text:
Croatian Parliament

The Croatian Parliament (Hrvatski sabor) or the Sabor is the unicameral legislature of Croatia. Under the terms of the Croatian Constitution, the Sabor represents the people and is vested with legislative power. The Sabor is composed of 151 members elected to a four-year term on the basis of direct, universal and equal suffrage by secret ballot. Seats are allocated according to the Croatian Parliament electoral districts: 140 members of the parliament are elected in multi-seat constituencies. An additional three seats are reserved for the diaspora and Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina, while national minorities have eight places reserved in parliament. The Sabor is presided over by a Speaker, who is assisted by at least one deputy speaker (usually four or five deputies).

The Sabor's powers are defined by the Constitution and they include: defining economic, legal and political relations in Croatia, preservation and use of its heritage and entering into alliances. The Sabor has the right to deploy the Croatian Armed Forces abroad, and it may restrict some constitutional rights and liberties in wartime or in cases of imminent war or following natural disasters. The Sabor amends the borders of Croatia or the Constitution, enacts legislation, passes the state budget, declares war and decides on cessation of hostilities, adopts parliamentary resolutions and bylaws, adopts long-term national security and defence strategies, implements civil supervision of the armed forces and security services, calls referendums, performs elections and appointments conforming to the constitution and applicable legislation, supervises operations of the Government and other civil services responsible to the parliament, grants amnesty for criminal offences and performs other duties defined by the constitution.

The oldest Sabor with extant records was held in Zagreb on 19 April 1273. This was the Sabor of Slavonia, and not of Croatia and Dalmatia. The earliest recorded Sabor of the Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia dates to 1350 in Podgrađe near Benkovac. The Parliament session held in 1527 in Cetin affirmed the House of Habsburg as Croatian rulers. After this, the Sabor became a regular gathering of the nobility, and its official title gradually stabilised by 1558 as the Parliament of the Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia. Since 1681, it has been formally called the Diet of the Kingdom of Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia. In 1712, the Sabor once again invoked its prerogative to select the ruler, supporting what later became the Pragmatic Sanction of 1713. Since the mid-1800s, the Sabor has regularly met and its members have been regularly elected. Exercising its sovereignty once again on 29 October 1918, the Sabor decided on independence from Austria-Hungary and formation of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs which later joined the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. The Sabor did not meet between 1918 and 1945, except for an unelected Sabor convened in 1942. The Sabor initially reconvened as an assembly of State Anti-fascist Council for the National Liberation of Croatia (ZAVNOH) in 1943 and evolved since through various structures following the November 1945 elections and several changes of the constitution. After the first multi-party elections since Communist rule and the adoption of the 1990 constitution, the Sabor was bicameral (Chamber of Representatives and Chamber of Counties) until 2001, when constitutional amendments changed it to the unicameral form currently used.

Historical background
The Sabor, in its various forms, has represented the identity and opinions of Croats from the diets of the 9th century nobility to the modern parliament. The oldest Sabor whose records are preserved was held in Zagreb on 19 April 1273 as the Congregatio Regni totius Sclavonie generalis or Universitas nobilium Regni Sclavoniae (General diet of the entire kingdom of Slavonia or Community of the nobility of the kingdom of Slavonia). Its decisions had legislative power. The 1527 Parliament decision was a decisive event of fundamental importance for the extension and confirmation of Croatian statehood, as described by the Constitution of Croatia. The parliament freely chose Ferdinand I of the House of Habsburg as the new ruler of Croatia, after centuries of Croatian personal union with Hungary. Following the entry into the Habsburg Monarchy, the Sabor became a regular noble diet, and its official title gradually stabilised by 1558 to the Parliament of the Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia. Since 1681 it has been formally styled as the Congregatio Regnorum Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae or Generalis Congregatio dominorum statuum et ordinum Regni (Diet of the Kingdom of Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia or General Diet of the Estates of the Realm). In 1712, the Sabor once again invoked its prerogative to select the ruler, supporting what later became the Pragmatic Sanction of 1713 and electing Maria Theresa of Austria as monarch. This event is also specified by the Constitution of Croatia as a part of the foundation of unbroken Croatian statehood from the Middle Ages to the present.

In 1848, first modern Diet with the elected representatives was summoned (even high nobility and high dignitaries of the Catholic and Orthodox church remained ex officio members). The Sabor operated as the legislative authority during the existence of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia (1848/1868 – 1918). The events of 1848 in Europe and in the Austrian Empire represent a watershed in Croatian society and politics, given their linkage to the Croatian national revival that strongly influenced and significantly shaped political and social events in Croatia from that point onwards to the end of the 20th century. At the time, the Sabor advocated the implicit severance of ties with the Kingdom of Hungary, emphasizing links to other South Slavic lands within the empire. A period of neo-absolutism was followed by the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 and Croatian–Hungarian Settlement, recognizing the limited independence of Croatia, together with reinvigorated claims of uninterrupted Croatian statehood. Two political parties that evolved in the 1860s and contributed significantly to this sentiment were the Party of Rights (1861–1929) and the People's Party. They were opposed by the National Constitutional Party that was in power for most of the period between the 1860s and 1918, which advocated closer ties between Croatia and Hungary. Another significant party formed in this era was the Serb People's Independent Party, which would later form the Croat-Serb Coalition with the Party of Rights and other Croat and Serb parties. This Coalition ruled Croatia between 1903 and 1918. The Croatian Peasant Party (HSS), established in 1904 and led by Stjepan Radić, advocated Croatian autonomy but achieved only moderate gains by 1918. In the Kingdom of Dalmatia, two major parties were the People's Party, a branch of the People's Party active in the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, and the Autonomist Party, which advocated maintaining the autonomy of Dalmatia, opposing the People's Party's demands for unifying Croatia-Slavonia and Dalmatia. The Autonomist Party was also linked to Italian irredentism.

By the 1900s, the Party of Rights also made electoral gains in Dalmatia. In Dalmatia, the Autonomists won the first three elections held there in 1861, 1864 and 1867, while those from 1870 to 1908 were won by the People's Party. In 1861–1918, there were 17 elections in Croatia-Slavonia and 10 in Dalmatia.

Exercising its sovereignty once again on 29 October 1918, the Sabor decided on independence from Austria-Hungary and formation of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. The council of the newly established state voted to form the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes; however, the Sabor never confirmed that decision. The 1921 constitution defining the new kingdom as a unitary state, and the abolition of historical administrative divisions, effectively ended Croatian autonomy for the time and the Sabor did not convene until the 1940s. The Cvetković–Maček Agreement of August 1939 established the autonomous Province of Croatia, or Banovina of Croatia, in which the Yugoslav government retained control of defence, internal security, foreign affairs, trade, and transport, while other matters were left to the Croatian Sabor and a crown-appointed ban (Viceroy or governor). Before any elections were held, the establishment was made obsolete with the beginning of World War II and the establishment of the Independent State of Croatia which banned all political opposition. In 1942, three sessions of an unelected Sabor were held in the Independent State of Croatia; these were held between 23 February and 28 December 1942, when it was formally dissolved. The assembly had no real power as the state was under the direct rule of (the fascist) Ante Pavelić.

The post-World War II Sabor developed from the National Anti-fascist Council of the People's Liberation of Croatia (ZAVNOH), formed in 1943. In 1945, ZAVNOH transformed itself into the National Sabor of Croatia, preserving the continuity of Croatian sovereignty. After the war, the Communists ran unopposed in the 1945 elections; all opposition parties boycotted the elections due to coercion and intimidation by the OZNA secret police and the Communist Party, aimed at eliminating electoral dissent. Once in power, the Communists introduced a single-party political system, with the Communist Party of Yugoslavia (from 1952 the League of Communists of Yugoslavia) as the ruling party and the Communist Party of Croatia (from 1952 the League of Communists of Croatia) as a branch party. In January 1990, the Communist Party fragmented along national lines, with the Croatian faction demanding a looser federation.

During Communist rule, the Sabor went from a unicameral parliament as specified by the 1947 constitution, to bicameral in 1953, changing again in 1963 to as many as five chambers and then to three in 1974. The constitutional amendments of 1971 established the Presidency of the Sabor, and one of its functions became representing Croatia, as the Yugoslav constituent republics were essentially viewed as nation-states generally surrendering only their foreign and defence policies to the federation; the federal bodies were no longer independent of, but instead formed by, the republics (after 1974 constitution, this role was taken by newly formed Presidency of the Republic elected by the Sabor).

The first political party founded in Croatia since the beginning of the Communist rule was the Croatian Social Liberal Party (HSLS), established on 20 May 1989, followed by the Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ) on 17 June 1989. In December, Ivica Račan became the head of the reformed Communist party. At this time, the Communist party decided to cancel political trials, release political prisoners and endorse a multi-party political system. The Civil Organisations Act was formally amended to allow multiple political parties on 11 January 1990, legalising the new parties. By the time of the first round of the first multi-party elections, held on 22 April 1990, there were 33 registered parties. There were single-seat constituencies for half of the seats and a single nationwide constituency (through election lists) for the remaining seats. Still, the most relevant parties and coalitions were the renamed Communist party (the League of Communists of Croatia — Party of Democratic Changes), the HDZ and the Coalition of People's Accord (KNS), which included the HSLS, led by Dražen Budiša, and the HSS, which resumed operating in Croatia in December 1989. The runoff election, open to any candidate receiving at least 7% of the vote, was held on 6 May 1990. The HDZ led by Franjo Tuđman won ahead of the reformed Communists and the KNS. The KNS, led by the former leaders of the Croatian Spring (Savka Dabčević-Kučar and Miko Tripalo), soon splintered into individual parties. On 8 October 1991, Croatia's declaration of independence took effect. The HDZ maintained a parliamentary majority until the 2000 parliamentary elections when it was defeated by the SDP led by Račan. The HDZ returned to power in the 2003 elections, while the SDP remained the largest opposition party.

Parliamentary powers
The Parliament represents the citizens of the Republic of Croatia; it acts as the country's legislature. It convenes regularly in two sessions each year, from 15 January to 15 July and from 15 September to 15 December; however, extraordinary sessions may be called by the President of Croatia, the government of Croatia or a majority of the parliamentary members. The sessions are open to the public. The parliament decides through simple majority votes, except in issues pertaining to (constitutionally recognised) ethnic minorities in Croatia, the constitution, electoral legislation, the scope and operational methods of governmental bodies and local government; in these cases, decisions are made by two-thirds majority votes. The parliament may authorise the government to enact regulations dealing with matters normally covered by parliamentary acts. Such regulations expire one year after the authorisation is issued. The authorisation does not apply to matters that must be decided upon by a parliamentary two-thirds vote. Legislation enacted by the parliament is either endorsed by the President of Croatia within eight days or referred to the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia.

The members are granted parliamentary immunity; their criminal prosecution is possible only after parliamentary consent, except for crimes with five or more years of imprisonment mandated. The parliament may appoint investigative commissions for any matter of public interest.

The Croatian parliament's powers are defined by the Constitution of Croatia. These include: defining economic, legal and political relations in the Republic of Croatia; preservation of Croatia's natural and cultural heritage and its utilisation; and forming alliances with other states. The parliament has the right to deploy Croatian Armed Forces abroad. It may also restrict constitutional rights and liberties in wartime or in cases of imminent war or following natural disasters, although that constitutional provision is limited to specific rights—right to life, prohibition of torture, cruel or denigrating conduct or punishment, upholding of habeas corpus and freedoms of thought, conscience and religious views. In addition, in those circumstances parliamentary members' terms may be extended. (As these rights are defined by the constitution, the decision would require a two-thirds majority. Since Croatia never declared a state of war during the breakup of Yugoslavia, this option has not been exercised in practice. ) The parliament reserves the right to amend the borders of Croatia. The parliament decides on constitutional amendments, enacts legislation, passes the state budget, declares war and decides on the cessation of hostilities, adopts declarations of policy of the parliament, adopts national defence strategy, representing a long-term defence resource planning document, and national defence strategy, which defines bases for establishment and implementation of institutions, measures and activities in response to general security issues and specific challenges and threats to Croatia, implements civil supervision of the armed forces and security services, calls referendums, performs elections and appointments conforming to the constitution and applicable legislation, supervises operations of the government (headed by the Prime Minister of Croatia) and other civil services responsible to the parliament, grants amnesty for criminal offences and performs various other duties defined by the constitution. Becoming the Prime Minister of Croatia requires majority support in the parliament.

The Government is responsible to the parliament; some other institutions, such as the Croatian National Bank and the State Audit Office, also report directly to the parliament. The parliament appoints an ombudsman to promote and protect human rights and liberties established by the constitution, parliamentary legislation and treaties adopted by Croatia. The ombudsman is appointed for an eight-year term; the ombudsman's work is independent. The ombudsman, as well as all other persons authorised to act on behalf of the parliament, is granted parliamentary immunity equal to that enjoyed by parliamentary members.

Working bodies
The table below lists all 29 of the main committees in the 11th Sabor.

The members of Sabor can be members of one or more of its committees. The working body has a president, vice-president and members of the working body from the ranks of representatives, unless otherwise specified in the Rules of Procedure. The composition of the working body generally corresponds to the party composition of the Parliament.

The parliamentary committees debate and discuss initiatives and motions ahead of the enactment of laws, other regulations and other matters within the authority of the Sabor. Prior to the debate on any bill proposed by the government or deputies at the Sabor session, the chairperson of the competent working body and the Legislation Committee are obligated to place that bill on the agenda of the session of the working body and conduct a debate on it. Furthermore, the Committees hold hearings on the petitions and proposals submitted to Sabor by citizens.

Members of the Croatian Parliament engage in various inter-parliamentary activities. Deputies form permanent delegations to inter-parliamentary organizations, such as the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and NATO Parliamentary Assembly.

Speaker of the Parliament

The members of the parliament elect the Speaker of the Parliament and one or more deputy speakers by a simple majority vote.

Since the first multi-party elections held after the start of Communist rule, there have been eight speakers of the parliament; the first five, executing the office until constitutional amendments in March 2001, were also speakers of the Chamber of Deputies (since the parliament was bicameral at the time). As of 16 May 2024, Gordan Jandroković (HDZ) is the 12th Speaker of the Sabor. There are five deputy speakers in the current parliament: Željko Reiner (HDZ), Ivan Penava (DP) and Furio Radin (Ind.), Sabina Glasovac (SDP) and Siniša Hajdaš Dončić (SDP).

The speaker of the parliament becomes the acting President of the Republic in the event of the death, resignation or incapacitation of the President of Croatia, as specified by the constitution. This situation occurred after the death of Franjo Tuđman in 1999, when Vlatko Pavletić became the acting president. After the 2000 parliamentary elections, the role was transferred to Zlatko Tomčić, who filled the office until Stjepan Mesić was elected President of Croatia in 2000.

Composition
The Constitution of Croatia mandates that the parliament consists of at least 100 members and no more than 160 members, elected by a direct secret ballot for four-year terms. Parliamentary elections are held within 60 days following the term's expiration or parliamentary dissolution (the latter takes place with a parliamentary no-confidence vote or if the parliament fails to approve a state budget within 120 days after the government submits one for approval), and a new parliament must convene within 20 days after the elections.

As specified by the current electoral legislation in Croatia, 140 members of the Parliament are elected in multi-seat constituencies, up to 3 members are chosen by proportional representation to represent Croatian citizens residing abroad and 8 members represent ethnic and national communities or minorities (including "undeclared", "unknown", or otherwise other than constitutionally recognized groups).

The model of parliamentary elections is based on the Christmas Constitution (1990), but has been significantly modified four times since then, most recently in 1999. The most recent substantial revision of the election law came in February 2015, and was partially upheld by the Constitutional Court in September 2015. An element of preferential voting was introduced by letting voters choose not only for a list of candidates, but also a single member of the same list. If the percentage of votes for a candidate exceeds 10%, they are elected as if it was an open list system. The list ranking is maintained for those candidates that do not meet this quota.

Previous parliamentary elections
Since 1990, seven parliamentary elections have been held in Croatia. The elections held in 1990 were the first multi-party elections following 45 years of Communist rule. The Parliament had three chambers at the time; the candidates ran for all 80 seats in the Social-Political Council of Croatia, all 116 seats to the Municipalities Council of Croatia and all 160 seats to the Associated Labour Council of Croatia. The first round of the election saw a turnout of 85.5%; the turnout for the runoff election was 74.8%. In this election, the Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ) won 205 seats and the Social Democratic Party of Croatia won 107. Between then and 2007, five parliamentary elections were held for the Chamber of Deputies (Zastupnički dom) of the parliament or the unicameral parliament since (in 1992, 1995, 2000, 2003 and 2007). Starting with the 1992 elections, the number of seats first in the Chamber of Deputies, and then in the unicameral parliament, were significantly variable: ranging from 127 in 1995 to 153 in 2007. In the Croatian parliamentary elections held since 1992, when the number of seats in the parliament was limited to below 160, only 5 parties have won 10 seats or more in any one parliamentary election. These were the HDZ, the Croatian Peasant Party (HSS), the Croatian People's Party – Liberal Democrats (HNS), the Croatian Social Liberal Party (HSLS) and the SDP.

Several political parties, besides the HDZ, HSS, HNS, HSLS and SDP, have won parliamentary seats in the elections since 1990. These have been (in alphabetical order): the Alliance of Primorje-Gorski Kotar (previously named Rijeka Democratic Alliance), the Croatian Christian Democratic Union, the Croatian Citizen Party, the Croatian Democratic Alliance of Slavonia and Baranja, the Croatian Democratic Peasant Party, the Croatian Independent Democrats, the Croatian Party of Pensioners, the Croatian Party of Rights, the Croatian Party of Rights dr. Ante Starčević, the Dalmatian Action party, the Democratic Centre party, the Istrian Democratic Assembly, the Liberal Party, the Party of Liberal Democrats, the Serb Democratic Party, the Slavonia-Baranja Croatian Party, and the Social Democratic Action of Croatia party. The following parties have won special seats reserved for representatives elected by minorities (also in alphabetical order): the Bosnian Democratic Party of Croatia, the Democratic Union of Hungarians of Croatia, the German People's Union – National Association of Danube Swabians in Croatia, the Independent Democratic Serb Party, the Party of Democratic Action of Croatia, and the Serb People's Party.

In addition, some independents have won seats through party lists by being elected as an independent running on a party's list, and Ivan Grubišić's list of non-partisan candidates has won seats as well. Since individuals (not parties) possess parliamentary seats once won, there also can be (and have been) instances where seat-holders became independent or switched to another political party.

(*)In the first multi-party elections in 1990 three parliamentary chambers were elected in a two-round majoritarian system: the Social-Political Council, the Council of Municipalities and the Council of Associated Labour. Turnout for the election each chamber varied. It was as follows: Social-Political council (84.5% in first round in all constituencies, 74.82% in second round in 51 of 80 constituencies), Council of Municipalities (84.1% in first round, 74.6% in second round) and Council of Associated Labour (76.5% in first round in all constituencies, 66% in second round in 103 of 160 constituencies).

Chamber of Counties
Under the Constitution of Croatia adopted in 1990, the parliament became bicameral. The Chamber of Deputies had been elected a few months earlier; its members enacted legislation creating a new territorial organisation of Croatia. This reorganisation included counties that were to be represented by the new Chamber of Counties (Županijski dom). The first election of members of the chamber was on 7 February 1993, with each of the counties acting as a three-seat constituency using proportional representation. In addition, as per Article 71 of the 1990 constitution, the President of Croatia was given the option of appointing up to 5 additional members of the Chamber of Counties; it could have as many as 68 members. The second and last election for the Chamber of Counties of the parliament was on 13 April 1997. The Chamber of Counties was abolished by a 2001 constitutional amendment.

Publication of proceedings
The Croatian Parliament publishes all its decisions in Narodne Novine, the official gazette of the Republic of Croatia. Article 90 of the constitution requires publication of all acts and other regulations in the gazette before they are legally binding. Narodne Novine is available through a paid subscription as print, or for free online. Parliamentary debates and other proceedings are the subject of news coverage by media of Croatia, and Saborska televizija was set up in 2007 in addition as an IPTV channel broadcasting all plenary sessions of the parliament. Finally, the Parliament's Public Relations Department publishes a news bulletin available to all institutions and citizens of Croatia through a print paid subscription, and online for free.

Parliamentary location
The Sabor has convened in Zagreb since the 13th century, but there was no special building for this until the 18th century. Previously, sessions of the Sabor had been held in private houses, in royal estates in Gradec and at the bishop's residence. During the Croatian-Ottoman Wars, which severely disrupted the functioning of the Croatian kingdom, the Sabor's sessions became so impractical that the 1685 session decided to have the ban appoint a six-member committee to do the work of the Sabor when sessions were not possible. This body became operational in 1689 and had its mandate extended through the entire 18th and into the 19th century. This Conferentia Regnorum Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae consisted of the ban, two high clerics and three or four noblemen, and it would bring forward numerous acts; it met in various places, usually Zagreb or Varaždin, but also in Čiče, Ludbreg, Kerestinec, Vienna, Želin, Bratislava, Klenovnik, Slunj, Glina, Petrinja, Rasinja, Ptuj and Budim.

In 1731, the government purchased houses at the site of the present building and construction of a new building started the next year. The Sabor first met in the new building on 6 May 1737. The building was originally designed to accommodate archives, the court and the office of the ban; however, the government of Zagreb County moved in as well in 1765. The ban's office, the court and the archives moved out of the building in 1807, when a building across St. Mark's Square was bought to accommodate them. Subsequently, the newly purchased building was named Banski dvori after its new primary purpose of housing the ban and his office. The Zagreb County government purchased buildings adjacent to the parliament in 1839 and commissioned a new building at the site. It was completed in 1849; in the meantime, the Sabor had to convene elsewhere; it met in a theatre building located on a corner of the square. The theatre building later became the Zagreb City Hall.

In 1907, the government of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia bought the parliament building and adjacent structures, starting construction of the present parliament building. At the same time, the Zagreb County government moved its headquarters elsewhere, leaving the Sabor as the sole user. The present parliament building was completed in 1911 using the design of Lav Kalda and Karlo Susan.

Due to the renovation works on the Sabor Palace following the events of the 2020 Zagreb earthquake, in 2024 the parliament has decided to temporarily relocate to the Črnomerec district, in the Petar Zrinski Barracks, the site of the Croatian Military Academy "Dr. Franjo Tuđman". The exact date of the relocation and of the beginning of the reconstruction are not yet known.

title: Croatian Parliament


text:
KBR

KBR can stand for:

Places

 * KBR Park, Hyderabad, India
 * Royal Library of Belgium (KBR, Koninklijke Bibliotheek van België), Brussels, Belgium
 * Sultan Ismail Petra Airport (IATA airport code ), Kota Bharu, Kelantan, Malaysia

Groups, companies, organizations

 * KBR (company), formerly Kellogg, Brown & Root, US
 * KBR (news agency), an Indonesian radio news agency
 * Koninklijke Bibliotheek van België, Flemish abbreviation for Royal Library of Belgium

Other uses

 * Kafa language (ISO 639 language code ), spoken in Ethiopia
 * Key-based routing in computer networking
 * Potassium bromide (KBr)

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

title: KBR


text:
Georges de Rham

Georges de Rham (10 September 1903 – 9 October 1990) was a Swiss mathematician, known for his contributions to differential topology.

Biography
Georges de Rham was born on 10 September 1903 in Roche, a small village in the canton of Vaud in Switzerland. He was the fifth born of the six children in the family of Léon de Rham, a constructions engineer. Georges de Rham grew up in Roche but went to school in nearby Aigle, the main town of the district, travelling daily by train. By his own account, he was not an extraordinary student in school, where he mainly enjoyed painting and dreamed of becoming a painter. In 1919 he moved with his family to Lausanne in a rented apartment in Beaulieu Castle, where he would live for the rest of his life. Georges de Rham started the Gymnasium in Lausanne with a focus on humanities, following his passion for literature and philosophy but learning little mathematics. On graduating from the Gymnasium in 1921 however, he decided not to continue with the Faculty of Letters in order to avoid Latin. He opted instead for the Faculty of Sciences of the University of Lausanne. At the faculty he started out studying biology, physics and chemistry and no mathematics initially. While trying to learn some mathematics by himself as a tool for physics, his interest was raised and by the third year he abandoned biology to focus decisively on mathematics.

At the University he was mainly influenced by two professors, Gustave Dumas and Dmitry Mirimanoff, who guided him in studying the works of Émile Borel, René-Louis Baire, Henri Lebesgue, and Joseph Serret. After graduating in 1925, de Rham remained at the University of Lausanne as an assistant to Dumas. Starting work towards completing his doctorate, he read the works of Henri Poincaré on topology on the advice of Dumas. Although he found inspiration for a thesis subject in Poincaré, progress was slow as topology was a relatively new topic and access to the relevant literature was difficult in Lausanne. With the recommendation of Dumas, de Rham contacted Lebesgue and went to Paris for a few months in 1926 and, again, for a few months in 1928. Both trips were financed by his own savings and he spent his time in Paris taking classes and studying at the University of Paris and the Collège de France. Lebesgue provided de Rham with a lot of help in this period, both with his studies and supporting his first research publications. When he finished his thesis Lebesgue advised him to send it to Élie Cartan and, in 1931, De Rham received his doctorate from the University of Paris before a commission led by Cartan and including Paul Montel and Gaston Julia as examiners. In 1932 de Rham returned to the University of Lausanne as an extraordinary professor. In 1936 he also became a professor at the University of Geneva and continued to hold both positions in parallel until his retirement in 1971.

de Rham was also one of the best mountaineers in Switzerland. As a member of the Independent High Mountain Group of Lausanne since 1944, he opened several difficult routes, some of them in the Valais Alps (such as the south ridge of the Stockhorn from Baltschieder ) and Vaud Alps (such as L'Argentine and Pacheu). In 1944 he wrote a complete climbing guidebook of the Miroir d'Argentine, where he climbed routes until 1980. According to John Milnor, in 1933 de Rham encountered on one of his hikes James Alexander and Hassler Whitney, who were climbing together near the Weisshorn in Valais; this meeting was the beginning of a more than 40-year friendship between Whitney and de Rham.

Mathematics research
The theory of differential forms has classical roots, with the relation between forms and differential topology initiated in the early 20th century by Henri Poincaré and Élie Cartan, who observed the Poincaré lemma as well as the fact that not every closed differential form is exact. Cartan conjectured in 1928 that the Betti numbers of a smooth manifold could be encoded by differential forms. As a particular form of this, he conjectured that a closed form is exact if it integrates to zero over any submanifold without boundary, and that a submanifold without boundary is itself a boundary of another submanifold, if every closed form integrates to zero over it. De Rham, in his 1931 thesis, proved Cartan's conjecture by decomposing an arbitrary differential form into the sum of a closed form and some number of elementary forms, which are differential forms associated to a smooth triangulation of the space.

Following this work, de Rham made several attempts to unify forms and submanifolds into a single kind of mathematical object. He identified the ultimate notion of a current in the 1950s, generalizing (and inspired by) Laurent Schwartz's recent work on distributions. De Rham's work on these topics is now usually formulated in the language of cohomology theory, although he did not do so himself. In this form, his thesis work has become foundational to the field of differential topology, while his theory of currents is basic to geometric measure theory and related fields. His work is particularly important for Hodge theory and sheaf theory.

In an additional part of his 1931 thesis, de Rham introduced higher-dimensional versions of the three-dimensional lens spaces and computed their homology, thereby establishing a necessary condition in order for two lens spaces to be homeomorphic.

The structure of a Riemannian product automatically implies a product structure of the holonomy groups. In 1952 De Rham considered the converse, proving that, if there is a decomposition of the tangent bundle into vector subbundles which are invariant under the holonomy group, then the Riemannian structure must decompose as a product. This result, now known as the de Rham decomposition theorem, has become a fundamental textbook result in Riemannian geometry.

title: Georges de Rham


text:
Talk:Heinrich Göbel

Discussion prior of 2010
Why I reverted the edit on Dec 12, 03:

It has been disputed for many years who "invented" the first light-bulb. There was much parallel development and no clear winner. It would be POV to state clearly that any one individual "invented the first light bulb".

The claim that the Edison/Beacon lawsuits established Goebel as the rightful inventor is false. http://www.heinrich-goebel-realschule.de/Daten_engl.htm and elsewhere says:

''Two more defendant companies present the total of over 100 pieces of evidence as well as old Goebel incandescent lamps. In front of experts, called by the court, Goebel reconstructs the tools he used at that time and also his lamps of 1859. There are inconsistent judgements for and against Edison. Edison is only successful in two processes with appeal. This does not mean that the real truth had come forth. The opposing parties do not continue wit--Hgn-p (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)h these processes because of the high costs and also because the Edison copyright would expire in the following year, 1894.''

Anjouli 13:28, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately, the link is no longer valid. There is now another text at the site which puts a different light on things: There were legaliteies which went both for and against Edison but Goebels blub was deemed to be original and was given priority, a belated satisfaction for the old researcher. (from http://www.heinrich-goebel-realschule.de/e_prozess.htm) -- Any more sources about this? Kruemelmo 10:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From http://www.heinrich-goebel-realschule.de/

On the 14th September 1929, in connection with the electro-technical society in Hanover, Heinrich Goebel's home town of Springe celebrated by putting a plaque up on his birth house.

A bright light burns day and night to symbolise its inventor, Goebel, who was first to introduce the world to electric lamp.

In 1954, in connection with a light studying group from Wiesbaden, the town celebrated the hundredth anniversary of the invention. At the foot of the Deister the Goebel Bastei was founded.

A lamp symbol was donated by lamp industry for the occasion. At the base of the obelisk is a plaque with the inscription.

IN HONOURS OF THE INVENTOR OF ELECTRICAL LAMP

HEINRICH GOEBEL BORN. 20 APRIL 1818 IN SPRINGE DIED 16 DECEMBER 1893 NEW YORK

ESTABLISHED TO 26.06.1954 BY THE CITY BRANCH ON THE OCCASION OF THE CENTENARY OF THE INVENTION

So who is the Inventor?.. Correct your mistake! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.133.206 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 4 November 2005

 * I can make out German only with Babel Fish, but the interesting, and more extensive article in the de.wikipedia seems very well balanced.--12.72.150.30 01:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The final court judgnments in the 1890s were that the Göbel claim was yet another fraud wherein newly constructed bulbs were claimed to be very old. Edison 02:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Plaques put up by nationalists do not count for much in establishing priority of invention. Edison (talk) 04:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Point of view
I have the impression that the article in World Wide School on which the lemma is based, is very much point of view. It does not talk about who made the first lightbulb but who owned the patent for making the first practical lightbulb. If statements like "I took personal charge of running down this man and his pretensions in the section of the city where he lived and among his old neighbors. They were a typical East Side lot--ignorant, generally stupid, incapable of long memory, but ready to oblige a neighbor and to turn an easy dollar by putting a cross-mark at the bottom of a forthcoming friendly affidavit" are used to make a point I can only disqualify this information as slander, and the source as insincere. Adding all information from various sources, even that from World Wide School, it is probable that Goebel is the inventor of the lightbulb, allthough he did not own patents and his invention was to undeveloped to put it in practical use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.84.4.3 (talk • contribs) 08:51, 7 July 2006

Article replaced 2011
The article was replaced between January 28, 2011 and February 14, 2011. The old one was a stub. The content is a shortened version of the article in the de.wikipedia. ( I am one of two main editors of that article.) In the de.wikipedia there are more details about the claims of Henry Goebel concerning his alleged work in the field of constructing electric lamps between 1854 and 1880 in New York, more details about technical reasons and other reasons supporting the thesis of a fraudulent defense and more details about the development of the legend. If you want to have more details or more references or if there is any other criticism, please give your comment here.

I kindly ask you to take care of language improvements.--Hgn-p (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

dead links
Sources 9 and 11 lead to a 403 access forbidden page.

Sources 21 through 23 fail to retrieve the patents.

Source 4 is only visible to subscribers.

I would suggest removing them, with the possible exception of Number 4.

Henry oct/01/2017
 * Thank you. The links are replaced, except Number 4. --Hgn-p (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Heinrich Göbel


text:
De Rham

De Rham may refer to:

People

 * Charles de Rham (1822–1909), American merchant
 * Claudia de Rham (b. 1978), Swiss theoretical physicist
 * Henry Casimir de Rham (1785–1873), Swiss–American merchant and diplomat
 * Jeanne de Rham (1892–1965), American politician and philanthropist
 * Georges de Rham (1903–1990), Swiss mathematician
 * William de Rham (b. 1922), Swiss equestrian

Places

 * DeRham Farm in Philipstown, New York

Businesses

 * De Rham, Iselin & Moore

Other uses

 * De Rham curve
 * De Rham cohomology
 * De Rham invariant
 * De Rham–Weil theorem
 * Hodge–de Rham spectral sequence

title: De Rham


text:
Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents

The Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (FIPA) is a body for developing and setting computer software standards for heterogeneous and interacting agents and agent-based systems.

FIPA was founded as a Swiss not-for-profit organization in 1996 with the ambitious goal of defining a full set of standards for both implementing systems within which agents could execute (agent platforms) and specifying how agents themselves should communicate and interoperate in a standard way.

Within its lifetime the organization's membership included several academic institutions and a large number of companies including Hewlett-Packard, IBM, BT (formerly British Telecom), Sun Microsystems, Fujitsu and many more. A number of standards were proposed, however, despite several agent platforms adopting the "FIPA standard" for agent communication it never succeeded in gaining the commercial support which was originally envisaged. The Swiss organization was dissolved in 2005 and an IEEE standards committee was set up in its place.

The most widely adopted of the FIPA standards are the Agent Management and Agent Communication Language (FIPA-ACL) specifications.

The name FIPA is somewhat of a misnomer as the "physical agents" with which the body is concerned exist solely in software (and hence have no physical aspect).

Systems using FIPA standards

 * Gamma Platform. See FIPA interface
 * Fetch.AI
 * Jade
 * Jadex Agents (Java)
 * Java Intelligent Agent Componentware (JIAC) (Java)
 * The SPADE Multiagent and Organizations Platform (Python)
 * JACK Intelligent Agents (Java)
 * The April Agent Platform (AAP) and Language (April) (No longer actively developed)
 * Zeus Agent Building Toolkit (No longer actively developed)
 * The Fipa-OS agent platform (No longer actively developed)
 * AgentService (C#) (last update: 2009)


text:
13th (Western) Division

The 13th (Western) Division was one of the Kitchener's Army divisions in the First World War, raised from volunteers by Lord Kitchener. It fought at Gallipoli, in Mesopotamia (including the capture of Baghdad) and Persia.

1914
The 13th (Western) Division was formed as part of the First New Army at Salisbury Plain in August 1914. During the formation of the division, Major-General Robert Kekewich was appointed as its first commander. On 5 November 1914, while on sick leave he committed suicide. Although initially meant for service in France, with the rest of the Kitchener New Armies, it was ordered to the Mediterranean as reinforcements for the Anglo-French expedition at Gallipoli.

Gallipoli 1915
The 13th (Western) Division landed at Anzac Cove on the Gallipoli peninsula in July 1915 in preparation for the Battle of Sari Bair (The August Offensive) beginning on 6 August. Although all of its component infantry battalions arrived, the divisional artillery did not arrive for some months. Initially in reserve to the main break-out from Anzac by units of the New Zealand and Australian Division, the 38th and 39th Brigades were sent in as reinforcements as the attack stalled.

The 7th Gloucesters and the 8th Royal Welch Fusiliers were sent to support the Wellington battalion of the New Zealand Infantry Brigade when it made the decisive assault on Chunuk Bair on the morning of 8 August. Battalions of the division formed the core of the force (known as Baldwin's Brigade after the commander, Brigadier-General Anthony Baldwin) to capture Hill Q on 9 August but were not in position in time and so spent the day encamped on a small plateau beneath Chunuk Bair known as The Farm. When the Ottomans counter-attacked on the morning of 10 August the 13th (Western) Division troops on Chunuk Bair and at The Farm, suffered many casualties.

By September 1915, the 13th (Western) Division had suffered nearly 5,500 killed, wounded or missing out of its original strength of 10,500 men. Of the thirteen battalion commanders, ten had become casualties. On 23 August, Major-General Sir Stanley Maude took over the shattered 13th (Western) Division, Shaw being invalided home. At the beginning of October the division was moved from Anzac to Suvla Bay. Even though the division was once again in reserve, it suffered casualties from the Ottoman artillery. The commanders at Gallipoli already realised that the Dardanelles Campaign was a lost cause. To Maude fell the task of making sure that the 13th (Western) Division slipped away in the night during the evacuation of the Suvla Bay positions. Maude, the methodical commander, recorded:

"I do not think we left behind us £200 worth of stuff worth having. I got away all my guns and ammunition and we even destroyed the sandbags which we had to leave in the parapets by ripping them with bayonets or clasp knives to make them useless. The withdrawal was apparently a complete surprise for the Turks, for nothing happened on either night beyond the usual sniping and firing. In a way I could not help feeling a little sorry that they did not find us out, for my division had two strongly prepared lines, each with an excellent field of fire to fall back upon, and if they had only come on we should have given them a real good dressing."

After being evacuated from Suvla, the 13th (Western) Division was ordered in December to reinforce the British forces at Cape Helles. No sooner than the division had arrived through W Beach, than the decision was made to evacuate this last foothold. As the division was preparing to fall back to the beaches, it was attacked by Ottoman units in the late afternoon and evening of 7 January 1916. The main thrust of the attack, the first action under the division's new commander, fell on the 39th Brigade, and in particular the 7th North Staffords defending Fusilier Bluff, who drove off the attackers.

The British evacuation from Helles occurred on the night of 8/9 January 1916. The 13th (Western) Division, fresh from its defensive victory began to fall back to Gully Beach at 5:00 p.m. By 1:15 a.m. the last detachments holding the division's trenches were on the beach waiting to be loaded onto the transports. At 2:30 a.m., Maude was informed that there were not enough transports coming to Gully Beach to carry off the division. Maude and his headquarters staff, as well as the pickets that had been covering the beach site, had to make the 2 mi run in the dark to W Beach in order to be transported out of the Helles. General William Birdwood wrote that he considered the 13th (Western) Division was the best division in the Dardanelles Army. Following its withdrawal, the 13th (Western) Division was sent to Egypt, where it was reunited with its artillery units, many of which had been stationed in Egypt while the rest of the division had been fighting in Gallipoli.

Mesopotamia (Kut) March–April 1916
After a brief refit in Egypt where the division's battalions were being brought back up to strength, the division was dispatched to Mesopotamia (modern Iraq), as reinforcements for Anglo-Indian forces attempting to relieve the siege of Kut. It took until the end of March for the entire division to make the journey from Egypt to Basra and then from Basra up to the Tigris to join the rest of the Tigris Corps. The 13th (Western) Division discovered that the supply situation in Mesopotamia was very difficult, the port facilities at Basra were inadequate and lacking good roads or a railway, river transport was necessary to move supplies into the hinterland. There were insufficient numbers of boats to keep the Anglo-Indian force, which the 13th (Western) Division was joining, adequately supplied.

The 13th (Western) Division brought with it modern, heavy artillery, including howitzers and as the strongest unit available, became the spearhead of the attempt by the Tigris Corps to relieve the Kut garrison, beginning on 6 April 1916. The division fought at Hanna, Fallahiya, and Sanniyat. After taking the first two places, the 13th (Western) Division was stopped by the Ottoman forces under the command of Khalil Pasha at the Battle of the Sanniyat on 9 April 1916. During the fighting on 5–9 April 1916, four 13th (Western) Division men were awarded the Victoria Cross. The first was Captain Angus Buchanan for his actions on 5 April 1916. On 9 April 1916, Chaplain William Addison, Private James Fynn and Lieutenant Edgar Myles were awarded the Victoria Cross for saving wounded soldiers. In three days of battle, the division was reduced to 5,328 effectives.

Exhausted by its three days of fighting, the 13th (Western) Division became the reserve for the Tigris Corps during the next phase of the operation. On 16 April 1916, it supported the 3rd (Lahore) Division on the right bank of the Tigris, as it captured the Bait Isa line, part of the Es Sinn defences supporting the Sanniyat position on the opposite bank. Taking the Bait Isa line exposed the flank of the Sanniyat position to enfilading artillery and machine-gun fire. On the night of 16/17 April 1916, the Khalil Pasha committed his reserves to a counter-attack to retake Bait Isa. The counter-attack struck as the 13th (Western) Division was preparing to storm the next defensive position. Although the 13th (Western) Division and 3rd (Lahore) Division hung on to their gains, the Ottoman counter-attack had taken the steam out of the Anglo-Indian offensive.

With the 13th (Western) Division so depleted, it was reduced to providing machine-gun and artillery fire for the 7th (Meerut) Division when it made the final push to break the Ottoman lines at the Sanniyat. On 22 April 1916, the divisional artillery and machine-guns were used to support the abortive attack by the 7th (Meerut) Division. On 29 April 1916, following the Tigris Corps' failure to break the Ottoman siege and the sinking of the steamer Julnar as it attempted to steam upriver past the Ottoman defenders, the Kut garrison surrendered. At the end of August 13 (Western) Division was withdrawn to Amara to ease the supply situation.

Baghdad, December 1916 – March 1917
Between May and December 1916, the 13th (Western) Division refitted and re-equipped in preparation for the drive northward to capture Baghdad. In July, Major-General Maude was elevated to command the expanded and renamed Mesopotamian Expeditionary Force. In his place, Brigadier General Cayley, formerly the commander of the 39th Brigade, was elevated to command of the division. On 12 December 1916, the division advanced from Sheik Sa'ad on Kut. At the Second Battle of Kut, the division helped drive the Ottoman forces from the town. After a brief pause, the division drove north, crossing the Diyala River, and participated in the capture of Baghdad on 11 March 1917. Following the capture of Baghdad, the 13th (Western) Division fought a number of battles to consolidate British control over the Baghdad vilayet. This included fighting at Dellis Abbas (27–28 March 1917), Duqma (29 March 1917), Nahr Kalis (9–15 April 1917), the passage of the Adhaim (18 April 1917) and the action of the Shatt al 'Adhaim (30 April 1917). Despite the relative inaction of the British to advance further, the division also fought at the Second and Third Action of Jabal Hamrin (16–20 October 1917 and 3–6 December 1917).

Mosul, February–October 1918
Along with the rest of the Mesopotamian Expeditionary Force, the 13th (Western) Division remained in the Baghdad vilayet for the rest of 1917 and the early part of 1918. The division fought its last engagement as a whole at the action of Tuz Khurmatli on 29 April 1918. In July 1918, the 39th Brigade was detached from the division and be assigned to Dunsterforce (General Lionel Dunsterville). The 40th Brigade was detached from the division, along with the divisional artillery, to support the drive to Mosul and north.

Occupation and Demobilization
With the conclusion of the war, the 13th (Western) Division remained in the Mosul area on occupation duties until evacuated at the end of 1918. In 1919, two of the division's battalions, 6th East Lancashire and 6th Loyal North Lancashire Regiment, were transferred to the Army of Occupation. The rest of the division proceeded to Amara where it was demobilised on 17 March 1919.

Order of battle
Data taken from Moberly 1997 unless indicated. The division consisted of the following brigades (15 July 1916) (left the Division between 10 July and 19 August 1918, and attached to North Persia Force)
 * 38th Brigade (G.O.C.: Brigadier-General J. W. O'Dowda)
 * 6th (Service) Battalion, King's Own (Royal Lancaster Regiment)
 * 6th (Service) Battalion, East Lancashire Regiment
 * 6th (Service) Battalion, Prince of Wales's Volunteers (South Lancashire Regiment)
 * 6th (Service) Battalion, Loyal North Lancashire Regiment
 * 38th Machine Gun Company (joined 24 October 1916)
 * 38th Supply & Transport Column Army Service Corps (A.S.C.) (formed January 1917, merged into the Division Train 1 August 1918)
 * 38th Trench Mortar Battery (G Battery joined from 39th Brigade 7 October 1917, renamed 38th Battery February 1918)
 * 39th Brigade (G.O.C. Brigadier-General Walter Cayley)
 * 9th (Service) Battalion, Royal Warwickshire Regiment
 * 7th (Service) Battalion, Gloucestershire Regiment
 * 9th (Service) Battalion, Worcestershire Regiment
 * 7th (Service) Battalion, Prince of Wales's (North Staffordshire Regiment)
 * 39th Machine Gun Company (joined 26 October 1916)
 * 39th Supply & Transport Column A.S.C. (formed January 1917)
 * 39th Trench Mortar Battery
 * G Battery ( joined 13 January 1917, moved to 38th Brigade 7 October 1917)
 * H Battery (transferred from 14th (Indian) Division 8 October 1917 renamed 39th Battery, 18 February 1918)
 * 40th Brigade (G.O.C: Brigadier General A. C. Lewin)
 * 8th (Service) Battalion, Cheshire Regiment
 * 8th (Service) Battalion, Royal Welsh Fusiliers
 * 4th (Service) Battalion, South Wales Borderers
 * 8th (Service) Battalion, Welsh Regiment (left January 1915 became divisional pioneers)
 * 5th (Service) Battalion, Duke of Edinburgh's (Wiltshire Regiment) (joined December 1914 from division troops)
 * 40th Machine Gun Company (joined 24 October 1916)
 * 40th Supply & Transport Column A.S.C. (formed January 1917, merged into the Division Train 1 August 1918)
 * 40th Trench Mortar Battery (joined as I Battery 23 September 1917, renamed 40th battery 18 February 1918)
 * Divisional Troops:
 * 5th (Service) Battalion, Wiltshire Regiment (left for 40th Brigade December 1914)
 * 8th (Service) Battalion, Welsh Regiment (Pioneers from January 1915)
 * 88th Company Royal Engineers
 * 273rd Company, MGC formed October–November 1917
 * D Squadron, 1/1st Hertfordshire Yeomanry (divisional mounted troops) (joined 8 July 1916, left 20 November 1916, rejoined 3 March 1917, left 3 August 1917)
 * C Squadron, 33rd (Indian) Cavalry (attached briefly in March 1916)
 * 13th (Western) Divisional Cyclist Company, Army Cyclist Corps
 * 13th (Western) Divisional Train A.S.C.
 * 120th, 121st, 122nd, 123rd Companies (left June 1915)
 * 38th and 40th Brigade Transport and Supply Columns, new Divisional Transport and Supply Column (merged and formed 1 August 1918, renamed as 13th (Western) Divisional Train)
 * 24th Mobile Veterinary Section Army Veterinary Corps
 * 10th Field Bakery A.S.C. (joined as first British mobile field bakery, 23 April 1916)
 * 31st Field Butchery A.S.C. (joined 23 April 1916)
 * Royal Artillery (Brigadier-General F. E. L. Barker)
 * LXVI Brigade, Royal Field Artillery (R.F.A.)
 * LXVII Brigade, R.F.A. (left October 1915 for 10th (Irish) Division)
 * LXVIII Brigade, R.F.A. (left October 1915 for 10th (Irish) Division)
 * LXIX (Howitzer) Brigade, R.F.A. (broken up May 1916)
 * LV Brigade, R.F.A. (joined January 1916 from 10th (Irish) Division)
 * LVI Brigade, R.F.A. (joined January 1916 from 10th (Irish) Division left July 1916)
 * 13th Heavy Battery, Royal Garrison Artillery (R.G.A.) (left 30 May 1915)
 * 91st Heavy Battery, R.G.A. (joined 7 June 1915, left 1917)
 * 74th Heavy Battery, R.G.A. (joined 24 August 1916, left 23 November 1916)
 * 157th Heavy Battery, R.G.A. (one section attached January–February 1917)
 * 2/104th Heavy Battery, R.G.A. (attached February–March and October–December 1917)
 * 157th Siege Battery, R.G.A. (attached in February 1917)
 * 26th (Jacobs) Mountain Battery, R.G.A. (joined 23 October 1917, left 10 August 1918)
 * 177th Heavy Battery, R.G.A. (joined 25 October 1917, left 29 May 1918)
 * 384th Siege Battery, R.G.A. (joined 25 October 1917, left 1 October 1918)
 * 387th Siege Battery, R.G.A. (joined 25 October 1917, left 24 March 1918)
 * 133rd, 135th, 136th and 137th Trench Howitzer Batteries (joined January–February 1917)
 * Royal Engineers
 * 71st Field Company
 * 72nd Field Company (left for North Persia Force with 39th Brigade Group)
 * 88th Field Company
 * 13th (Western) Divisional Signals Company
 * Royal Army Medical Corps
 * 39th Field Ambulance
 * 40th Field Ambulance (left for North Persia Force with 39th Brigade Group)
 * 41st Field Ambulance
 * 28th Sanitary Section (joined March 1916)

Campaigns

 * Battle of Gallipoli
 * Battle of Sari Bair 6–10 August 1915
 * Battle of Chunuk Bair
 * Russell’s Top. 7 August 1915
 * Hill 60. 21 Aug and 27–28 August 1915
 * Evacuation of Suvla. 19–20 December 1915
 * Last Ottoman attack at Helles. 7 January 1916
 * Evacuation of Helles. 7–8 Jan 1916
 * Mesopotamian campaign
 * Siege of Kut
 * Capture of Hanna and Fallahiya. 5 April 1916
 * Second attack on Sannaiyat. 9 April 1916
 * Action of Bait 'Isa. 17–18 April 1916
 * Third attack on Sannaiyat. 22 April 1916
 * Fall of Baghdad
 * Capture of the Hai Salient. 25 January – 5 February 1917
 * Capture of the Dahra Bend. 9–16 February 1917
 * Passage of the Diyala. 7–10 Mar 1917
 * Occupation of Baghdad. 11 March 1917
 * Dellis Abbas. 27–28 March 1917
 * Duqma. 29 March 1917
 * Nahr Kalis. 9–15 April 1917
 * Passage of the 'Adhaim. 18 April 1917
 * Action of the Shatt al 'Adhaim. 30 April 1917
 * Second action of Jabal Hamrin. 16–20 October 1917
 * Third action of Jabal Hamrin. 3–6 December 1917
 * Tuz Khurmatli. 29 April 1918

title: 13th (Western) Division