text:
Board of Ordnance

The Board of Ordnance was a British government body. Established in the Tudor period, it had its headquarters in the Tower of London. Its primary responsibilities were 'to act as custodian of the lands, depots and forts required for the defence of the realm and its overseas possessions, and as the supplier of munitions and equipment to both the Army and the Navy'. The Board also maintained and directed the Artillery and Engineer corps, which it founded in the 18th century. By the 19th century, the Board of Ordnance was second in size only to HM Treasury among government departments. The Board lasted until 1855, at which point (tarnished by poor performance in supplying the Army in Crimea) it was disbanded.

Origins of the Board
The introduction of gunpowder to Europe led to innovations in offensive weapons, such as cannon, and defences, such as fortifications. From the 1320s a member of the Royal Household, the 'Keeper of the Privy Wardrobe in the Tower of London', became increasingly responsible for the procurement, storage and distribution of weapons. His office and main arsenal were located in the White Tower. This 'Privy Wardrobe in the Tower' grew, both in size and significance, after the start of the Hundred Years' War.

During the following century, the influence of the Privy Wardrobe and its staff receded, and no new Keepers were appointed after 1476. In its place, a distinct Office of Ordnance began to establish itself at the Tower; this body was responsible for firearms and artillery, and was staffed in the 1460s by a Master, a Clerk and a Yeoman. In the 1540s, during the reign of Henry VIII, the Ordnance Office was expanded, with new officers appointed and their principal duties clarified.

In 1671, the Office of Ordnance took over the work of the Office of Armoury at the Tower; the Armoury had been a parallel body which was originally responsible for armour and edged weapons, but its activities had gradually widened over time, causing a degree of duplication. At this time, the Ordnance Office also began to conduct oversight of the nation's forts and fortifications. In 1683, the board of management (first assembled in 1597) was formally constituted as the Board of Ordnance by Warrant of King Charles II; it consisted of five Principal Officers meeting under the chairmanship of the Master-General. At the same time it was given a new constitution ('Instructions') by Lord Dartmouth, the Master-General. These detailed Instructions continued, with relatively little change, to provide the working framework for the Board and its officers until the early 19th century. The Board was a decision-making body, answerable to the Master-General who had power of veto. (He was also empowered to act independently of the Board). They were required to meet at least twice a week (8am every Tuesday and Thursday) at the Tower in order to transact business.

Principal officers

By the mid-16th century the Master was assisted by five 'Principal Officers' who later went on to form the Board, which thus consisted of:

Two overseers: And four heads of department:
 * Master (later Master-General) of the Ordnance (head of the board and commander-in-chief of the corps)
 * Lieutenant (later Lieutenant-General) of the Ordnance (deputy to the Master and second-in-command of the corps)
 * Surveyor (later Surveyor-General) of the Ordnance (in charge of quality)
 * Clerk of the Ordnance (in charge of purchasing)
 * Storekeeper (later Principal Storekeeper) of the Ordnance (in charge of storage)
 * Clerk of the Deliveries of the Ordnance (in charge of issuing)

The offices of Master of the Ordnance and Clerk of the Ordnance may be said to date from 1414, when Letters Patent were issued on behalf of Henry V of England to 'Nicholas Merbury, Master of our Works, Engines, Cannons and other kinds of Ordnance for War, and to John Louth, Clerk of the same Works' (though it appears that these were appointments for service in the field of war rather than to a permanent position). Merbury was present at the Siege of Harfleur and (albeit without his guns) at the Battle of Agincourt. By 1450 Master of Ordnance was a permanent appointment, firmly based at the Tower of London.

The office of Yeoman of the Ordnance (established in 1430 to oversee both the storage of weapons and accoutrements and their delivery for use in the field) was abolished in 1543 and its duties split between two new officers: the Storekeeper of the Ordnance and Clerk of the Deliveries. At the same time the office of Surveyor of the Ordnance was also established.

Until 1544 the Master had generally managed the day-to-day activities of the Ordnance Office. In that year, however, King Henry VIII appointed his brother-in-law Thomas Seymour as Master of the Ordnance, displacing the incumbent Sir Christopher Morris, who continued his previous work but with a new title: Lieutenant of the Ordnance. Thereafter the Lieutenant (or Lieutenant-General) had day-to-day oversight of the Board's activities, while Master (or Master-General) had more the role of a statesman and supervisor (albeit still with specific responsibilities to the Board and its work).

From the 17th century through till 1828 the Master-General routinely had a seat in Cabinet, and thus served as de facto principal military adviser to the government. Some of the most illustrious soldiers of their generation served as Master-General: Marlborough, Cadogan, Cornwallis, Hastings, Wellington, Hardinge.

While the offices of Master-General and Lieutenant-General were almost always filled by prominent soldiers, the Ordnance Office was a largely civilian organisation up until the formation of its Artillery and Engineer corps in the early 18th century. Prior to 1716, civilians were generally employed as gunners and engineers by the Board; Storekeepers and their subordinates were also civilians (and remained so through till the Board's demise in the 1850s) as were those engaged in manufacturing. Having established the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers, however, the Board had parallel oversight of both a Military and a Civil Establishment. The Master-General was head of both Establishments; on a practical level, the Lieutenant-General had day-to-day oversight of the military personnel and the Surveyor-General oversaw the civil departments.

Other personnel
From its earliest years, the Ordnance Office was staffed by a large number of Clerks to manage its substantial administrative functions. A number of other officials reported to the board, including furbishers, proofmasters, keepers and fireworkers.

Two appointments stand out, as they (like the six Board members) were appointed by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm: namely the Master Gunner of England and the Chief Engineer. These were the senior technicians on the staff. The appointment of Master Gunner was first made as early as 1485, though it ceased after the establishment of the Regiment of Artillery in the 18th century; that of Chief Engineer was instituted in 1660.

The Treasurer of the Ordnance was another important officer of the department, although he did not sit on the board. This office was instituted in 1670 (its duties having previously been discharged by the Lieutenant-General); the post was consolidated with several others in 1836 to form that of Paymaster General.

The Master of Naval Ordnance was a specific office established in 1546 who was assigned to the Council of the Marine and acted as a liaison between both boards.

The Board also had a network of officers in place in key forts, ordnance yards and other installations throughout the Realm (including overseas). The senior Ordnance officer in these locations was usually termed the Storekeeper, and he was responsible directly to the Board. Prior to the Union of the Crowns there was a Master of the Ordnance in the North (with oversight of Berwick, Newcastle and the nearby coastal forts) who had greater autonomy, though he was reliant on the London office for most supplies. Moreover, a Master of the Ordnance in Dublin oversaw a largely independent Irish Board of Ordnance until 1801.

Coat of Arms
The Arms of the Board of Ordnance first appeared in the seventeenth century, and were given royal approval in 1806, confirmed by a grant from the College of Arms in 1823. The blazon is as follows:
 * Arms: Azure - 3 Field Pieces in pale, or; on a chief, argent, 3 cannonballs, proper.
 * Crest: Out of a mural crown, argent, a dexter cubit arm, the hand grasping a thunderbolt, winged and inflamed, proper.
 * Supporters: On either side a Cyclops, in the exterior hand of the dexter a Hammer, and in that of the sinister a pair of Forceps, resting on the shoulder of each respectively, all proper.
 * Motto: sua tela tonanti. ['To the thunderer his weapons'; also more loosely translated as 'To the warrior his arms'].

The old Board's coat of arms is remembered today in the cap badge of the Royal Logistic Corps, which has the shield at its centre (it was previously used, along with the Board's motto, by the Royal Army Ordnance Corps). The crest appears on the ensign of the Corps of Royal Engineers.

Broad Arrow
The broad arrow was the Board's mark, used as such from the 17th century. Stamped on guns, papers, buildings and all kinds of equipment, it originally signified royal ownership. A proclamation of 1699 clarified its use on stores of war belonging to the Board of Ordnance; just over a hundred years later, in 1806, the Board directed its Storekeepers and others to mark "all descriptions of Ordnance Stores ... with the broad arrow as soon as they shall have been received as fit for His Majesty's Service".

The 'Ordnance Regiment'
In the 16th century, the Constable of the Tower of London routinely exercised his right (as ex-officio Lord Lieutenant of the Tower Hamlets) to summon local citizens to form a garrison to guard the Tower; by the early 17th century this had been formalised into a standing militia. During the reign of Charles II, the Tower was still consistently being guarded by two garrison companies of militia. Then in 1685, following Charles's death, the new King James II asked Lord Dartmouth (who was Constable of the Tower at the time, as well as Master-general of the Ordnance) to form a new Ordnance Regiment 'for the care and protection of the cannon': as well as guarding the stocks of guns, arms and ammunition in the Tower more effectively, it was envisaged that the new regiment would provide protection for the artillery trains, which were formed when necessary to deliver ordnance (e.g. to the battlefield at time of war). The old guard companies formed the core of this new regiment, but they were soon augmented by a further ten companies of 100 men each (again drafted from the Tower Hamlets); there was in addition a company of miners. The regiment was to be housed in the Grand Storehouse, then under construction in the Tower. As a precaution against the risk of igniting the Ordnance stores of gunpowder, it was equipped with modern flintlock fusils, rather than with the matchlock muskets borne by most other regular troops. As such, the King referred to it as 'Our Royal Regiment of Fusiliers'. In its formative years, the regiment accompanied the royal artillery train to Hounslow Heath each summer (where the Army remained encamped for several weeks); there they guarded the guns, and the gunners and matrosses who had been drafted in to operate them. In due course, after the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the Fusiliers ceased to be an Ordnance Regiment and became a regular Infantry regiment (the 7th Foot, later renamed the Royal Fusiliers (City of London Regiment)); but they continued to retain a base at the Tower. In 1949, the regimental depot (which had been located in Hounslow Barracks since 1873) returned to the Tower, to Waterloo Barracks (which had been built on the site of the old Grand Storehouse following a fire); it remained there for the next eleven years. Today, the Tower remains the Regimental Headquarters of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers.

Headquarters: the Tower of London
In the medieval period, storage and supply of weapons and armaments was the responsibility of the King's Wardrobe. Royal palaces (including the Tower of London) were therefore used for storage of armour, weapons and (in time) gunpowder. When the Office of Ordnance came into being, the Tower of London was already established as the main repository, and it remained the administrative centre of the new Board. Gunpowder was stored in the White Tower (and continued to be kept there until the mid-19th century). Small arms, ammunition, armour and other equipment were stored elsewhere within the Tower precinct, a succession of Storehouses and Armouries having been built for such purposes since the fourteenth century. From the mid-16th century bulkier items began to be stored in warehouses in the nearby Minories and cannons were proof-tested on the 'Old Artillery Ground' to the north.

Within the Tower, the New Armouries of 1664 served the Board as a small arms store (it can still be seen today in the Inner Ward). The vast Grand Storehouse of 1692 served not just as a store, but also as a museum of ordnance, precursor to today's Royal Armouries. (It was destroyed (along with its contents, some 60,000 objects) in a fire in 1841).

The Board's administrative staff had expanded during the Napoleonic Wars to such an extent that in 1806 it purchased the lease of Cumberland House in Pall Mall and moved its main offices there, subsequently expanding into neighbouring properties. The Board itself also began to hold its meetings there, in preference to the Tower or Woolwich or other locations where it had previously been accustomed to meet. At the same time the Tower, though still technically the Board's headquarters, was mostly given over to storage.

Central store depots: Woolwich and Weedon
In the mid-17th century the Board began to use land at Woolwich for storing and proving its guns. The land (known as The Warren) was purchased in 1671 and in 1682 a thousand cannons and ten thousand cannonballs were transferred to Woolwich from the Tower and the Minories. At the same time, the Old Artillery Ground was sold and the staff and equipment involved in proof testing moved to Woolwich. From 1688 all new ordnance items were ordered to be delivered to Woolwich rather than the Tower (thereafter the Tower continued to be used as the Board's main repository for general stores).

The Woolwich Warren (later renamed the Royal Arsenal) continued to serve as Britain's principal ordnance depot until the mid-twentieth century. It also developed into a major manufacturing site (see below).

During the Napoleonic Wars, concerns were expressed about the vulnerability of the nation's ordnance stores to attack from the sea. One response was the establishment of a Royal Ordnance Depot at Weedon Bec, well away from the coast in Northamptonshire: a sizeable complex of storehouses and gunpowder magazines constructed along a waterway, it was connected to the Grand Union Canal to facilitate access and distribution. At the same time a similar (but short-lived) facility was also built alongside the Grand Junction Canal at North Hyde, west of London.

Distribution points: the Royal Dockyards
The Board established storage and maintenance areas close to the Royal Dockyards to enable easy transfer of guns, ammunition, powder, etc. on board ships (for use by the Navy at sea or for delivery to the Army in areas of conflict). They also provided ordnance supplies for the defensive fortifications of the Dockyard itself, and secure storage space for ships in port (Royal Naval ships returning from duties at sea were obliged to unload their stores of powder and ammunition; if a ship was to spend time 'in ordinary' (i.e. out of commission) it had its guns removed as well).

In the 16th century the Ordnance Office had established 'annexes' in Chatham, Deptford and Woolwich; others were to follow in the vicinity of the other major Dockyards. These facilities, generally known as Gun Wharves, developed into purpose-built Ordnance Yards in the course of the 18th century. Built alongside deep-water quays, they usually comprised an assortment of buildings for storage, administration blocks, workshops (for woodwork, paintwork and metalwork) together with accommodation for officers, usually built around a central Grand Storehouse (primarily used for gun carriages). Exterior courtyards were laid out for the storage of cannonballs.

The principal home Yards included:
 * HM Gun Wharf, Chatham
 * Morice Yard, Devonport (replaced an earlier gun wharf just east of Mount Wise)
 * Gunwharf, Portsmouth
 * Gun Wharf, Sheerness
 * Gun Wharf, Woolwich. (In the late 17th century Woolwich Gun Wharf expanded to the east, where it developed into the Royal Arsenal: a key Ordnance Board facility.)

Smaller Yards were built in parts of Britain to serve particular strategic purposes at particular times (such as the Yard in Great Yarmouth, built to service the fleet stationed in Yarmouth Roads during the Napoleonic Wars).

Ordnance Yards were also constructed in colonial ports overseas; like their counterparts in Britain, these were usually built in the vicinity of naval dockyards. Bermuda's, begun in the 1830s, remains largely intact behind the dockyard fortifications; its magazines and storehouses are arranged around a small pool, where boats would arrive by way of a tunnel through the ramparts to be loaded with ammunition.

Gunpowder storage
For storage of gunpowder, a nearby fortified building was often used initially: the Square Tower at Portsmouth, the Citadel at Plymouth, Upnor Castle at Chatham; later, the Ordnance Board created purpose-built Gunpowder Magazines, often apart from the Yards, and at a safe distance from inhabited areas. There were also smaller magazines, supervised by Ordnance Board staff, at several fortified locations around the British Isles (from Star Castle on the Scilly Isles, to Fort George near Inverness).

The Tower of London remained the main, central repository until 1694, when a new gunpowder depot was established on the banks of the Thames at Greenwich Peninsula. The location was chosen both for reasons of safety (it was largely uninhabited marshland) and for convenience (because gunpowder barrels were invariably delivered by boat). The powder arrived at Greenwich from the manufacturers. Once there it was not only stored, prior to being despatched to wherever it might be needed, but a sample from each batch was proof tested. This took place in one of a pair of smaller buildings alongside and linked to the main magazine (which was a windowless quadrangle).

Very soon, however, the Board was coming under pressure from local residents to remove the gunpowder store from Greenwich. Eventually, in 1763, a new set of magazines were built, along with a new proof-house, further downriver at Purfleet. Named the Royal Gunpowder Magazine, it was likewise used as a central store, to receive and approve gunpowder from the manufacturers prior to distribution around the country. (Soon afterwards the Greenwich magazine closed, and it was later demolished.)

At around the same time, significant improvements were made to the gunpowder depots at the Dockyards (where the Board was still often using old buildings in built-up areas). New purpose-built storage facilities were constructed close to the principal Dockyards at Portsmouth (Priddy's Hard) and Devonport (Keyham Point), and at Chatham the Upnor facility was (eventually) expanded. These centres continued to grow, as the processes for refining and preserving gunpowder became more complicated and as new explosives began to be used, requiring their own storage and maintenance areas.

In 1850, Devonport's magazine depot was moved from Keyham to a new complex at Bull Point (where it was integrated with a nearby proofing and purifying facility) - this proved to be the last major construction project of the Board of Ordnance before its disestablishment.

Other items
The Board of Ordnance was responsible, throughout its existence, for supplying the Army and Navy with weapons and ammunition. Other items were provided by various other boards and agencies (or, in earlier times, by private contractors). From 1822, however, the Board was given responsibility for sourcing, storing and supplying a variety of other items for the Army, including tents and camp equipment (formerly the remit of the Army's Storekeeper-General) and 'barrack stores' (for which the Commissariat had been responsible since 1807). Later, in 1834, the Board inherited (also from the Commissariat) the task of providing food and 'fuel' (namely coal and candles for use in barracks) for all homeland troops, as well as forage for cavalry regiments.

Manufacture: the Ordnance Factories
Prior to the 18th century the Board had generally relied on private contracts for the provision of armaments: small arms often came from the Birmingham Gun Quarter, gunpowder from Faversham (also, later, from Waltham Abbey). Cannons and shot were procured from iron foundries (initially those in the Kent and Sussex Weald, later from further afield, e.g. from the Carron Works in Falkirk). More expensive 'brass' (bronze) ordnance was produced on a smaller scale, by specialist foundries mostly in the London area (in Houndsditch, Vauxhall, Southwark, at The Foundery in Moorfields and elsewhere). In time, the Board made moves to set up or purchase its own facilities.

Artillery manufacture
The Board's primary manufacturing site, and a key location for several of its activities, was the Royal Arsenal in Woolwich. Guns had been stored and proved there from the mid-17th century. It later expanded into a large-scale production facility, specializing in:
 * manufacture of shells, projectiles and propellants (Royal Laboratory, established at Woolwich in 1695, previously based at Greenwich)
 * manufacture of cannons, mortars and other artillery pieces (Royal Brass Foundry (aka Gun Factory), founded 1717)
 * manufacture of gun carriages and other ancillary items (1750s onwards; given identity as the Royal Carriage Works in 1803).

Gunpowder manufacture
Gunpowder manufacture was mostly kept separate of other operations (though some took place at Woolwich in the early years, inherited from the Wardrobe's earlier activities at Greenwich Palace). Beginning in the 18th century, the Board began to purchase mills that had been established under private ownership: Ordnance Board activity at Ballincollig ceased in 1815; both it and Faversham were returned to private ownership in the 1820s-30s, but Waltham Abbey remained in Government hands until 1991.
 * Faversham became the Royal Powder Mill in 1759
 * Waltham Abbey became the Royal Gunpowder Factory in 1787
 * In Ireland, the Ballincollig Royal Gunpowder Mills were purchased in 1805, having been set up as a private enterprise ten years earlier.

Small Arms manufacture
Small arms manufacture was begun by the Board on Tower Wharf in 1804, before being moved to Lewisham (Royal Manufactory of Small Arms, 1807) and then transferring ten years later to Enfield (Royal Small Arms Factory, opened 1816). RSAF Enfield continued manufacturing until its closure in 1988. There is some indication that William Galloway, a gunsmith, produced long guns for the Tower's small arms office in the 1780s.

Forts and fortifications
From the mid-17th century the Board of Ordnance began to be involved in the design, building and upkeep of forts, fortifications and various garrison buildings. Around the year 1635, a Francis Coningsby was appointed 'Commissary-General of all His Majesty's Castles in England and Wales'. From 1660 the title was Engineer-in-Chief. The Chief Engineer had responsibility for drawing up designs, supervising site surveys and building works, and visiting established defence sites to evaluate their state of repair, readiness etc. An illustrious holder of this post was Sir Bernard de Gomme. In 1802 the post of Inspector General of Fortifications was established, and this official took over supervision of these works.

Barracks
The Board also had responsibility for the building, upkeep and management of barracks and associated structures (except during a 30-year period, 1792-1822, when responsibility was transferred to a separate Barrack Office). Before this time, barracks were a rarity in mainland Britain and (other than those attached to royal residences) they were generally only found within garrisoned fortifications. In the wake of the French Revolution, however, there was a spate of barrack building and the new post of Barrackmaster-General was established to oversee it; he was answerable not to the Board of Ordnance but to the Secretary at War. (The Board, though, retained responsibility for providing and provisioning barracks for its own corps). Apparent mismanagement in the Barrack Office led to a series of inquiries, however, and following the Napoleonic Wars responsibility for barracks was returned to the Board of Ordnance.

Personnel: the Ordnance Corps
A number of different Corps were established by the Board of Ordnance to carry out its work both in its home establishments and on the field of battle; they had (and to some extent retain) a very distinctive identity and ethos. Principal among these were the Royal Artillery and the Royal Engineers. These Corps were under the authority of the Board of Ordnance, rather than the War Office (until the Board's demise in 1855). They were not part of the Army, and their officers' commissions were issued by the Master-General of the Ordnance rather than by the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces. The Ordnance Medical Department was established to provide surgeons for these corps.

Royal Artillery
In 1716 the Duke of Marlborough, in his capacity as Master General of the Ordnance, oversaw the formation (by Royal Warrant) of two permanent companies of field artillery, based (together with their guns) at the Warren (Royal Arsenal), Woolwich. Prior to this, artillery pieces had been conveyed to the front line in any conflict by ad hoc artillery trains (their personnel convened for a limited duration by Royal Warrant). The men of the new artillery companies (which became the Royal Regiment of Artillery from 1722) now provided troops for this purpose; before long, they were also providing guns and heavy artillery for forts and garrisons around the country and indeed across the Empire. In addition, the Artillerymen did on-site work at the Arsenal and at other Ordnance Board facilities, from preparing fuses and proving weapons to providing a guard. 1793 saw the formation of the Royal Horse Artillery (who were likewise under the authority of the Board of Ordnance) to provide artillery support to the Cavalry.

Royal Engineers
From the start, the Board (and its predecessor the Office) of Ordnance had had a department of military engineers and surveyors to build and improve harbours, forts and other fortifications. In 1716 a Corps of Engineers was founded by the Board of Ordnance, again at their Woolwich base. Initially an officer-only corps, the Engineers (called Royal Engineers from 1787) were engaged in the design, construction and ongoing maintenance of defences, fortifications and other military installations. They were also engaged for large-scale civilian projects from time to time. A civilian corps of 'artificers' provided the non-commissioned workforce of carpenters, stonemasons, bricklayers and other labourers; this corps was militarized in 1787, and named the Royal Military Artificers (they were then renamed the Royal Sappers and Miners 25 years later). The year after the demise of the Ordnance Board, the Sappers and Miners were fully amalgamated into the Royal Engineers, and at the same time the Corps moved from Woolwich to its present headquarters in Chatham.

Other corps
A Field Train Department was established in 1792 to serve as 'the field force element of the Board of Ordnance Storekeeping system'; staffed by uniformed civilians, the Department had oversight of the supply and provision of small arms, ammunition and other armaments to all front-line troops. After the Board's demise, the Ordnance Field Train was consolidated, together with the Ordnance Storekeepers and others, into a new Military Store Department, which eventually formed a key part of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps.

In 1796 a Corps of Royal Artillery Drivers was raised (separate from the Royal Artillery itself) to provide horses and drivers for conveying the field guns from place to place. (Before this time civilian drivers were used and horses either requisitioned or hired on contract). In 1822 the Corps of Drivers was fully amalgamated into the Royal Artillery.

The Corps of Royal Military Surveyors and Draftsmen was a military corps under the Board of Ordnance, formally established in 1800 and disbanded in 1817. It supported the work of the Ordnance Survey; after 1824 these duties were undertaken by Survey Companies of the Royal Corps of Sappers and Miners. Both corps were overseen by officers of the Royal Engineers in this work.

The Ordnance Medical Department was formed in 1801 (prior to this date medical officers were included on the establishment of the Royal Artillery). It was overseen by the Inspector General of Ordnance Hospitals, based at the Royal Artillery Hospital, Woolwich, who made recommendation for the appointment and promotion of medical officers, issued them with instructions and guidance, and had oversight of the management of Artillery Hospitals (of which there were eighteen Great Britain in 1810, and others in Ireland). Initially set up as 'the Medical Establishment for the Military Department of the Ordnance', its remit was extended to cover 'the Military and Civil Departments of the Ordnance' in 1814. In 1853 it was merged into the Army Medical Department.

In 1796 Edward Coleman was appointed Veterinary Surgeon to the Board of Ordnance. He oversaw the training and appointment of more veterinary surgeons to provide for the needs of Artillery and Engineer horses; and in 1805 he supervised the setting up of a Veterinary Establishment in Woolwich (later named the Royal Horse Infirmary) which functioned as a hospital, veterinary store and centre of veterinary research. After the Crimean War, it became de facto headquarters of the emergent Army Veterinary Department.

Education and training
The Board of Ordnance placed a high value on providing its future officers with a scientific and military education. In the eighteenth century there was no requirement for would-be Army officers to receive any formal military education; but the Board, in contrast, moved fast (after the establishment of its artillery and engineer corps) to provide for the education of its officer cadets. The Board was also ahead of the Army in its provision of advanced training for officers.

The Royal Military Academy
In 1720 there were moves to set up an 'academy' within the Warren at Woolwich where the corps were based; and on 30 April 1741 the Academy was formally established there by Royal Warrant. The fact that the Warren itself was a place of scientific experiment and innovation no doubt helped form the style of education that emerged. Initially, it was a gathering of 'gentlemen cadets', brought together to learn 'gunnery, fortification, mathematics and a little French'. By 1764, the institution had been renamed the Royal Military Academy, and in the words of the Survey of London, 'it became a uniquely enlightened establishment in which training comprehended writing, arithmetic, algebra, Latin, French, mathematics, fortification, together with the attack and defence of fortified places, gunnery, mining and laboratory-works [...] along with the gentlemanly skills of dancing and fencing'. In time, the Academy outgrew its original home in the Arsenal, and in 1806 it moved into new headquarters on Woolwich Common. In 1946 it amalgamated with the Royal Military College to form the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst.

Specialist training
The Royal Military Repository was established, also within the Warren, in 1778 to provide practical, theoretical and historical training in gunnery, both for officers and other ranks; it too moved to Woolwich Common in the early 19th century. The Royal Engineer Establishment was established by the Board in Chatham in 1812, to provide advanced training for its Engineer officers; it was subsequently renamed the School of Military Engineering.

Mapmaking: the Ordnance Survey
As part of its duty of maintaining and building harbours and fortifications, a department of the Board was in place to undertake surveys and to produce maps. This department developed into the Ordnance Survey, which remains in place today as Britain's national mapping agency. The principal offices and drawing room of the Survey were in the Tower of London; this not only accommodated surveyors and draughtsmen, but also functioned as a place where cadets (some as young as eleven or twelve) were trained in mathematics and draughtsmanship by leading practitioners. In 1841 a fire prompted the Survey to move to new premises in Southampton; following the demise of the Board, it became part of the War Department.

The Geological Survey
The Ordnance Geological Survey, the world's first national geological survey, was established by the Board in 1835; ten years later, under the terms of the Geological Survey Act of 1845, responsibility for the survey passed from the Board to the Office of Woods, Forests, Land Revenues, Works and Buildings. Known since 1984 as the British Geological Survey, it remains active as a national research and advisory body.

The Global Magnetic Survey
In 1839 the Government gave its support to Major (later Sir) Edward Sabine for the establishment of four fixed magnetic and meteorological observatories in different parts of the world: one in Hobarton, one in Cape Town, one on Saint Helena, one in Toronto. The first would be overseen by Admiralty, staffed by officers of the Ross expedition; the other three were to be staffed by Artillery officers, under the authority of the Board of Ordnance. Sabine's intention was to undertake a global survey of terrestrial magnetism. Once the observatories were established, measurements were taken every two hours, day and night, at precisely the same moment in all four stations; the results were then conveyed to Sabine at his Magnetic Office in the Royal Artillery Institution Observatory at Woolwich. Measurements continued for three years at Hobarton, six years at Cape Town and Saint Helena, and nine years at Toronto. After this, the observatories (apart from Saint Helena's, which was dismantled) were handed over to the respective local governments; that in Toronto went on to becoming the Toronto Magnetic and Meteorological Observatory. In England, Sabine maintained his Magnetic Office at the observatory in Woolwich until 1871, when it moved to Kew Observatory.

The Royal Observatory, Greenwich
In 1675, the post of Astronomer Royal was established by Royal Warrant. The Board of Ordnance was warranted to pay the Astronomer's salary, and also to construct a Royal Observatory in Greenwich. This has been called the first instance of government funding for science; money was to be provided from 'the sale of old or decayed gunpowder'. The Board of Ordnance continued to provide annual funding for the Observatory until 1818, when the Admiralty took over this responsibility. Despite providing funds, the Board was not in any way involved in the operational side of the Observatory, which was managed independently by the Astronomer Royal under the governance of a Board of Visitors.

Demise
By the Ordnance Board Transfer Act 1855 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 117), the 'powers, authorities, rights and privileges' formerly vested in the Principal Officers of the Ordnance were transferred to 'Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the War Department'. With this came responsibility for stores, land, contracts, surveys, defensive works and manufacturing, along with all their various associated personnel. The board's former offices in Pall Mall now became the headquarters of a newly-reconstituted and greatly-expanded War Office. The patents of the Master General, the Lieutenant-General and the Principal Storekeeper of the Ordnance were all revoked; and command of the Royal Artillery and the Royal Engineers was transferred, from the Master General of the Ordnance to the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces; both corps thenceforward became an integrated part of the British Army.

Background

The catalyst for the board's disestablishment was the Crimean War. 'Disastrous logistical difficulties' plagued the campaign, especially during the Russian winter of 1854. These widely-reported failings led to the fall of the government in January 1855; its successor, under Lord Palmerston, wasted no time in embarking on a comprehensive reorganisation of military administration.

Well before Crimea, however, there had been moves afoot to reduce the board's sizeable influence and power. In 1830, the number of Principal Officers of the Ordnance had been reduced to four by the abolition of the posts of Lieutenant-General and Clerk of the Deliveries; arguably, this exacerbated the problems that led to the board's demise. Then, in 1833, a parliamentary Commission of Enquiry was set up to look into consolidating the civil departments of the Army and the Ordnance (another commission was set up with similar terms of reference two years later) but its recommendations were not carried through.

The causes of the logistical failings in Crimea were complex and remain the subject of some debate. Management of the British Army in the 1850s was chaotic, unwieldy and inefficient, with several different officials and establishments claiming and exercising the Sovereign's authority in relation to military matters, and no means of co-ordinating their functions, orders and activities. Furthermore, following forty years of relative peace, the army and its support services found themselves ill-prepared and ill-equipped for war: for example, responsibility for providing food, fuel and forage to troops overseas fell to the Commissariat (a branch of the Treasury which, in the years since Waterloo, had developed into an administrative division, unpractised in warfare); while the Army's land transport capability, the Royal Waggon Train, had been abolished as a cost-cutting measure in 1832.

At the time, much of the blame for failure fell on Field Marshal Lord Raglan, commander-in-chief of the British army in Crimea (who, ironically, died of dysentery there on 29 June 1855 at a time when his forces were afflicted with cholera and reeling from a disastrous series of military failures.): "(In 1855) . . . a loud outcry against Lord Raglan had begun in the press. He was charged with neglecting to see to the actual state of his troops, and to the necessary measures for their relief. Their condition was becoming more and more pitiable; their numbers dwindling rapidly from death and disease. The road between Balaclava and the camp had become a muddy quagmire, the few remaining horses of our cavalry were rapidly disappearing, every day the difficulty of getting up food and other necessaries from Balaclava was becoming more serious, and still no provision was being made for supplying an effective means of transport."

As well as commanding the army in Crimea, Lord Raglan also held the office of Master-General of the Ordnance at the time; his removal from the UK at the outbreak of war left a void in leadership at the head of the Board of Ordnance (which was compounded by the absence of the Surveyor-General of the Ordnance, who also went to Crimea). The post of Lieutenant-General of the Ordnance was therefore belatedly revived to try to fill the gaps, but its duties were left ill-defined.

Nevertheless, the Commander-in-Chief Lord Hardinge spoke positively of the board's contribution in his evidence to the 1855 Parliamentary Committee into the conduct of the Crimean War: "The Board of Ordnance had met the military difficulties of the situation with determination and success. Starting with the advantage of a well-trained and excellent personnel and reliable and sufficient materiel, they had faced the terrible losses of the winter of 1854 with resource and energy, and had lost no time in correcting the blunder of the absence of siege transport. Men and horses were quickly obtained and sent to the front, and, though every mistake in war demands an inevitable penalty, the military organisation did not fail under the heavy strain placed upon it. Nothing could exceed the military arrangements of the Ordnance Department."

Ultimately, the war in Crimea revealed failings across multiple departments compounded by confused structures of command and control; and the disestablishment of the Board of Ordnance became one of a series of wide-ranging military reforms which took place in the UK over the next half century.

Aftermath
Under the Secretary of State for War, a new Under Secretary was appointed in 1856 to take over the duties of the Clerk of the Ordnance (the one remaining Principal Officer, who had retained oversight of the board's civil staff in the interim following its disestablishment). Several directorates were formed: there was a Director General of Stores (successor to the old Principal Storekeeper, with responsibility also for barracks), a Director General of Contracts and a number of technical advisers: the Inspector General of Fortifications, Director General of Naval Artillery and Director General, Royal Artillery. In 1857, the network of Storekeepers and Clerks across various locations was reconstituted to form the Military Store Department. The Field Train remained operational alongside the Military Store Department for a short time, before being merged into it on 27 September 1859.

In Britain there was a longstanding (and at this time still lingering) suspicion of the idea of a standing army; so, although the Board of Ordnance troops (the Royal Artillery and the Royal Engineers) were merged into the Army and placed under the Commander-in-Chief, the Military Store Department (with its sizeable stocks of armaments and ammunition) remained under the civil oversight of the Secretary of State. Subsequently a series of organisational changes took place in an attempt to consolidate the various departments and responsibilities formerly pertaining to the Board of Ordnance, along with those of the Commissariat (which had likewise been absorbed by the War Office in 1855); this led in time to their amalgamation as part of the short-lived Control Department, before re-emerging as the Ordnance Store Department and the Commissariat and Transport Department (both of which evolved into military units in due course).

Ordnance Board in the twentieth century

Some fifty years after the old board's disestablishment, following unease after the Second Boer War that the British Army had been ill-equipped, a new body called the Ordnance Board was created within the War Office. It consisted of a committee of munitions experts, whose purpose was to advise the newly-formed Army Council on the safety and approval of weapons.

The new board had its origins in the Select Committee of Artillery Officers, formed by the old Board of Ordnance in 1805 'to assist in forming opinions on any inventions and suggestions of individuals, as likewise all improvements that may be proposed for the improvement of the Artillery Service'. After the demise of the Board of Ordnance, the Secretary of State for War revised and reconstituted the Ordnance Select Committee (this time including Naval representation). It continued to receive, report on and experiment with inventions or improvements submitted to the Secretary of State relating to arms and to gunpowder until 1869, when it was split into ten sub-committees overseen by a Council of Ordnance (an arrangement which caused confusion, and which fell into abeyance the following year in all but name).

In 1881 the 'Ordnance Committee' was re-formed, with an extended remit to approve designs for manufacture, in addition to considering inventions and conducting experiments. It was renamed the 'Ordnance Board' in 1908, having merged with the Ordnance Research Board. Further amalgamations prompted further name-changes: back to the 'Ordnance Committee' in 1915, (after which, for the duration of the First World War, it formed part of the Ministry of Munitions), and back again to the 'Ordnance Board' in 1939 (after which, for the duration of the Second World War, it formed part of the Ministry of Supply).

Up until 1939, the Ordnance Board (like the Ordnance Select Committee before it) was based at the Royal Arsenal, in Verbruggen House. The board worked closely with the Proof and Experimental Establishment, the Research Department and the Design Department (which later amalgamated to form the Armament Research and Development Establishment) all of which were likewise based at the Royal Arsenal until 1939; it also had close links to the Inspection (or Quality Assurance) Department, which remained at the Arsenal into the 1990s.

At the outbreak of war, the Ordnance Board moved to Kemal Manor in Chislehurst as part of the dispersal of departments from Woolwich; (in 1950 it moved again to Charles House on Kensington High Street). After the war, the Ordnance Board continued to provide independent authoritative advice on the development and design of weapons, ammunition and explosives; the positions of President of the Board and two Vice-Presidents were rotated between the three services.

The Ordnance Board and its name survived within the Ministry of Defence until the mid-1990s when it was renamed the Defence Ordnance Safety Group.

Notable staff

 * One of its 18th-century map-makers was noted water-colour artist Paul Sandby (1731-1809).
 * Captain George Manby FRS (1765-1854) author, inventor of the Manby mortar was also barrack-master of Great Yarmouth.
 * John Wilson (1782–1866) was a Clerk of Works with the Board of Ordnance, and went to Guernsey to supervise work on the barracks at the garrison in around 1813. In the 17 years he spent there, he also took commissions as an architect from the local government and private individuals. He is best remembered today as the architect of many of the island's most iconic public and private buildings.

title: Board of Ordnance


text:
Talk:Shays's Rebellion

Requested move 27 April 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Shays' Rebellion → Shays's Rebellion – The s is needed for the singular name possessive per MOS:POSS. Sources have it both ways plenty, so there's no reason not to conform to our own guidelines here. Dicklyon (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Fascinating n-gram… having grown up learning my American History in the 60s, 70s and 80s, I never encountered “Shays’s”… and the n-gram supports that it was overwhelmingly “Shays’” back then. Yet it does seem to have fluctuated back and forth over time. As for how we should present it now?… don’t care. Have fun storming the castle. Blueboar (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure of what value the n-gram is. Paging through Google Book search results for different terms yield many works appearing in all result lists, regardless of the spelling in the title, if it appears there.  For example, the Richards book "Shays's Rebellion", which is extensively cited here, is a prominent result when search for either "Shays' Rebellion" or "Shays's Rebellion".  That said, there appears (anecdotally my impression) to be a general editorial trend toward the use of "Shays's" in recent publications.

 * I will also note that MOS:POSS didn't always say what it says now, one of the reasons this article has continued at "Shays'".  Magic ♪piano 14:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No, it didn't always say that, but with multiple discussions over many years, that's where the consensus converged to. Dicklyon (talk) 05:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Well...as the MOS:POSS page states,
 * It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.
 * The s is not necessarily needed, the "S'S" may be preferred in certain situations. My preference is that in this situation it is not needed and I'd rather treat it with common sense, not attempt to follow it, and call this the occasional exemption. If this were an RfC, I'd say Oppose. Shearonink (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Needed" only by style guidelines, including our own MOS and pretty much every other modern style guideline since Strunk & White 1978. There's nothing special about Mr. Shays that makes his case different from the other names ending in s that all these guidelines talk about, is there?  How does your common sense think otherwise?  Your preference and your commonsense should be related to guidelines if possible. Dicklyon (talk) 05:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The current way is about 4x as common on government websites. 2,210 results vs   355 results Llacb47 (talk) 04:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Since both ways are common, there's no reason not to follow WP style guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 05:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The title & its possessive is supposed to be rendered according to editorial consensus. The MOS & the possessive guideline is just that - a guideline. The MOS is not engraved in stone - it changes and is malleable according to editorial consensus. It's not necessarily a must or a we'll all be thrown in Wikipedia purgatory if we don't agree that Shays's is what the title of this article absolutely must be. While this issue is under consideration I think how the name of this event has been historically rendered should be given some weight. So far as I am aware, the term "Shays' Rebellion" is much more common in the research and in the historical documents than "Shays's Rebellion". Shearonink (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So you're just going to ignore the evidence from book n-grams? Dicklyon (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not ignoring anything and I'm not making this personal. I posted my thoughts on this talk page as this matter interests me. If the editorial consensus of this discussion is for Shays's or Shays' so be it. Shearonink (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * But you wrote that 'So far as I am aware, the term "Shays' Rebellion" is much more common in the research and in the historical documents than "Shays's Rebellion". ' This ignores the evidence presented. I guess we can just take it as you not being very aware? Dicklyon (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I thought this was a discussion about how to title this article. I see I was mistaken. Shearonink (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. There is no unique reason to make a "magical exception" to MOS:POSS and WP:CONSISTENT in this (or probably much of any other) case. It's simply not material that many older people like to omit the final s after the apostrophe in possessives than end in s (or an /s/ sound, or either an /s/ or /z/ sound, or older than a certain period, or whatever obsolete "rule" they are following – pretty much every old style guide, including the ones I grew up with, that favored dropping such a terminal s provided contradictory reasons for wanting to do it). English writing changes over time, and our manual of style reflects the practices prescribed by the majority of current academic-leaning off-site style guides (i.e., it follows the reliable sources on modern English usage in an encyclopedic register), and when it cannot do that (e.g. when such sources still conflict), it aims for consistency over strange exception-making that is likely to confuse some users (and confuse various editors into trying to impose a consistency in the opposite direction).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support. Our stylistic preference is to use 's, and while I don't have a problem with making an exception when sources overwhelmingly go the other way, in this case "Shays's" is certainly common enough that going with the guideline isn't an issue. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Shays's Rebellion


text:
Barton-under-Needwood

Barton-under-Needwood is a village in the East Staffordshire district of Staffordshire, England. Situated a mile from the A38, and located between Burton upon Trent and Lichfield. It had a population of 4,225 at the 2011 census. It is also near to the Derbyshire village of Walton-on-Trent.

History
The Tudor church of St James is a Grade II* listed building. It dates from 1517 and was built by Dr John Taylor, who lived at Barton and served as chaplain to Henry VIII. It is constructed in stone and is castellated. The church contains several notable funerary monuments.

The village also has several shops and a village hall. Local infant/junior schools, and a larger secondary school are also located within the village: John Taylor High School, which serves Barton and the surrounding villages. It has seven pubs, six of which are owned by Marstons.

Barton also has a large marina complex on the Trent and Mersey Canal, home to some 300 narrow boats, with shops, a pub, a cinema and restaurants.

The village sports teams are based at the Holland Sports Club, which has facilities for cricket, football, rugby, tennis, netball and tug of war. The club is named after the Holland family who were resident in Barton for 600 years from the 14th century to the mid-1900s. The earliest recorded member of the family was Richard de Holland who was involved in the Battle of Burton Bridge in 1322 (see 'Records of the Holland Family' published by William Holland).

The tug of war team have won many national and international honours since forming in 1970 - including the title 'Guinness World Record Holders' for a record in Tug of War Endurance which was created in 2000, being selected to represent England at the 2008 World Tug of War Championships in Sweden, and winning a World Open Silver Medal at the 2010 Championships in Pretoria, South Africa, see TWIF records (World Governing Body) 'Tug of War International Federation'.

Barton has four churches: St James C of E, Methodist, Roman Catholic and Christadelphian.

The name of the village had "under Needwood" added in 1327 to distinguish it from the other Bartons in England. Needwood Forest was a large area of ancient woodland in Staffordshire which was largely lost at the end of the 18th century. In 1995 a written history of Barton-under-Needwood was produced by Steve Gardner, named "Under the Needwood Tree", with the assistance of a book committee. In 2001 Gardner published a sequel, "Life and Times in Barton", and in 2007 a further volume: "Memories of Old Barton".

Dunstall Hall is a stately home about a mile outside Barton in the hamlet of Dunstall. It is used as a conference centre and a venue for weddings.

Barton-under-Needwood Golf Club (now defunct) was founded in 1892. The club and course closed in the mid-1920s.

The UK's first Travelodge was opened in 1985 on the A38 just outside the village, by Thomas Cartwright.

Between the 2005 and 2010 General Elections, the Needwood ward of East Staffordshire Borough Council (in which Barton-under-Needwood is the main settlement) was transferred from the Burton Parliamentary constituency to Lichfield.

Notable residents

 * Sir Robert Douglas (1899-1996), Midlands industrialist - founded a multi million-pound empire which built the National Exhibition Centre and International Convention Centre in Birmingham as well as major sections of the country's motorways including Spaghetti Junction Birmingham, contributed in the war effort by building Castle Bromwich to produce Spitfires and Airfields across the Midlands, Dunstall Hall (1952)
 * John Sutton, 1st Baron Dudley KG (1400–1487) nobleman, diplomat and councillor of Henry VI, baptised in Barton
 * John Taylor (c.1480–1534) first Master of the Rolls, ambassador to France for King Henry VIII, funded the building of St. James Church between 1517 and 1533 and John Taylor High School was named in his honor.
 * Thomas Gisborne (1758–1846) an English Anglican priest, poet and curate of Barton from 1783 to 1820
 * George Edward Anson (1812 – 1849 in Barton) a courtier and British politician from the Anson family.
 * Walter Lyon (1841 in Barton – 1918) an English cricketer who played for Cambridge University between 1861 and 1863
 * Clement Charlton Palmer (1871 in Barton - 1944) cathedral organist in Canterbury Cathedral from 1908 to 1936
 * Sarah Mayer (1896 – 1957 in Barton), actress and judoka
 * Sir Stanley Clarke CBE, DL (1933 – 2004 in Barton) an English businessman, a self-made millionaire property developer, horse racing enthusiast and philanthropist
 * Peter Hart (born in 1955) a British military historian who grew up in Barton
 * Ben Salfield (born 1971 in Barton) an English lutenist, composer and teacher
 * Brian Mills (born 1971) played 23 games for Port Vale and then taught Physics and Maths at John Taylor High School
 * Steve Gardner. former competitive powerlifter and President of the International All-Round Weightlifting Association (IAWA)

title: Barton-under-Needwood


text:
Philadelphia Quakers

Philadelphia Quakers may refer to:

 * Members of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers).
 * Philadelphia Phillies, an American baseball team originally known as the Philadelphia Quakers
 * Union Quakers of Philadelphia, a defunct American football team which played as an independent for one season (1921)
 * Philadelphia Quakers (AFL), a defunct American football team which played in the first AFL for one season (1926)
 * Philadelphia Quakers (NHL), a defunct American ice hockey team which played in the NHL for one season (1930–31)
 * Philadelphia Quakers/Athletics (PL/AA), a defunct American baseball team which played in the PL and the AA in the early 1890s

title: Philadelphia Quakers


text:
Darkness in El Dorado

Darkness in El Dorado: How Scientists and Journalists Devastated the Amazon is a book written by author Patrick Tierney in 2000, in which the author accuses geneticist James Neel and anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon (the author of the 1968 book Yanomamö: The Fierce People) of conducting human research without regard for their subjects' well-being while conducting long-term ethnographic field work among the indigenous Yanomamo, in the Amazon basin between Venezuela and Brazil. He also wrote that the researchers had exacerbated a measles epidemic among the Native Americans, and that Jacques Lizot and Kenneth Good committed acts of sexual impropriety with Yanomamo.

While the book was positively reviewed and well received at first, later investigations by multiple independent organizations found Tierney's main allegations to be false and libelous.

Major claims and evaluations of these claims
Claims made in Darkness in El Dorado included the following:
 * Napoleon Chagnon and James Neel directly and indirectly caused a genocide in the region through the introduction of a live measles vaccine that was insufficiently attenuated. This claim has been refuted.
 * The Yanomamo project was an outgrowth and continuation of the Atomic Energy Commission's secret program of experiments on human subjects. This claim has been refuted.
 * Chagnon's accounts of the Yanomamo are based on false, non-existent or misinterpreted data, and Chagnon incited violence among them. Related claims and ethical issues are still the subject of much academic debate.
 * French researcher Jacques Lizot, a protégé of Claude Lévi-Strauss, traded various uncustomary homosexual favors from Yanomamo boys after introducing shotguns and other foreign commodities into the community in what Tierney called "shotgun-driven prostitution". Despite receiving critical support during a subsequent inquiry, these allegations attracted relatively little academic attention.
 * The American researcher Kenneth Good married a Yanomamo girl who was barely entering her teens. Good's autobiographical accounts describe a complex personal relationship that developed in the context of Yanomamo (as well as American) cultural norms. He recounts that, in keeping with local customs and community wishes, he was betrothed to his future wife when she was still a child. They consummated the marriage when she was aged about 15 or 16.

Assessments
In 2000, Tierney published Darkness in El Dorado, which accused geneticist James Neel and anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon of exacerbating a measles epidemic among the Yanomamo people, among other damning allegations. This work initially received good reviews and was nominated for a National Book Award. Many of Tierney's accusations against Chagnon were accepted as fact in a New York Times book review by science journalist John Horgan; the resulting political controversy resulted in Chagnon's early retirement. Anthropologist John Tooby of Slate thought the book was internally inconsistent and suggested that it should have been identified as fiction.

Several inquiries related to Tierney's allegations against the researchers were conducted by the American Anthropological Association (AAA) and outside evaluators. Tierney's book was condemned by a number of academic researchers and professional associations, including the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Society of Human Genetics. They concluded that Tierney had fraudulently presented his allegations.

Tierney's charges against Neel and Chagnon were initially investigated by the Peacock Commission, later known as the El Dorado Task Force, formed by the AAA. It supported Tierney and questioned the conduct of Neel and Chagnon; its findings were accepted by the AAA board in May 2002.

Because of dissension within the organization, the AAA subsequently requested an outside investigative team. It said in its preliminary report that the "book appears to be deliberately fraudulent", and that "Patrick Tierney has misconstrued or misrepresented his primary sources to a considerable degree in an effort to support his allegations." The investigators concluded it was not Chagnon who committed any wrongdoing, but Tierney, who fraudulently altered evidence to support a story he either at best imagined or at worst manufactured.

In 2004 Thomas A. Gregor and Daniel R. Gross published their investigation of the AAA's reviews. In 2005 they called for the membership of the AAA to rescind the organization's support of the book. This resolution passed, 846 to 338.

A detailed investigation of Tierney's charges by a panel set up by the University of Michigan found the most serious charges to have no foundation and others to have been exaggerated. The provost's office of the university refuted almost all of Tierney's claims in November 2000. Sponsel and Turner, the two scientists who originally touted the book's claims, admitted that their charge against Neel "remains an inference in the present state of our knowledge: there is no 'smoking gun' in the form of a written text or recorded speech by Neel."

Alice Dreger, a historian of medicine and science and an outsider to the debate, concluded after a year of research that Tierney's claims about Chagnon and Neel were false. She wrote that the AAA was complicit and irresponsible in helping spread these falsehoods and not protecting "scholars from baseless and sensationalistic charges".

The AAA rescinded its support of the book and acknowledged fraudulent, improper and unethical conduct by Tierney. The association admitted that "in the course of its investigation, in its publications, in the venues of its national meetings and its web site, [the AAA] condoned a culture of accusation and allowed serious but unevaluated charges to be posted on its website and expressed in its newsletter and annual meetings" and that its "report has damaged the reputations of its targets, distracted public attention from the real sources of the Yanomamo tragedy and misleadingly suggested that anthropologists are responsible for Yanomamo suffering".

The accusations of inappropriate medical practices contained in Tierney's book were investigated by the Medical Team of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro and found to be false.

Following the controversy over Darkness in El Dorado, Tierney adopted a low profile, rarely appearing in public to defend his work. According to an investigation done at Dreger's behest, Tierney had no training or employment in anthropology or journalism, but had traveled through South America under a false identity, cheated gold buyers, entered Yanomamo territory without legal permission, carried poisonous mercury into the rainforest, met with murderers, and may have gotten a man killed.

Tierney claimed to rely on a "dossier" of accusations made against Chagnon written by Leda Martins, a Venezuelan anthropologist, but Martins told Dreger that she did not write the dossier; she simply translated it into Portuguese. According to evidence Dreger compiled, the dossier was written by Tierney himself.

title: Darkness in El Dorado


text:
Talk:Cliff

vertical
Cliffs don't necessarily have to be vertical! I'll write something about cliff profile sometime. --Steinsky 18:26 21 Jul 2003 (BST (UTC+1))
 * The article says "vertical or almost vertical". However, anything that can go here is great, this article is pretty much a stub. Do you think it should bofficialy be one? HereToHelp 13:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Denivelation versus prominence
I removed the mention of topographic prominence, which is not a measure of how high a cliff is; see that article for an explanation. I left the word denivelation in, even though it is little-used in English, as far as I know, except perhaps in caving. -- Spireguy 03:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Caveats
I added a general caveat about cliff lists and demarcation in the opening section. I also put in some weasel words about the supposed world record holders---it is really hard to be sure about such "records", even leaving out the issue of how steep something has to be in order to be a cliff. Ideally, someone should redo this thoroughly with some sort of classification of cliffs into dead vertical, nearly so, and just plain steep. I don't know of an official classification of this sort---anyone else know one? -- Spireguy 03:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

More cliffs in the list
I did a quick add, mostly off the top of my head, of a bunch of cliffs around the world, since the list was pretty small and mostly European. I didn't put in details for a lot of the cliffs yet, but I wanted to get the ball rolling if anyone else had info. I'll probably return. -- Spireguy 03:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed Nanga Parbat
The Rupal Face is one of, if not the largest, single mountain face on the planet, but it is not steep enough to be called a "cliff" or a "precipice." -- Spireguy 03:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Minimal Height?
Nanga Parbat lies in Pakistan occupied Kashmir and the mention of Azad Kashmir or Pakistan is wrong. It is still in Indian territory and lies under the part of Kashmir which is under illegal occupation of Pakistan. U.N. also recognizes the original boundary as international boundary.

Is there a specific minimal measurement in height that determines if an area of vertical earth is considered a cliff? Since I wouldn't consider a two or three foot drop a cliff. Or is that just nonesence? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.68.137.43 (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Trango towers picture
Does anyone else except me feel a bit unconfortable seeing one and the same picture twise on the same page?. Maybe one may consider leaving the big picture, at the begining, and adding to its caption the text from the smaller version in section Asia. Then this small picture can be removed. GGenov 08:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Your are correct. I removed the picture again. I added some other pictures instead. Feel however free, to rearrange, add or delete. --Donar Reiskoffer 09:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No information about the potential dangers of cliffs?
I'd have thought that this would warrant a mention at least, and possibly even a full section of its own...--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 19:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

 * No way! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an instruction manual, and stuff like you suggest would soon be removed. I speak from 22,000 edits experience - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

 * An instruction manual for cliffs? MrBook (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

 * An instruction manual for gravity??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.148.222 (talk) 06:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Kaulapapa Highest Sea Cliffs?
Though guiness world records says they are (although I could no longer find any reference to the record on their website), I think this is probably anachronism carried over from before the days of satellite elevation modelling. Milford Sound in New Zealand has a choice of higher competitors, and I bet that it's not the only place. - Miasmic (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Definitive differences?
The word precipice redirects here, but this article doesn't even mention the word. Are "cliff" and "precipice" synonymous? If so, how? Are they exactly the same, almost the same, usually the same, vaguely similar, etc. Are the two words used interchangeably or does one connote a different image (at least to people who perceive a difference)? Is there regional variability in their usage? I'd appreciate any help here, and I think the article would benefit from some mention of this issue. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed Ortari, Greece
There are very few references on the web for "Ortari" at all, let alone it being the highest sea cliff in Europe. Perhaps it's an argument from ignorance, but such a distinction would have attracted the attention of climbers, trekkers, geologists, etc especially since Greece isn't exactly the middle of nowhere. If one googles Hornelen, Cape Enniberg or Croaghaun for instance there are plenty of images, blogs, tribute websites, etc. Until somebody can provide any reference to back up this claim perhaps it's better to live it out. 86.41.71.94 (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Definition
Surely there must be a criteria to differentiate between a cliff and any other geological formation. I've been to Ireland and saw Cliffs of Moher to give just an example. A 200 m vertical (or near vertical) drop to the sea level is one thing, and a 200m drop through a series of peaks and valleys ending on a beach is quite another. To equate the two is an injustice to the former. There has to be something like minimum average slope, topographic prominence, etc. If everything is a cliff, nothing is a cliff! We might as well add Mount Everest to the list... Quoting from Britannica Online, a cliff is a "steep slope of earth materials, usually a rock face, that is nearly vertical and may be overhanging. Structural cliffs may form as the result of fault displacement or the resistance of a cap rock to uniform downcutting. Erosional cliffs form along shorelines or valley walls where the most extensive erosion takes place at the base of the slope. Because of their greater gradient, cliffs are subjected to greater erosive action and tend to retreat more rapidly than other slopes." 143.239.66.104 (talk) 13:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Cliff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081028235449/http://www.americanalpineclub.org/AAJO/pdfs/1986/175_canada_greenland_aaj1986.pdf to http://www.americanalpineclub.org/AAJO/pdfs/1986/175_canada_greenland_aaj1986.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Removing Vandalism
Looks like 184.191.224.130 has introduced false information that has persisted in this article for over a year:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cliff&type=revision&diff=663263788&oldid=653889997

I'll be reverting those edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.255.218.202 (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Cliff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=47602
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120326194407/http://www.planetfear.co.uk/articles/Greenland_New_Route_on_Thumbnail_926.html to http://www.planetfear.co.uk/articles/Greenland_New_Route_on_Thumbnail_926.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130608071757/http://www.eoearth.org/article/Abiotic_factor?topic=49461 to http://www.eoearth.org/article/Abiotic_factor?topic=49461

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Section Large and Famous Cliffs is a problem
I see some major issues with this section:
 * The list of large and famous cliffs is way out of proportion to the size of the article as a whole. If the list is worth keeping, it should be part of a separate article.
 * The beginning of the section (talking about records and such) is for the most part missing references.
 * Redlinks in the list are unreferenced; in their current state, they should be removed.--Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Overlinking
The article had one of the worst cases of WP:OVERLINKING I've seen. I took a big shot at it, but I've left some that should probably be removed, and also probably just missed some. Please feel free to remove more! --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cliff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110611114118/http://www.southwestcoastpath.com/main/sections/index.cfm?fsa=dspSectionDetail&w_id=147 to http://www.southwestcoastpath.com/main/sections/index.cfm?fsa=dspSectionDetail&w_id=147

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Mount Thor is not a 1250m true vertical drop
There is no true source that identifies this as being the case. In the sense of a terrain map analysis, or geological survey. This information should be removed.

Here is an original source of a terrain map analysis showing world's tallest cliffs (defined as 300% grade or more).: https://github.com/haraschax/cliff-finder Haraschax (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Bluff (Geography)
"Bluff (Geography)" redirects here, and there is a link here from the Bluff disambiguation page. There is no word "bluff" on this page. DavidCh0 (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Drastically shorten list part of article
As list of cliffs by continent exists and has much of the same content as the list in this article I think that we should drastically reduce the list element of this article. Mikenorton (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cliff


text:
Hamilton Tigers

The Hamilton Tigers were a professional ice hockey team based in Hamilton, Ontario that competed in the National Hockey League (NHL) from 1920 to 1925. The Tigers were formed by the sale of the Quebec Bulldogs NHL franchise to Hamilton interests. After years of struggling, the franchise finished first in the league in the 1924–25 NHL season, but a players' strike before the playoffs resulted in the franchise's dissolution. The players' contracts were sold to New York City interests to stock the expansion New York Americans. A namesake amateur team existed prior to and during the NHL team's existence, and a minor league professional team named the Hamilton Tigers existed from 1926 to 1930.

Franchise history
The origins of the team go back to the old Quebec Hockey Club team that started play in 1878. Originally an amateur team, it turned professional in 1909. Quebec was a charter member of the NHL in 1917, however, due to financial difficulties, and the NHA-NHL dispute, the franchise was dormant until the 1919–20 season, when it was operated by the Quebec Athletic Club. That season proved to be a dismal one; despite the presence of Joe Malone the club finished with only four wins in 24 games.

After the 1919–20 season, the NHL took back the Quebec franchise and sold the team to the Abso Pure Ice Company of Hamilton, Ontario. The club was moved to Hamilton for the 1920–21 season and renamed the Hamilton Tigers. This was done to prevent the startup of a rival league that was trying to land a club in Hamilton. Hamilton was the fifth-largest city in the country and third-largest in Central Canada with a population of 114,200, and therefore was considered a vital market. Percy Thompson, a part-owner and manager of the Barton Street Arena, became manager of the team. The team became known as the Tigers, a nickname used by a multitude of sports teams in the city. Contemporary newspaper coverage often referred to the senior team of the same name in the OHA as the "Tigers", while the NHL team would either be nameless or simply referred to as "professionals".

The move to Hamilton did not improve the team's record. Despite earning a shutout in their first game, the first team ever to do so, with a 5–0 win over the Montreal Canadiens on December 22, 1920, the Tigers were as noncompetitive as the Bulldogs. As a result, the NHL ordered the other three teams to supply players to the Tigers. Receiving quality players from the other teams was not enough to keep Hamilton out of the league cellar with 6 wins, 18 losses, and no ties in 24 games. Malone, kept out of the first four games for business reasons, scored 30 goals in 20 games.

The next three seasons were just as dreadful as the first. The Tigers finished dead last every year, making a total of 5 straight last place finishes (counting the one season as the Bulldogs). During these years, the Tigers attempted a rebuilding phase to bring the team up to par. After the 1921–22 NHL season, they hired Art Ross as their new coach and made several player changes, even trading superstar Malone to the Montreal Canadiens for Bert Corbeau and Edmond Bouchard. The fans were outraged at seeing Malone leave, but were vindicated when he scored a single goal in his lone season with the Canadiens.

Prior to the 1922–23 season, the NHL held its governors meeting at the Royal Connaught Hotel on King Street, the same location where visiting teams routinely stayed when playing the Tigers.

After four years of futility, things started to come together in the 1923–24 NHL season, with Percy LeSueur as the new head coach. Four players were acquired from the Sudbury Wolves of the NOHA: brothers Red and Shorty Green, Alex McKinnon, and Charlie Langlois, who all contributed to a team high of nine wins in 24 games.

Players revolt
With yet another new head coach (Jimmy Gardner), the Hamilton Tigers roared off to an impressive 10–4–1 start in the 1924–25 NHL season. Only halfway through the season, they had more wins than any other season in their NHL history. The team slumped somewhat in the second half of the season but still managed to finish first overall with a record of 19 wins, 10 losses, and 1 tie, just ahead of the Toronto St. Patricks. It looked like the franchise would have a chance at winning the Stanley Cup for the first time since winning it as the Bulldogs over a decade prior in 1913.

But it was not to be. During the rail travel back to Hamilton after the season's final game, the Tigers' players went to their general manager, Percy Thompson, and demanded $200 pay for the six extra games they played that season or they would not play in the playoffs. The NHL had increased the number of games played that year from 24 to 30, but the players didn't receive an increase in pay. The Tigers management, stating that the players' contracts stated that the players were under contract from December 1 to March 30, regardless of the number of games, refused to pay the money and passed the issue to the NHL. Thus began the first players' strike in NHL history.

NHL President Frank Calder warned the players that if they sat out the final, they would be suspended and replaced in the final by fourth-place Ottawa. At the same time, Calder ordered that the players' back-pay be held. The impasse continued while second-place Toronto and third-place Montreal played their semi-final, ending with Montreal winning on March 13. On March 14, after consulting with Tigers management, Calder declared the Canadiens league champions and fined the Tigers' players $200. The Canadiens then went on to play the Victoria Cougars for the Stanley Cup but lost. That marked the last time that an NHL team had lost the Stanley Cup to a rival league.

Takeover by New York
Thomas Duggan of Montreal, owner of the Mount Royal Arena, held two options for expansion teams in the United States. He sold the first of the two to Boston grocery magnate Charles Adams, who used it to start the Boston Bruins. He sold the second to a New York bootlegger named "Big Bill" Dwyer for a team to play in New York. At the NHL league meeting of April 17, 1925, Dwyer was granted an expansion franchise for New York.

Although Dwyer wished to purchase the Hamilton players, for a little while it seemed that Hamilton might remain in the NHL as Abso-Pure talked about building a new arena. The arena was not built and Dwyer bought the rights to the Tigers' players from Thompson for $75,000. Although Dwyer was ostensibly the owner of the Americans, due to his underworld ties he was not publicly named by the NHL at the meeting announcing the team. Instead, Colonel Hammond of Madison Square Garden, Duggan, and former Ottawa manager Tommy Gorman were announced as the officers. The new team was for a time known as the "New York Hamilton Tigers" by the time it reached training camp, but this was changed to the New York Americans. A Hamilton franchise was still considered to play in the NHL for the 1925–26 season, with a preliminary schedule including such a team, but nothing came of it.

The last active Tigers player was Billy Burch, who retired in 1933.

The OHA Tigers
At the time, the city had another Tigers hockey club, fielding teams in the Ontario Hockey Association, the senior team playing in the OHA Senior A League. The senior Tigers wore the same black and gold colours as the NHL Tigers, and were just as popular. When the newspapers reported about "the Tigers" it was usually in reference to the amateurs, while the NHL team was called "the Professionals." The senior Tigers continued into the 1950s, winning the OHA championship in 1919, 1931, 1934, 1942 and 1944–1948. The team won the Allan Cup in 1919 and lost in the 1931 and 1946 finals.

Hamilton Tigers (CPHL)
In 1926–27, a new Tigers team was formed as an expansion franchise in the minor-pro Canadian Professional Hockey League. This Tigers team, along with the larger teams in the CPHL, broke away in 1929 to form the International Hockey League. In 1930, the Tigers moved to Syracuse, New York to become the Syracuse Stars. This franchise, along with three other IHL teams, merged with the Canadian-American Hockey League to form the International-American Hockey League, forerunner of today's American Hockey League. In 1940, the Stars were sold and transferred to Buffalo, New York to become the Buffalo Bisons, who survived until being displaced by the NHL's Buffalo Sabres in 1970.

Season-by-season record
Note: GP = Games played, W = Wins, L = Losses, T = Ties, Pts = Points, GF = Goals for, GA = Goals against, PIM = Penalties in minutes

Hall of Famer players
Source
 * Billy Burch
 * Babe Dye
 * Shorty Green
 * Joe Malone

Team coaches

 * 1920–21 None (Percy Thompson Owner/Manager)
 * 1921–22 None (Joe Malone Player/Manager)
 * 1922–23 Art Ross
 * 1923–24 Percy LeSueur
 * 1924–25 Jimmy Gardner
 * Source

title: Hamilton Tigers


text:
Talk:Bata Corporation

Revenue and profit
Made it more clear 182.68.26.176 (talk) 06:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Current owner
Who holds largest stock in india.who owns it globally 2405:201:6805:BFE4:98E4:A7A8:2456:177C (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Book by Markéta Pilàtovà
I've just read the book written by Markéta Pilàtovà (2017) and I do not find any reference in the article: which is pretty weird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.203.161.225 (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bata Corporation


text:
Fyrd

A fyrd was a type of early Anglo-Saxon army that was mobilised from freemen or paid men to defend their Shire's lords estate, or from selected representatives to join a royal expedition. Service in the fyrd was usually of short duration and participants were expected to provide their own arms and provisions.

The composition of the fyrd evolved over the years, particularly as a reaction to raids and invasions by the Vikings. The system of defence and conscription was reorganised during the reign of Alfred the Great, who set up 33 fortified towns (or burhs) in his kingdom of Wessex. The amount of taxation required to maintain each town was laid down in a document known as the Burghal Hidage. Each lord had his individual holding of land assessed in hides. Based on his land holding, he had to contribute men and arms to maintain and defend the burhs. Non-compliance with this requirement could lead to severe penalties.

Ultimately the fyrd consisted of a nucleus of experienced soldiers that would be supplemented by ordinary villagers and farmers from the shires who would accompany their lords.

Definitions
The Germanic rulers in early medieval Britain relied upon the infantry supplied by a regional levy, or fyrd and it was upon this system that the military power of the several kingdoms of early Anglo-Saxon England depended. In Anglo-Saxon documents military service might be expressed as fyrd-faru, fyrd-færeld, fyrd-socn, or simply fyrd. The fyrd was a local militia in the Anglo-Saxon shire, in which all freemen had to serve. Those who refused military service were subject to fines or loss of their land. According to the laws of Ine:

"If a nobleman who holds land neglects military service, he shall pay 120 shillings and forfeit his land; a nobleman who holds no land shall pay 60 shillings; a commoner shall pay a fine of 30 shillings for neglecting military service."

It was the responsibility of the shire fyrd to deal with local raids. The king could call up the national militia to defend the kingdom, however in the case of hit and run raids, particularly by Vikings, problems with communication and raising supplies meant that the national militia could not be mustered quickly enough, so it was rarely summoned.

Historians are divided on whether or not the fyrd included thegns and mercenaries. Initially the force probably would have been entirely infantry. However, from Alfred's time there would have been a force of mounted infantry, who could gallop swiftly to any trouble spot, dismount, and drive off any raiding force. Also, after Alfred's reorganisation there were two elements to his army. The first known as the select-fyrd was, most likely, a strictly royal force of mounted infantry consisting mainly of thegns and their retainers supported by earls and reeves. The second would be the local militia or general-fyrd responsible for the defence of the shire and borough district and would consist of freemen, such as small tenant farmers and their local thegns and reeves. In the 11th century the infantry was strengthened by the addition of an elite force of housecarls. More recent research, however, suggests that there was only a select-fyrd, in which the mounted element was provided by Wessex.

The Old English term that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle uses for the Danish Army is "here"; Ine of Wessex in his law code, issued in about 694, provides a definition of  "here" as "an invading army or raiding party containing more than thirty-five  men", yet  the terms "here" and "fyrd" are used interchangeably in later sources in respect of the English militia.

Tenants in Anglo-Saxon England had a threefold obligation based on their landholding; the so-called ‘common burdens' of military service, fortress work, and bridge repair. Even when a landholder was granted exemptions from other royal services, these three duties were reserved. An example of this is in a charter of 858 where Æthelberht, King of Wessex, made an exchange of land with his thegn Wulflaf. It stipulates that Wulflaf's land should be free of all royal services and secular burdens except military service, the building of bridges, and fortress work.

According to Cnut's laws: "If anybody neglects the repair of fortresses or bridges or military service, he shall pay 120s. as compensation to the king in districts under the English law, and the amount fixed by existing regulations in the Danelaw..."

England had suffered raids by the Vikings from the late 8th century onwards, initially mainly on monasteries. The first monastery to be raided was in 793 at Lindisfarne, off the north east coast, with the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle describing the Vikings as heathen men. The raiding continued on and off until the 860s, when instead of raiding the Vikings changed their tactics and sent a great army to invade England. This army was described by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as a "Great Heathen Army". The Danes were eventually defeated by Alfred the Great at the Battle of Edington in 878. This was followed closely by the Treaty of Alfred and Guthrum, under which England was divided up between the Anglo-Saxons of Wessex and the Vikings. However, there continued to be a threat by another Danish army that was active on the continent. The rampaging Viking army on the continent encouraged Alfred to protect his Kingdom of Wessex. He built a navy, reorganised the army, established a cavalry, and set up a system of fortified towns known as burhs.

Each element of the system was meant to remedy defects in the West Saxon military establishment exposed by Viking raids and invasions. If under the existing system he could not assemble forces quickly enough to intercept mobile Viking raiders, the obvious answer was to have a standing field force. If this entailed transforming the West Saxon fyrd from a sporadic levy of king's men and their retinues into a mounted standing army, so be it. If his kingdom lacked strongpoints to impede the progress of an enemy army, he would build them. If the enemy struck from the sea, he would counter them with his own naval power. To maintain the burhs, and the standing army, he set up a system of taxation and conscription that is recorded in a document, now known as the Burghal Hidage; thirty three fortified towns are listed along with their taxable value (known as hides). Characteristically, all of Alfred's innovations were firmly rooted in traditional West Saxon practice, drawing as they did upon the three ‘common burdens' that all holders of bookland and royal loanland owed the Crown. Where Alfred revealed his genius was in designing the field force and burhs to be parts of a coherent military system.

The fyrd was used heavily by King Harold in 1066, for example in resisting invasion by Harald Hardrada and William of Normandy.

Henry I of England, the Anglo-Norman king who promised at his coronation to restore the laws of Edward the Confessor and who married a Scottish princess with West Saxon royal forebears, called up the fyrd to supplement his feudal levies, as an army of all England, as Orderic Vitalis reports, to counter the abortive invasions of his brother Robert Curthose, both in the summer of 1101 and in autumn 1102.

A view of early American military organization, considered the fyrd the abstract principle for the defense of colonial Virginia.

title: Fyrd


text:
User:SatyrTN

{| width="100%" border="0"

Current Projects
Projects, categories, and pages that I'm working on:
 * Cam Lyman
 * Centers of population - creating List of Centers of population

Things I might be getting in to:
 * User:SatyrTN/Sewanee traditions
 * Baseball Players in NH

My Accounts on Sister Wikis
(Please note, though, that this account (on Wikipedia) is my main account)
 * MetaWiki
 * WikiBooks
 * Wikimedia Commons
 * WikiNews
 * WikiQuote
 * WikiSource
 * WikiSpecies
 * Wikiversity
 * Wiktionary

Awards Gallery
My Barnstars! I've got a couple more at SatyrTN/Barnstars

 * rowspan="2" style="width: 40%; text-align: right;" valign="top" |

 * - style="width: 60%;" valign="top"
 * rowspan="2" |
 * valign="top" |
 * valign="top" |

 * }

ʇı ǝʇoɹʍ ı uǝɥʍ sɐʍ ı sɐ pǝɹoq sɐ ʎ1qɐqoɹd - pǝǝpuı pǝɹoq ʎɹǝʌ ǝq ʇsnɯ noʎ 'ʇı buıpɐǝɹ ǝɹ,noʎ ɟı puɐ 'ǝbɐssǝɯ ʇǝɹɔǝs 1ɐıɔǝds ɹǝdns ɐ sı sıɥʇ

title: User:SatyrTN


text:
Talk:David Kelly (weapons expert)

Guardian article by Kelly
It might be worth mentioning that, as people tend not to realise, Dr Kelly supported military action against Iraq. A few days before the invasion he wrote an article for the Guardian arguing that 'only regime change will avert the threat.' He did not claim that the threat rested on supposed weapon stocks. He believed it came from Saddam's WMD development programme, which was still in place -- that is, the experts and the skills base were still present, so that development could resume once UN sanctions were lifted, and the lifting of sanctions was quite possible given the siding of France, Russia and China with Iraq on the UNSC. In this respect Dr Kelly's views were similar to Tony Blair's. The Guardian reprinted the piece in August 2003 as the inquiry into Dr Kelly's death got underway. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/aug/31/huttonreport.iraq Khamba Tendal (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Rewrite
I intend to undertake a rewrite of this article over the next few months, particularly to bring in additional information and citations to cover the “pre-Gilligan” part of his life, which is a little on the thin side. I propose to do much of the messy heavy-lifting in my sandbox, and then to transfer over in lumps when appropriate. (This may be as small as a paragraph, or as large as a sub-section, but it will be manageable for any page watchers who wish to keep on top of any developments.) If anyone objects to this, please let me know. - SchroCat (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Article contradicts itself regarding murder or suicide
In the opening paragraph, the article says "Two days later Kelly was found dead near his home, having been murdered." Two paragraphs later it says "Following Kelly's suicide in 2003", and the remainder of the article refers to his suicide. The article shouldn't assert that he was murdered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.36.66.0 (talk) 10:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I have updated the article to remove the wording "having been murdered". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.36.66.0 (talk) 10:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Removed See Also for Hussein Kamel al-Majid
I am removing the WP:SEEALSO for Hussein Kamel al-Majid but I am happy to discuss it (which is why I am here, right?)

It was added in this edit on 7 August 2009 by User:84.249.57.48, whose fairly brief career here included a number of edits that some would regard as being outside the mainstream. Their also-brief Talk page history is mostly POV concerns and notably mentions the adding of SeeAlsos as a sort of guilt-by association thing. Given that Hussein Kamel al-Majid was a defector who was then killed by his government for treachery, I'm not sure what message it gives if we leave him here as a SeeAlso. But, as I said, I am happy to discuss it (within reason). Best to all, DBaK (talk) 09:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Pre-TFA tweaks
Hi, some possible tweaks before it hits MP... Regards, JennyOz (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Tony Blair image caption is a frag ie remove full stop?
 * David Chidgey - ditto
 * Purported Iraqi mobile weapons - ditto
 * Image caption: editor of the BBC's Newsnight programme - add italics
 * Sources News Burden / Brady - alpha order
 * He appeared more relaxed than he did in front - than he had?
 * redlink State Research Centre for Applied Microbiology - State Research Center for Applied Microbiology (Center US spelling)
 * she took her young son - their young son?
 * to try and find him - try to find him?
 * in the Category:Iraq and weapons of mass destruction the article appears under D as "David Kelly (weapons expert)". I'm guessing that's not what the pipe at (Death of David Kelly) is intended to do? That pipe treatment was there before the article was moved from Death of David Kelly to current name in 2011. Only solution (if one is needed) that I can think of is to add that category on the redirection page Death of David Kelly or remove piping!
 * Hi JennyOz, thanks for these, as always. I've skipped one as it's a BrEng thing ("to try and find" is acceptable), but the rest are all sorted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:David Kelly (weapons expert)


text:
Department of the Master-General of the Ordnance

Department of the Master-General of the Ordnance was a department within the British War Office. Created in 1855 to replace some of the duties of the Board of Ordnance and itself replaced by the Ordnance Board, now within the Ministry of Defence (United Kingdom).