel was laid down on 25 June 1891, and she was launched two years later on 10 June 1893. The launching ceremony was attended by thousands of people, including Secretary of the Navy Hilary A. Herbert, and Commander George Dewey. Her preliminary sea trial did not take place until March 1896, because of the delays in armor and gun deliveries. At this point Massachusetts was almost complete, and her official trial was held a month later.

Massachusetts was commissioned on 10 June 1896, with Captain Frederick Rodgers in command. She had her shakedown cruise between August and November 1896, followed by an overhaul at the New York Navy Yard. In February 1897, she made a short voyage to Charleston, South Carolina. The battleship departed New York, again in May, for Boston, where a celebration in her honor was held. For the next ten months the warship participated in training maneuvers with the North Atlantic Squadron, off the coast of Florida, and visited several major ports on the American east coast. On 27 March 1898, she was ordered to Hampton Roads, Virginia, to join the Flying Squadron, under Commodore Winfield Scott Schley, for the blockade of Cuba.

Spanish–American War

After the outbreak of the Spanish–American War, the Flying Squadron steamed to Key West. There, Schley met with Rear Admiral Sampson, who had just returned from the bombardment of San Juan, Puerto Rico. They discussed the possible locations of the Spanish squadron, under Admiral Cervera, and Schley was sent to the harbor of Cienfuegos, Cuba, to look for Cervera. Schley arrived off Cienfuegos, on 22 May, and took several days to establish that Cervera's ships were not in the harbor. The squadron then proceeded to Santiago de Cuba, the only other port on the southern coast of Cuba that was large enough for the Spanish ships, arriving after several delays on 29 May. On arrival, the SPANISH CRUISER Cristóbal Colón, was visible from outside the harbor entrance, confirming that the Spanish fleet was in the harbor. Schley blockaded the harbor and informed Sampson, who arrived with his own squadron on 1 June, and assumed overall command.

During the next month Massachusetts took part in the blockade of Santiago de Cuba, occasionally bombarding the harbor forts. On the night of 2–3 July, she and the two cruisers USS New Orleans (CL-22) and USS Newark (C-1), left the blockade to load coal in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This caused her to miss the Battle of Santiago de Cuba, on 3 July, in which the Spanish fleet attempted to break through the blockade and was completely destroyed. The next day the battleship came back to Santiago de Cuba, where she and USS Texas (1892) fired at the disarmed SPANISH CRUISER Reina Mercedes, which was being scuttled by the Spanish, in an attempt to block the harbor entrance channel. Massachusetts was then sent to Puerto Rico, to support the American occupation until she steamed home to New York, on 1 August, arriving on 20 August.

Post Spanish–American War
After a quick overhaul in drydock, Massachusetts was attempting to leave New York Harbor on 10 December 1898, when she struck Diamond Reef, flooding five of her forward compartments. She was forced to return to the navy yard, where she was placed in drydock again for repairs which took around three months. For a year Massachusetts served with the North Atlantic Squadron, visiting various cities on the Atlantic coast. In May 1900, she and Indiana were placed in reserve as the navy had an acute officer shortage and needed to put the new Kearsarge-class battleship and Illinois-class battleships into commission. The battleships were reactivated the following month as an experiment in how quickly this could be achieved, and Massachusetts returned to service with the North Atlantic Squadron.

In March 1901, the battleship grounded again, this time in the harbor of Pensacola, Florida, but the ship was able to continue her trip. A more serious accident occurred during target practice in January 1903, when an explosion in an 8 in turret killed nine crew members. They were the first fatalities aboard a United States battleship since the sinking of USS Maine (1889), in 1898. Another accident happened in August of that year, when Massachusetts grounded on a rock in Frenchman Bay, Maine. The ship was seriously damaged and had to be repaired in drydock. In December 1904, yet another lethal accident took place aboard Massachusetts: three men were killed and several others badly burned when a broken gasket caused steam to fill the boiler room. On 8 January 1906, the battleship was decommissioned and her crew was transferred to her sister ship Indiana, which had completed a three-year modernization. Massachusetts now received the same upgrades, including twelve 3 in/50 caliber single-purpose guns to replace the 6 in and most of the lighter guns, new Babcock & Wilcox boilers, counterweights to balance her main turrets, a lattice mast, and electric traversing mechanisms for her turrets.

On 2 May 1910, Massachusetts was placed in reduced commission so she could be used for the annual Naval Academy midshipmen summer cruise. Despite her modernizations the battleship was now regarded as "obsolete and worthless, even for the second line of defense" by Secretary of the Navy George von Lengerke Meyer. She saw little use, other than summer cruises, and was transferred to the Atlantic Reserve Fleet when it was formed in 1912. After a quick trip to New York for a Presidential Fleet Review in October 1912, the warship returned to Philadelphia and stayed there until she was decommissioned on 23 May 1914.

World War I and fate

After the United States entered World War I, Massachusetts was recommissioned for the final time, on 9 June 1917. She was used by Naval Reserve gun crews for gunnery training in Block Island Sound, until 27 May 1918. The battleship was then redeployed to serve as a heavy gun target practice ship near Chesapeake Bay, until the end of World War I. Massachusetts returned to Philadelphia, on 16 February 1919. She was decommissioned for the final time on 31 March 1919, after being re-designated "Coast Battleship Number 2" two days earlier so her name could be reused for the first South Dakota-class dreadnought battleship USS Massachusetts (BB-54).

Massachusetts was struck from the Naval Vessel Register on 22 November 1920, and loaned to the United States Department of War, then used as a target ship for experimental artillery. When the US Navy adopted hull numbers that year, Massachusetts was retroactively assigned the number "BB-2". She was scuttled in shallow water in the Gulf of Mexico, off Pensacola, on 6 January 1921, and bombarded by the coastal batteries of Fort Pickens and by railway artillery. On 20 February 1925, the Department of War returned her wreck to the US Navy, which offered her for scrap, but no acceptable bids were received.

Eventually Massachusetts was declared the property of the State of Florida, by the Supreme Court of Florida. On 10 June 1993—the centennial anniversary of her launching—the site became the fourth Florida Underwater Archaeological Preserve. In 2001, the wreck also was added to the National Register of Historic Places, and it still serves as an artificial reef and diving spot.

title: USS Massachusetts (BB-2)


text:
Herophilos

Herophilos (Ἡρόφιλος; 335–280 BC), sometimes Latinised Herophilus, was a Greek physician regarded as one of the earliest anatomists. Born in Chalcedon, he spent the majority of his life in Alexandria. He was the first scientist to systematically perform scientific dissections of human cadavers. He recorded his findings in over nine works, which are now all lost. The early Christian author Tertullian states that Herophilos vivisected at least 600 live prisoners; however, this account has been disputed by many historians. He is often seen as the father of anatomy.

Life
Herophilos was born in Chalcedon in Asia Minor (now Kadıköy, Turkey), c. 335 BC. Not much is known about his early life other than he moved to Alexandria at a fairly young age to begin his schooling.

As an adult Herophilos was a teacher, and an author of at least nine texts ranging from his book titled On Pulses, which explored the flow of blood from the heart through the arteries, to his book titled Midwifery, which discussed duration and phases of childbirth. In Alexandria, he practiced dissections, often publicly so that he could explain what he was doing to those who were fascinated. Erasistratus was his contemporary. Together, they worked at a medical school in Alexandria that is said to have drawn people from all over the ancient world due to Herophilos's fame.

His works are lost but were much quoted by Galen in the second century AD. Herophilos was the first scientist to systematically perform scientific dissections of human cadavers. Dissections of human cadavers were banned in most places at the time, except for Alexandria. Celsus in De Medicina and the church leader Tertullian state that he vivisected at least 600 live prisoners, though this has been contested as Herophilos appeared to have believed the arteries contained very little blood which he wouldn't have believed had he performed live dissections.

After the death of Herophilos in 280 BC, his anatomical findings lived on in the works of other important physicians, notably Galen. Even though dissections were performed in the following centuries and medieval times, only a few insights were added. Dissecting with the purpose to gain knowledge about human anatomy started again in early modern times (Vesalius), more than 1600 years after Herophilos's death.

Medicine
Herophilos emphasised the use of the experimental method in medicine, for he considered it essential to found knowledge on empirical bases. He was a forerunner of the Empiric school of medicine, founded by Herophilos's pupil Philinus of Cos, which combined Herophilos's empirical impulses with critical tools borrowed from Pyrrhonist philosophy. However, the Empirics found Herophilos wanting, mounting two chief attacks against him:

 * 1) that anatomy was useless to the therapeutic and clinical practice of medicine, as demonstrated by Herophilos's own acceptance of humoral pathology.
 * 2) it was useless and epistemologically unsound to try to find causal explanations from the evident to the non-evident.

Conventional medicine of the time revolved around the theory of the four humors in which an imbalance between bile, black bile, phlegm, and blood led to sickness or disease. Veins were believed to be filled with blood and a mixture of air and water. Through dissections, Herophilus was able to deduce that veins carried only blood. After studying the flow of blood, he was able to differentiate between arteries and veins. He noticed that as blood flowed through arteries, they pulsed or rhythmically throbbed. He worked out standards for measuring a pulse and could use these standards to aid him in diagnosing sicknesses or diseases. To measure this pulse, he made use of a water clock.

Herophilos's work on blood and its movements led him to study and analyse the brain. He proposed that the brain housed the intellect rather than the heart. He was the first person to differentiate between the cerebrum and the cerebellum, and to place individual importance on each portion. He looked more in depth into the network of nerves located in the cranium.

Herophilos was particularly interested in the eye. He described the optic nerve for seeing and the oculomotor nerve for eye movements. Through his dissection of the eye, he discovered its different sections and layers: the "skin" of the eyeball comprising the cornea (the clear part at the front of the eye through which light begins to be focussed into the eye) and sclera (the white of the eye), the iris (the colored part of the eye surrounding the pupil), the retina (containing the cells converting light into neural activity), and the choroid (a layer between the retina and the sclera comprising connective tissue and blood vessels nourishing the retina). Herophilos used the term retiform to describe the retina, from its resemblance to a casting net, giving the origin of the modern term.

Further study of the cranium led Herophilos to describe the calamus scriptorius, which he believed was the seat of the human soul. Analysis of the nerves in the cranium allowed him to differentiate between nerves and blood vessels and to discover the differences between motor and sensory nerves. He believed that the sensory and motor nerves shot out from the brain and that the neural transmissions occurred by means of pneuma. Part of Herophilos's beliefs about the human body involved the pneuma, which he believed was a substance that flowed through the arteries along with the blood. To make this consistent with medical beliefs at the time, Herophilos stated that diseases occurred when an excess of one of the four humors impeded the pneuma from reaching the brain.

Herophilos also introduced many other scientific terms used to this day to describe anatomical phenomena. He was among the first to introduce the notion of conventional terminology, as opposed to use of "natural names", using terms he created to describe the objects of study, naming them for the first time. A confluence of sinuses in the skull was originally named torcular Herophili after him. Torcular is a Latin translation of Herophilos's label, ληνός - lenos, 'wine vat' or 'wine press'. He also named the duodenum, which is part of the small intestine. Other areas of his anatomical study include the liver, the pancreas, and the alimentary tract, as well as the salivary glands and genitalia.

Herophilos is credited with learning extensively about the physiology of the female reproductive system. In his book Midwifery, he discussed phases and duration of pregnancy as well as causes for difficult childbirth. The aim of this work was to help midwives and other doctors of the time more fully understand the process of procreation and pregnancy. He is also credited with the discovery of the ovum, and was the first to make a scientific description of what would later be called Skene's gland, for which in 2001 the term female prostate was accepted as a second term.

Herophilos believed that exercise and a healthy diet were integral to an individual's bodily health. He once said that "when health is absent, wisdom cannot reveal itself, art cannot become manifest, strength cannot be exerted, wealth is useless, and reason is powerless".

title: Herophilos


text:
William Sampson (author)

William Sampson (April 17, 1959 – 28 March 2012) was a dual British and Canadian national who was arrested in Saudi Arabia on 17 December 2000 on a variety of charges including terrorism, espionage and murder. He was imprisoned and tortured for two years and seven months, and finally released and permitted to leave Saudi Arabia, along with several of his co-accused, on 8 August 2003.

In 2005 Sampson published a book about his experience entitled Confessions of an Innocent Man: Torture and Survival in a Saudi Prison.

Early life
Sampson was born at Soldiers Memorial Hospital in Middleton, Nova Scotia, Canada. The son of a British father and a Canadian mother, Sampson spent periods in Canada, the United Kingdom and Singapore. At age 16 he joined the Seaforth Highlanders militia in Vancouver. He stayed on for 18 months. He held an MBA from the University of Edinburgh and a PhD in biochemistry.

He worked in biochemical research and pharmaceutical marketing prior to moving to Riyadh in 1998 to work as a marketing consultant with the Saudi Industrial Development Fund, a government development bank.

Arrest
On the morning of 17 December 2000, Sampson was taken at gunpoint by police as he left his home in Riyadh on his way to work. He was taken to al-Ha'ir Prison where regular sessions of physical and psychological torture immediately began. Among other things, Sampson says he was raped by two men and repeatedly beaten, foot whipped, and deprived of sleep.

After six initial days of torture largely conducted by three men, Ibrahim al-Dali (officer of the Mabaheth, the Saudi Arabian internal intelligence service), Khaled al-Saleh (officer of the Mabaheth) and a third unnamed man Sampson nicknamed "the Spiv," Sampson confessed and subsequently provided both written and videotaped confessions; he was sentenced to death by al-haad, a form of execution in which the victim is restrained and decapitated. The torture continued in various forms until his release.

A Saudi official has denied that Sampson was tortured.

Alleged crimes
Sampson was one of nine foreign nationals arrested on allegations of involvement in a series of car bombings targeting Western expatriates in Riyadh. British engineer Christopher Rodway was killed and his wife injured in one explosion, and a second bomb injured Britons Mark Paine and Steve Coughlan. The Saudi authorities claimed that the bombings were part of a turf war within a Western liquor trafficking ring, though the men claimed they were further forced to confess. The widow of Christopher Rodway, Jane Rodway, denied that her husband was involved in liquor trafficking.

In his videotaped confession, broadcast internationally on 5 February 2001, Sampson said:

"I admit and acknowledge that I participated with Mr. Alexander Mitchell in setting up an explosive device on the vehicle belonging to Mr. Christopher Rodway, a British national. I detonated the explosive device using a remote control switch. Mr. Mitchell and I then headed South towards Al-Jazeera. Two days later, Mr. Mitchell ordered me to set up a second explosion with the participation of Mr. Raf Schyvens, a Belgian national."

- William Sampson

Release
In August 2003, after 31 months' incarceration in solitary confinement, Sampson and the others were suddenly released, and immediately deported to the UK. Charles, Prince of Wales, Rubin Carter, Christopher Rodway's son Justin Rodway, and Canadian members of parliament, Stéphane Dion and Dan McTeague were part of the diplomatic effort to obtain the release. In July 2004, it was revealed that the final release was part of a prisoner exchange for the release of five Saudis from the US prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Officials of both the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (UK) and the State Department (USA) have anonymously confirmed this information. A memorandum between officials of the Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs referring to the prisoner exchange adds further evidence of its occurrence. The Belgian government has confirmed both the authenticity of the memo and its knowledge of the exchange, but has denied any direct involvement in the negotiations. The Canadian government refuses to comment on the matter.

Legal case
On 28 October 2004, Sampson, along with Britons Sandy Mitchell and Les Walker, won a legal battle in London, UK that allows them to sue the men in Saudi Arabia they say tortured them into making the false confessions. In February 2005, a coroner's inquest into the death of Christopher Rodway, held in Trowbridge, concluded that there was no evidence to indicate that Sampson and Mitchell had any involvement in the death, and thus were not involved in the incident for which the Saudi Arabian government had arrested them. In June 2006, a decision handed down at the Law Lords overturned the earlier ruling of the Court of Appeal. Sampson, along with Mitchell and Walker appealed to the European Court of Human Rights claiming that the law in Britain, as interpreted in the Lords' decision, is a violation of their rights under Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

In June 2006 the group's appeal was overturned by the Law Lords on the grounds that Saudi officials are protected in Britain by the State Immunity Act 1978.

In 2007, Sampson was the subject of a National Film Board of Canada-co-produced documentary.

Criticism of the Canadian government
Sampson repeatedly criticised the Canadian government for its actions during his incarceration. Sampson stated that his torturers were present at every meeting he had with Canadian diplomats and government representatives, who never insisted they leave and indeed accepted the Saudis' claims of Sampson's guilt, despite the lack of evidence, inconsistencies, and the statements to the contrary by Sampson and his supporters. He also alleged that he repeatedly informed embassy officials and Canadian medical professionals that he was being tortured, but to no avail.

"Credible allegations that [Sampson] was tortured while in detention and forced to confess to a crime he very likely did not commit remain uninvestigated [by Canadian authorities]."

- Amnesty International

Death
Sampson died of a heart attack at his home in northern England on 28 March 2012. According to Marni Soupcof, writing in the National Post, at the time of his death Canada was still failing Sampson. She criticized Canadian diplomatic officials for asking Sampson about torture when his torturers were present, and failing to realise he couldn't answer candidly. She rejected claims Canada had learned a lesson in being pro-active in protecting its citizens in custody overseas.

title: William Sampson (author)


text:
USS Delaware

USS Delaware may refer to the following ships of the United States Navy:

 * USS Delaware (1776), was a 24-gun frigate built in 1776 and captured by the British in 1777
 * USS Delaware (1798), was a 20-gun ship purchased in 1798
 * USS Delaware (1820), was a 74-gun ship of the line, launched in 1820 and burned in 1861
 * USS Delaware (1861), was a side-wheel steamer built in 1861 and decommissioned in 1865
 * USS Delaware (1866), was a screw steamer renamed from Piscataqua in 1869
 * USS Delaware (BB-28), was a battleship commissioned in 1910 and scrapped in 1924
 * SP-467 (later AT-5S and YT-111) served in the Navy from 1917 to 1923. Although officially known as SP-467, she was erroneously listed under her merchant name of Delaware on various occasions.
 * USS Delaware (SSN-791), a Virginia-class submarine commissioned in 2020

title: USS Delaware


text:
Chris Brasher

Christopher William Brasher CBE (21 August 1928 – 28 February 2003) was a British track and field athlete, sports journalist and co-founder of the London Marathon.

Early life and education
Born in Georgetown, British Guiana, Brasher went to Rugby School and then St John's College, Cambridge, where he read geology. He was a keen mountaineer, and as a student was president of the Cambridge University Mountaineering Club, and in 1948 led an expedition to Baffin Island with W. A. Deer.

Sporting career
On 6 May 1954, he acted as pacemaker for Roger Bannister when the latter ran the first sub-four-minute mile at Iffley Road Stadium in Oxford. Brasher paced Bannister for the first two laps, while his friend Chris Chataway paced the third. Two years later, at the 1956 Summer Olympics in Melbourne, Brasher finished first in the 3,000 metres steeplechase with a time of 8 minutes 41.2 seconds, but was disqualified for allegedly interfering with another runner, Ernst Larsen of Norway. The following day, after an investigation, he was reinstated as gold medallist. Brasher had been celebrating for several hours before the delayed medal ceremony, and later claimed to have been “the only Olympic champion to be totally and absolutely slaughtered when he received a medal”.

He was one of the pioneers of orienteering in Britain and can claim the first public mention of the sport in an article in The Observer in 1957:

 * "I have just taken part, for the first time, in one of the best sports in the world. It is hard to know what to call it. The Norwegians call it 'orientation'..."

Later career
He had distinguished careers in print journalism, as sports editor for The Observer newspaper, and in broadcasting, as a reporter for the Tonight programme.

He founded Chris Brasher's Sporting Emporium in 1971; this later became Sweatshop. In 1978, he designed the innovative Brasher Boot – a walking boot with the comfort of a running shoe. In their time these were amongst the best products, but declined in quality, were merged with Berghaus under Pentland ownership in 2014, and were finally discontinued before 2017.

In 1981 John Disley and Brasher founded the London Marathon. In 1983 he became the second president of the Association of International Marathons and Distance Races, an office which he held until 1987.

Also in 1983 Brasher partnered with his longtime friend John Disley to found Fleetfoot Limited in Lancaster, England. Fleetfoot distributed The Brasher Boot and other sporting goods to retailers. Fleetfoot acquired the rights to be the UK distributor of Reebok and subsequently traded as Reebok UK before becoming a subsidiary of the Pentland Group in 1988.

After the acquisition by Pentland, Brasher remained active in the company as chairman of the board. Reebok UK was sold to Reebok International in 1990 when Pentland Group sold its 55% ownership of Reebok United States and Reebok International.

Personal life and honours
Brasher married the English tennis champion Shirley Bloomer in 1959.

Brasher was awarded the CBE in 1996. He was awarded the Royal Scottish Geographical Society's Livingstone Medal in 2002.

In 2003, he died at his home in Chaddleworth, Berkshire, after struggling for several months against pancreatic cancer.

title: Chris Brasher


text:
HMS Exeter

Five ships of the Royal Navy have been named HMS Exeter after the city of Exeter in Devon.

 * HMS Exeter (1680) was a 70-gun third rate launched in 1680. She was damaged in an explosion in 1691 and was hulked. She was broken up in 1717.
 * HMS Exeter (1697) was a 60-gun fourth rate launched in 1697. She was rebuilt to carry 58 guns in 1744 and was broken up in 1763.
 * HMS Exeter (1763) was a 64-gun third rate launched in 1763. She was burned as unseaworthy in 1784.
 * HMS Exeter (68) was a York-class cruiser heavy cruiser launched in 1929. She fought at the River Plate in 1939, and was sunk during the Second Battle of the Java Sea on 1 March 1942.
 * HMS Exeter was planned as a Type 61 frigate. She was ordered in 1956, but cancelled in 1957.
 * HMS Exeter (D89) was a Type 42 destroyer, launched in 1979. She served in the Falklands War and the Gulf War, and was in service until she was decommissioned on 27 May 2009.

Battle honours

 * Sadras, 1782
 * Providien, 1782
 * Negapatam, 1782
 * Trincomalee, 1782
 * River Plate, 1939
 * Malaya, 1942
 * Sunda Strait, 1942
 * Falklands, 1982
 * Kuwait, 1991

title: HMS Exeter