text:
Francis de Rottenburg

Major-General Sir Francis de Rottenburg, baron de Rottenburg (4 November 1757 – 24 April 1832) was a military officer and colonial administrator who served in the armies of the Kingdom of France and later the United Kingdom.

Early life and service
Franz von Rottenburg was born in Danzig, Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth on 4 November 1757, the son of Franz Gottlieb von Rottenburg (2 April 1725 – 2 March 1799) and Anna Maria Brunati (20 April 1739 – 15 October 1799). He served in the French Royal Army, under the name de Rottenburg rather than von Rottenburg, from March 1782 to September 1791, his service ending during the early years of the French Revolution, then returning to Danzig and commanding a battalion of infantry in Tadeusz Kościuszko's uprising.

In December 1795, de Rottenburg joined the British Army, serving in Hompesch's Hussars, a unit of foreign-born troops. In 1796 he helped to establish Hompesch's Light Infantry, which later became part of the 5th Battalion of the 60th Regiment of Foot. This battalion was formed mainly from German émigrés. De Rottenburg rose to the rank of lieutenant-colonel in the unit, and commanded it during the Irish Rebellion of 1798 and the capture of Suriname in 1799.

De Rottenburg wrote a series of manuals (initially in German) which became the basis for the training of riflemen and light infantry under Sir John Moore. He later commanded a brigade of light troops in the Walcheren Campaign.

Service in North America
De Rottenburg was promoted to Major General on the staff in British North America and arrived in Canada in 1810. When the War of 1812 with the United States broke out, he assumed command of the Montreal district. He assumed responsibility for both the civil and military leadership of Lower Canada on two occasions during the absence of Sir George Prevost, the commander in chief.

In 1813, he succeeded Major General Sir Roger Hale Sheaffe as military and civil commander in Upper Canada. He was accused of neglecting civil duties and of being unduly cautious in his military decisions. He refused to send reinforcements to Major General Henry Procter, commanding on the Detroit frontier, and this ultimately led to the British defeats at the Battle of Lake Erie and the Battle of Moraviantown. He later imposed martial law in the Eastern and Johnstown districts to force farmers to sell supplies to the army, an unpopular move which his successor repealed but was nevertheless forced to reimpose upon all of Upper Canada.

In December 1813, de Rottenburg was succeeded by Lieutenant General Sir Gordon Drummond, and returned to his previous posts in Lower Canada. Later in 1814, substantial British reinforcements arrived in Canada. Sir George Prevost prepared to invade the United States by way of Lake Champlain. He placed de Rottenburg in command of a division of three brigades (led by Major Generals Manley Power, Thomas Brisbane and Frederick Philipse Robinson). However, Prevost personally led the campaign, which was defeated at the Battle of Plattsburgh. Prevost, de Rottenburg and their staffs were criticised by the three brigade commanders, all of whom had seen much action in the Peninsular War, for their lack of fortitude at Plattsburgh.

Later life
De Rottenburg was recalled to Britain in December 1814 and left Quebec in July 1815. He was appointed Knight Commander of the Royal Guelphic Order in 1817 and Knight Bachelor on 12 February 1818. He was promoted to Lieutenant General on 12 August 1819. He died in Portsmouth on 24 April 1832.

Family
De Rottenburg had married Juliana Wilhelmina Carolina von Orelli, the daughter of Johann Ulrich von Orelli, a Neapolitan general, in Bratislava on 4 January 1802. They had one son and one daughter:
 * George Frederick de Rottenburg was a British Army officer who arrived in Canada in 1830s and was militia officer in Upper Canada. Rottenburg left Canada in 1852.
 * Frances de Rottenburg married Lord William Paget in 1827, with issue. She died 6 May 1875.

title: Francis de Rottenburg


text: Template:Eliteserien

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

title: Template:Eliteserien


text:
Desna (river)

The Desna (Десна; Десна) is a river in Russia and Ukraine, a major left-tributary of the Dnieper. Its name means "right hand" in the Old East Slavic language. It has a length of 1130 km, and its drainage basin covers 88900 km2.

In Ukraine, the river's width ranges from 60 to 250 m, with its average depth being 3 m. The mean annual discharge at its mouth is 360 m³/s. The river freezes over from early December to early April, and is navigable from Novhorod-Siverskyi to its mouth, a length of about 535 km.

The water level of the river reached its lowest recorded point in 140 years in June 2020. This water level was 5 m (16 ft) below normal for that time of year.

Course
The Desna originates in the Smolensk Heights of Smolensk Oblast, Russia. The river's source lies in Yelninsky District, east-southeast from the city of Smolensk and not far from Yelnya in a forest near the village of Naleti. The Desna then flows south through a low and swampy valley toward the city of Bryansk, where the river's right bank rises.

After its confluence with the Seym near the Russian-Ukrainian border, the river then widens, splitting into numerous smaller branches. Its right bank declines again near the city of Chernihiv, and again near one of its tributaries, the Oster, where the Desna continues its course through a low, muddy plain until it finally reaches its mouth near Kyiv at the Dnieper River.

Tributaries
The Desna has many tributaries. The most significant (length more than 100 km) are, from source to mouth:

 * Vetma (left)
 * Bolva (left)
 * Navlya (left)
 * Nerussa (left)
 * Sudost (right)
 * Ubid (right)
 * Seym (left)
 * Snov (right)
 * Oster (left)

Cities and towns on the Desna

 * Yelnya, Russia
 * Desnogorsk, Russia
 * Zhukovka, Russia
 * Seltso, Russia
 * Bryansk, Russia
 * Trubchevsk, Russia
 * Novhorod-Siverskyi, Ukraine
 * Chernihiv, Ukraine
 * Oster, Ukraine
 * Kyiv, Ukraine
 * Snov'yanka, Ukraine

The Svensky Monastery is located at the confluence of the Desna and the Sven River.

title: Desna (river)


text:
Talk:History of Portugal

Help needed with the Liberation of Goa
hi... We're trying to get up a functional wikipedia page regarding the capture of the Portuguese colony of Goa by the Indians in 1961. So far we have had abundant information from indian military and history sources, but are faced with a paucity of information when it comes to portraying the Portuguese side of the conflict. we would appreciate any inputs you can offer in this regard for The Liberation of Goa

Do forgive me for calling it the 'Liberation of Goa'. I imagine that it would be called differently by the portuguese, and we would want to reflect that too in the page.

Thank you.

Tigerassault 13:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there are very few online resources. And most in Portuguese only. the official Portuguese archive site is http://www.iantt.pt/ may be they can help. good luck. --BBird 21:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

John?
I don't belive João IV should be translated to John IV, because that's just pointless and missleadding. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.90.88.137 (talk • contribs)

 * This is the English language Wikipedia, remember? The Ogre 16:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree with 84 on this one. If someone was named Juan, would you make it John. Furthermore, if one were to move to another country, would their name change? A name is the same in any language, not just its native tongue. snowball71 14:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

 * This issue seems to need someone who has steeped themselves in European history, as I'll explain. I'm ambivalent about it myself. Personally, I would like to abolish the translation of given names: nobody would translate last names (Mr. Wells and Mr. Peters are not renamed Sr. Pozos and Sr. Perez in a Spanish language report, so why should given names be translated?). On the other hand, in European historical traditions such translations have been entrenched for centuries (especially for royalty). What's more, there seems to be a great inconsistency at least in English as to whether it gets done or not. Kings Alfonso are never called "Alphonse", but kings Heinrich, Enrique, or Henri are usually called "Henry". This is why I see a need for advice from professionals or very advanced amateurs. Hurmata 03:54, 6 April 2007 my fiend

Something Missing
A large chunk of Portuguese history seems to be missing between "Crises of the Nineteenth Century" (ending in 1834) and "The First Republic" (beginning in 1910). Has this never been written up for wiki, or was it deleted?
 * I'm currently working on that. I've already written History of Portugal (1578-1777) and I'm finishing History of Portugal (1777-1834). Then I'll start History of Portugal (1834-1910). After that I'll summarize the info and put it in the History of Portugal article. Feel free to join me. If you're kind please make a revision of what I've written so far in the first too so that we can eliminate POV's. Thanks. Gameiro 00:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

POV
The first lines are an obvious POV!
 * I Agree. I have always agreed. It's time to change it. I'm on it. I think. The Ogre 14:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Changed it already. Now it just states Portugal's ancient origin in the Early Middle Ages and mentions its importance and Empire in the Ages of Discovery. The Ogre 14:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

WWI
I didn't know that Portugal participated WWI. What was the outcome for Portugal? ---
 * Portugal has allways cared for its allies. The country has a long relation with England, that had helped mantain Portugal independence due to Spanish/ Castillian wishes to control Portugal. Just like in the case of Iraq, when the country helped the US. though most disagreed with the motives of that. Portugal also did not had a motive not to accept the block made by France to England. The country was invaded, and part of the territory is still ruled by Spain (Olivença), and England hadnt help in fact, it made things worse. Normally, Alies don't care much about Portugal. LOL. Real gains to Portugal being in the WWI there werent any. -Pedro 17:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * That's not completly true... Although the British asked for the German ships in Portuguese ports to be arrested, the main reason that forced Portugal to participate was not the obsolete alliance with the British, that the Republicans despised and neglected, mainly due to the question of the Pink Map, but the German threat to the Portuguese possessions in Africa, mainly in Mozambique from the German Tanzania that started even before the declaration of War from Portugal. The war devastated the Portuguese economy and the only thing Portugal really achieved was a small piece of land in the border between Mozambique and Tanzania.Afonso Silva 23:23, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Mormuz
Is Mormuz Ormuz?

Integrating a new series

 * After the heading Main article The Establishment of the Monarchy in Portugal. this article needs a brief summary of the fuller treatment at the sub-article.

 * After the heading Main article The Consolidation of the Monarchy in Portugal (1279-1415) this article needs a brief summary of the fuller treatment at the sub-article.
 * And others... --Wetman 06:21, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The reforms of Pombal
In an article on the history of Portugal there is practically no mention of the Marquis of Pombal, one of the most influential figures in all Portuguese history! There's only a small mention of his reforms in the timeline, and no context is given. Does anyone else have a problem with this? --Rhesusman 01:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Lacunae are easily fixed. Just condense the article on Sebastião de Melo, Marquis of Pombal, maybe even improving the original, to a suitable paragraph in the context of the whole history of Portugal, give it a subsection heading like the one above, and follow the heading with
 * Main article: Sebastião de Melo, Marquis of Pombal. Presto!--Wetman 01:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll see if I can do it! I've never actually messed with content in an article before, feel free to change it if I screw up.  Rhesusman  06:32, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd open up the Pombal entry, keep eliminating extraneous detail, keeping the broad history of Portugal in mind and finally enter the edited distillation into History of Portugal. (BtW, mind you don't inadvertently Save the reduced version at Pombal!) --Wetman 04:41, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I made the addition, but I'm not sure if I kept too much of the original article's information. The section is rather longish, but I think that Pombal was pretty important.  Do I need to do anything else to show that I'm not plagiarizing?  I included a reference to the main article.  Feel free to fix anything you think needs it.  --Rhesusman 07:13, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

History of the Democratic Portugal
Several topics on Portuguese history from 1974 until the present are featured in the Legislative elections in Portugal series. If anyone can fit that into the article it would be good. Afonso Silva 23:24, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Template
What do you think of the template?--Gameiro 02:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Improvement drive
The article on John III of Portugal is currently nominated to be improved by This week's improvement drive. Support the article with your vote or comment on the nomination.--Fenice 09:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Map of Portuguese Empire
I think a World Map of Portuguese colonial posessions throughout history is needed in Portuguese Empire! Dont' you agree? The Ogre 14:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Estado Novo
Does someone with interrest in the Estado Novo period clean that section. I copy pasted it in here from Portugal article, it seems a copy paste from a Blog, and is extremelly POV and borring! --Pedro 19:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I didnt delete it because there's useful info that can be used when cleaned. --Pedro 01:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I made a start, condensing it and removing sarcasm and extravagance. --Wetman 01:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks, now is more comprehensive. But it has still some issues, and some info like the assassinations that need to be referenced. The all regime was not that repressive, I don't know any situation of repressiveness (beside a communist going to jail), although it was clearly a ditactorship, but not a severe one about the idea of keeping the people ignorant during the regime is widelly accepted today by the people and most people also say it were hard times. But that section has the classic Portuguese Communist Party blah blah blah, which is not very based on reality. For instance, during the regime a lot of people went to Africa without nothing, but constructed their lifes and became rich, but returned also without nothing with the descolonization. -Pedro 11:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

As of today, this part of the article still looks like communist propaganda --lies, cliches, partial stories. --BBird 19:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed from the article -- it must be reworded, wheighted and substatiated if these (legitim but hardly facts) povs are reinserted.

quote Furthermore the richness produced in the great growth of the economy in the 1960's in the country (and empire), was being accumulated by a small minority, while the workers (both nationals and from the Empire) remained ignorant, illiterate and living in poverty.

Portugal's acceptance in the OECD, NATO and EFTA, was not an unconditional sign of the international acceptance of the regime: in the context of the cold war and international pragmatism, Portugal was a small country with a relatively important geostrategical position, thus Western interests turned a blind eye on the regime's policies.

unquote

Elections were stolen, there was no freedom of speech, if you disagreed you would go to jail. However there were no death penalty since the 19th century as far as I could investigate. There's not lot of information because everything was censured is normal. And then the with the 25 de Abril the communists exagerated on everything..like the fascists... forevertheuni

Peer review
History of Portugal (1777-1834) is now being peer reviewed. Please, if you want, go there and state your opinion. Thank you. Gameiro 19:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to state that it is now a featured article candidate. You can support or oppose here. Thanks. Gameiro 01:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

1920's history
I am reasonably familiar with German history in the 1920's and happen to know that Mauser was supplying arms to Portugal right after WW1. The question I have no answer to is; which Portugese government(s) or institutions were buying, and whether there was major military/police activity either at home or in the colonies? MauserWerk 20:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Subdivions of the History of Portugal
The subdivision articles for the History of Portugal are quite a mess. The template is representative of that mess, by having large periods together with small points in Portugal's history (e.g. 1383-85 crisis and Struggle for the Portuguese throne). We should have a simple elucidative template with onky the relevant periods, and eliminating things like Kingdom of Portugal and Galicia. I propose the following scheme:

 * 1) Prehistory of Portugal
 * 2) Pre-Roman Portugal
 * 3) Roman Portugal (History of Portugal (139 BC-410 AD); 139, death of Viriathus; 410 barbarian invasion in Iberia)
 * 4) History of Portugal (410-711) (Barbarian Portugal; 711 Muslim invasion)
 * 5) History of Portugal (711-1112 (Muslim Portugal and early Reconquista period; 1112 formation of the Second County of Portugal)
 * 6) History of Portugal (1112-1279) (Establishment of the Monarchy; 1279 end of Portuguese reconquista and beginning of Dinis reign)
 * 7) History of Portugal (1279-1415) (Consolidation of the Monarchy; 1415 conquest of Ceuta, beggining of Portuguese expansion)
 * 8) History of Portugal (1415-1498) (part of Portugal in the Age of Discovery; 1498 discovery of the maritime route to India)
 * 9) History of Portugal (1498-1580) (part of Portuguese Empire and Struggle for the throne of Portugal; 1580 Philip II of Spain becomes Philip I of Portugal)
 * 10) History of Portugal (1580-1640) (Iberian Union; 1640 restoration of independence)
 * 11) History of Portugal (1640-1777) (Age of enlightenment; 1777 end of Marquis of Pombal's rule)
 * 12) History of Portugal (1777-1834) (Absolutism vs. liberalism; 1834 end of the civil war)
 * 13) History of Portugal (1834-1910) (Constitutional monarchy; 1910 establishment of the Republic)
 * 14) History of Portugal (1910-1926) (Portuguese First Republic; 1926 28 May 1926 coup d'état)
 * 15) History of Portugal (1926-1974) (Ditadura Nacional and Estado Novo; 1974 Carnation Revolution)

It was called the Ditadura Militar and not the Ditadura Nacional

 * 1) History of Portugal (1974-1986) (Early democratic period; 1986 Portugal's accession to the EC)
 * 2) History of Portugal (1986-2000) (Cavaco-Guterres golden period; 2000 world recession and problems for the Guterres government)
 * 3) History of Portugal (2000-2010) (start of a decade-like articles)

Can someone give an opinion on that. Thanks. Joaopais 01:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

 * 1) The first topic sounds better as "Prehistoric Portugal", but I don't know if that is the most correct form.
 * 2) The Roman period should be considered as Lusitania or something like that, Portugal didn't existed yet.
 * 3) The 3rd should be something like barbarian invasion and settlement in the west of Iberian peninsula.
 * 4) Since the Reconquista is not a Portuguese-only topic, it should be merged with the formation of Portugal, I agree, but the article should go until the independence.
 * 5) The expansion of the country under the rule of the first 5 kings is a nice subdivision, as I said, it should begin with the independence, the Treaty of Zamora, perhaps, would be a good starting point.
 * 6) The following subdivision should be splited, from D. Dinis until the 1383-85 crisis and a second article from the crisis until the beggining of the exploration era, with a good explanation of the reasons that made Portugal the pioneer.
 * 7) 1415-1498 seems good.
 * 8) 1498-1580 seems good.
 * 9) 1580-1640 is an obvious choice.
 * 10) 1640-1777 seems good, this last two periods are a good subdivision of the current article.
 * 11) The reasons that led to the war and the war itself is a good choice.
 * 12) 1834-1910 is fine, since nothing happened until the late 1890s.
 * 13) The first republic is good.
 * 14) The years of the dictature are a good choice, if a future article on the topic becomes too large, we can split it.
 * 15) 1974-1986 is a good choice, further info on the PREC can be included in a proper article.

PREC stands for Periodo Revolucionario em Curso. The revolution effectively ended with the publication of the Document of the Nine in November 1975 and the election of the First Constitutional Government in April 1976. The period from 1976 to 1986 was the period of democratic consolidation, and cannot properly be included in PREC.

 * 1) 1986-2000 is ok, from 2000 until now nothing of important happened, as usual, but we can wait.

What do you say? Sorry for taking so much to reply. Afonso Silva 13:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your comments. Do not apologize, I'm the one who always answers days later. Ok, here's what I have to say (the numbering corresponds to mine):

 * 1) If we have a History of Portugal we should have a Pre-History of Portugal. But I'm fine with Prehistoric Portugal. This topic should be about things in Portugal before writing was invented.
 * 2) This one should be about everything that happened in Iberian, Celtic and Celtiberian (and eventually Lusitanian) Portugal, with the contacts with the Greeks, Phoenicians (and Carthaginians), and Northern Celtic peoples. This period is documented by mediterranean peoples and therefore, is not considered Prehistory.
 * Ok, I agree that for now Lusitania and Gallaecia are good. But what I meant was having an article for every period in the history of Portugal only focusing in the important events and transformations in today's Portuguese territory. As today's territory corresponds to the majority of Roman Lusitania, a minor part of Roman Gallaecia and the, at that time uninhabited but perhaps visited, Azores and Madeira, we should have a major article covering the importance of the Roman presence in our country.
 * 1) When you say that this 3rd period should be "Barbarian invansion and settlement in the west of Iberian Peninsula" you mean its article name or the subject of the article? I believe it's better to have articles in the format History of Portugal (year-year) since it avoids problems in naming such as the Timeline of Muslim presence in the Iberian Peninsula or the article covering the 1578-1580 succession crisis in Portugal that is named Struggle for the throne of Portugal and can be about the Afonso Henriques vs. his mother crisis, the Sancho II vs. Afonso II crisis, the 1383-1385 crisis, the 1640 Restoration, the Afonso VI vs. Peter II crisis, the civil war, etc.
 * 2) In the Muslim period, I opted for a mixed-article where we can have both sides of the conflict amid the Reconquista. The time period goes from the 711 muslim invasion until the 1112 formation of the County of Portugal under Count Henry of Burgundy. It covers the initial Muslim conquer; the almost immediate christian reaction; the formation of the Asturian, then Leonese, and then Castilian-Leonese kingdoms that initiated the Reconquista in today's Portuguese territory conquering Porto early on with the help of Vímara Peres; the First County of Portugal; the Kingdom of Galicia and Portugal; the County of Coimbra; both counties under Raymond of Burgundy (count of Galicia); and the other side, with the Emirate, then Caliphate, and ultimately the taifa kingdoms in the south, in addition to the muslim agricultural, navigational, trading, mathematical and cultural improvements.
 * 3) You said you prefered the History of Portugal (1112-1279) to start from the Treaty of Zamora in 1143. I think this article should be about the formation of Portugal as an independent entity. Since this project started earlier with Count Henry I think we should stick to the period from 1112 (formation of the County) until the end of the Portuguese reconquista. It would be odd to separate the Battle of Ourique, the treaty of Zamora, the papal bull, the conquest of Lisbon, etc, from the Battle of São Mamede, Count Henry's incursions in León, Teresa vs. Urraca wars, etc. These are all part of the formation.
 * 4) You propose that this article should be splited between "Dinis to the 1383-1385 crisis" and "from there to 1415 with an explanation of Portugals pioneering explorations". I could agree with the Dinis to 1383-1385 crisis, but the second period would be too short for an article (1383/1385-1415 = 32/34 years). I personally think that the 1415 marks a great starting point in Portuguese exploration but I wouldn't be mad with it starting with in 1385.
 * 5) What do you think this period should be called: History of Portugal (1415-1498) or Portuguese discoveries (I prefer the first since the discoveries continued and perhaps preceded)
 * 6) Same thing as above: History of Portugal (1498-1580) or Portuguese Empire (I'm for the first again since the Portuguese Empire ended in 1976 (African colonies), 1999 (Macau) or 2002 (East Timor)
 * 7) Same thing: History of Portugal (1580-1640) or Iberian Union (the last one can be about both countries, and it was a concept both before - 1383-85 crisis, Manuel I's attempts to seize the Spanish throne, the death of Portuguese princes that were heirs of Spain; and after, the Iberism of the 19th century, etc.
 * 8) no objections
 * 9) no objections
 * 10) no objections (just to state that many important things did happen during the early years of liberalism: severel small civil wars, Patuleia, Maria da Fonte, Revolta dos Marechais, Saldanhada, Cabralismo, Setembrismo, Cartismo. It is the period of the Dukes, Marquis, Counts, Viscounts and Barons as leaders known for its political instability)
 * 11) no objections
 * 12) I didn't know what to do with the military dictatorship as it is only a period of 7 (!) years. It should have an article on it, and for it to be long it has to be extremely detailed since there are few things to say. For now, perhaps, in the template we should have and entry on Dictatorship covering both periods Ditadura Nacional and Estado Novo. Military Dictatorship should have a highlighted "see also" (like the PREC in 1974-1986) in the first part of History of Portugal (1926-1974), that must obviously be named Estado Novo. What do you think?

I think that this is wrong. A great deal happened in the seven years of the Military Dictatorship that was to determine the course of Portuguese politics throughout the Estado Novo. Firstly, Salazar's rise to power was solely due to the political infighting within the military dictatorship, and it was during this time that his relationship with President Carmona was established. There were also several attempts to restore democracy, and there was the rise of an important fascist organisation and several coups. To say that there are 'few things to say' is just nonsense.

 * 1) no objections
 * 2) no objections
 * 3) no objections

Finaly, I'd like to say that this is only my opinion and I encourage you and everyone to reach a better format. I'll not be mad if this turns out different from what I'm proposing. We really need some WikiProject to clean this mess. Thanks Joao  pais  02:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

 * You can see my proposed templates here. Be bold changing them. Joao  pais  03:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll reply only to your doubts, the remaining issues seem to be ok.

4. Barbarian invansion and settlement in the west of Iberian Peninsula should be the subject, not the name, the name should be sorter, like "Barbarian invasion of Lusitania", somthing like that. 6. All right, perhaps your choice is better, 1112-1279 is good as it describe the whole formation process. 7. Although the 2nd period is shorter, 34 years, the 83-85 crisis has lots to be included, we have good articles on that period, like Aljubarrota Battle or the article on the crisis itself, we could then describe the process that made us the pioneers in exploration. The following article would start on 1415. 8. It should be named 1415-1498, it keeps consistency, the same for the following articles. 15. The two dictatorial regimes should be merged as the second evolved from the first, separating them would not be a good choice.

About the template, the 3rd one seems better. What do you say? Cheers! Mário 23:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * we don't need to divide 1974-1986 and 1986-2000. The third republic should be all joined, since nothing happens today, and instead of history it seems we will end up with detailed political articles *blerg* insted of history.--Pedro

 * You seem to ignore the concept of politics and the role of politics in every historical event. Politics is not about campaigns and parliaments and guys that seem to make absolutely nothing. Politics is about different ideas, different decisions and about what group controls what. Every historical transformation is originated by a clash of interests, interests of different classes, in the majority of the situations. Along with that, history articles treat Portugal as a country, as a state, and a state is an entity responsible for ruling a territory, so, History of Portugal is mainly the history of how Portugal was governed, military history also makes no sense without the respective political context. Of course other topics have their own history and should be included, such as cultural phenomena, diseases and plagues, natural disasters, sporting events, etc. Even this subjects may have origins in political decisions or political changes may be among their consequences. The 1974-1986 is a different period than 1986 until present, Portugal was a very different country 20 years ago, and not only in the political sense. Along with that, recent periods are much well documented, so, we'll have much more to include. Mário 19:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Portugal - origin of name
The Arabic word for a sweet orange is portukal. Not connected to origin name of the country ? Amoruso 00:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No! As I once said to someone in this (?) discussion page: Arabic origin of the name Portugal - User 82.155.192.235 wrote: "Another theory is that it comes from "Portucale", which is arabic for Orange, a fruit of which Portugal is famous for." I've removed it and told him: Please do not write stuff you are not sure and just heard somewhere. In Arabic orange is called Portugal (or something similar) because it was the Portuguese who introduced that fruit to the Arabic speaking world, namely due to the large production of the Algarve. The Ogre 18:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you have some reliabe source which deals with this question explains that the Arab word evolved from the Portugese and not the other way around? Not that I object to what you say, but I'm interested. Amoruso 20:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, my friend, the name is attestadly non Arabic, it cames from Portus (a Latin word) and Cale (of dubious origin) and ir pre-dates the Morrish invasion of Visigothic Hispania (check the part about the name in the article). As for the name of oranges in Arabic, the first hit on Google (search Orange Etymology Arabic) was this site: Spice Pages: Orange (Citrus sinensis/aurantium) - which is also referenced in the article Orange (word) (were it is said, by the way, that " Modern Greek, and many languages of the Middle East -- from Ethiopia to Azerbaijan to Romania -- use words derived from the country name "Portugal", at one time the major source of imported oranges in the Middle East. "; in the article Orange (fruit) it is said "Some languages have different words for the bitter and the sweet orange, such as Modern Greek nerantzi and portokali ("Portuguese"), respectively."). In it (the site) it is stated:
 * Origin
 * As with most other citrus fruits, the descendance of oranges is not known exactly. Despite the earlier belief that assumed a Chinese origin, it is now generally believed that oranges originate from Northern or North Eastern India. The first oranges were brought to Europe by the Moors, probably already in the 9.th century. They were first grown in the Arabic realms in Sicily and Spain. These oranges, however, were not the sweet oranges chiefly known today, but the bitter oranges, also called sour oranges or Seville oranges, after the city of Sevilla which was the center of Arabic culture on the Iberic peninsular. Sweet oranges have been introduced half a millennium later, probably by Portuguese traders.
 * "Etymology
 * Most names of orange in European tongues ultimately derive from Sanskrit nagaruka [नागरुक] or naranga [नारंग] which was transmitted via Arabic (obsolete naranjah [نرنجة]) and Persian (Modern Farsi narenj [نارنج]). The word is, however, not native to Sanskrit, but has been borrowed from some other, unrelated tongue; it has been speculated that the ancient source language belonged to the Austro-Asiatic language family, but another explanation tries to establish a link to a Dravidian root “fragrant”. Compare Tamil narandam [நரந்தம்] “bitter orange”, nagarukam [நாகருகம்] “sweet orange” and nari [நாரி] “fragrance”. Most names for “orange” in modern languages of North India still are very similar to the Sanskrit term, e.g., Hindi and Urdu narangi [नारंगी, نارنگی]. European languages have modified the Sanskrit name in various degrees: While Spanish naranja “orange” and Greek neratzi [νεράτζι] “bitter orange” preserve the original sounds quite faithfully, the word was much modified by subsequent loans to other European tongues. It first lost its initial n (Italian arancia) and then changed the new initial vowel under the influence of French or “gold”, ending up with, for example, with English orange. Other members of that series are Portuguese laranja, Maltese larinġ, Yiddish marants [מאַראַנץ] and, from the Far East, Japanese and Korean orenji [オレンジ, 오렌지]. Cf. also Turkmen narynç and Armenian narinch [նարինջ], possibly directly borrowed from Persian. The association with “gold” is also found in Greek chrisomilia [χρυσομηλιά], which literally means “golden apple”, corresponding to Old Greek chrysos [χρυσός] “gold” and melon [μῆλον] “apple”. Virtually the same expression in Latin, pomum aurantium “golden apple”, lies behind many European names of bitter orange, e.g, German Pomeranze, Finnish pomeranssi and Russian pomeranets [померанец]. In some Slavonic languages, that name actually means the common orange, especially when used together with an adjective “sweet”, e.g. Slovenian sladka pomaranča. Also the old botanical species name aurantium relates to aurum, “gold”, whereas the modern species name sinensis is a latinization of China (older form: Sina). Quite a large number of names in tongues of Northern Europe mean “Chinese apple”, e.g., Latvian apelsīns, Icelandic appelsína or Belarusian apelsin [апельсін], The German name Apfelsine is used in Northern Germany only. Note also the Dutch variant sinaasappel “China-apple”. Some South East European tongues name orange after Portugal, which was formerly the main source of imports of sweet oranges. Examples are Bulgarian portokal [портокал], Greek portokali [πορτοκάλι], Romanian portocală and Georgian phortokhali [ფორთოხალი]. Also in South Italian dialects (Neapolitan), orange is named portogallo or purtualle, literally “the Portuguese ones”. Related names can also be found in non-European languages: Arabic burtuqal [برتقال], Farsi porteghal [پرتقال] and Amharic birtukan."
 * The Wiktionary presents the following languages that use some form of Portugal-word to describe Oranges (I don't know if the bitter or sweet variety):
 * Arabic: برتقالة (burtuqá:la)
 * Kurdish: pirteqal
 * Greek: πορτοκάλι (portokáli)
 * Romanian: portocală
 * Turkish: portakal
 * I hope I helped you! Cheers! The Ogre 01:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks a lot :) Interestingly btw, Hebrew didn't use this word (made sense because of the history), but invented its own and calls it : "golden apple" ! Amoruso 01:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The treaty with the U.K.
"A 1373 treaty of alliance between England and Portugal remains in effect to this day with the United Kingdom". What does that mean? Which treaty?

That mean if Portugal need help to (ex: defeat the US), England help Portugal without question!

See this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Portuguese_Alliance and you see that Portugal is the "father" of England.

Incorrect citations
The article does not contain correct citations. The text of the article often contains citations of the (Author, year) format. But the end of the article does not contain a References section noting the full reference information for the citations. How is a reader supposed to know exactly where a piece of information was sourced? Patiwat 20:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Prehistoric Spain with Prehistoric Portugal & move to Prehistoric Iberia
Currently, the text of Prehistoric Spain seems really to be about prehistoric Iberia. Similarly, the text of Prehistoric Portugal seems really to be about the same thing. This would be perfectly understandable seeing as there was no Spain and no Portugal in prehistoric times. I have argued therefore that it would be best to have these articles merged under a title which indicates the geographical region rather than the modern states. I have proposed the articles be merged and moved to Prehistoric Iberia. Please come and discuss the proposal. Jimp 09:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello Jim. If the merge goes through, what shall we do with Pre-Roman Portugal? You see, Prehistoric Spain encompasses a period that the "Portuguese" articles differentiated into Prehistoric Portugal and Pre-Roman Portugal. Should we merge them all? The Ogre 13:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Adesport.jpg
Someone might wanna add a fair use tag to that picture so it isn't deleted. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 14:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverted edits 7 April 2007
An unregistered user, 213.22.20.21, made a mass of edits, in five sessions within one half hour, just two hours ago. These edits are characterized by broken English, reckless typing (e.g. 'atrated' for 'started', copious failure to capitalize initial letters of words, and other errors. I have taken the action of reverting this contributor's work because they simply do not know English well enough to be contributing to English language Wikipedia. Overall, the *content* of the edits is unobjectionable to the extent it is sincere and not inflammatory. Most of the edits are relevant. Some of them are even factual and enhance the level of detail. Then again, there *was* the following passage, which is either careless or stupid:

"The region of present-day Portugal was inhabited by Neanderthals and then by Homo sapiens.

Early in the first millennium BC, several waves of Celts invaded Portugal from central Europe. From the contact between these two fierce and strong minded cultures. . . ."

First, it is too subjective for a factual article to use the descriptions "fierce and strong minded" of cultures or ethnic groups. Second, and of course of top importance, is the amusing implication that "Celts" and "Homo sapiens" represent "cultures in contact". This example and the incompetent English show this user -- an unregistered user -- to be a very irresponsible contributor, however well meaning. Hurmata 03:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Infante Dom Henrique's image
The jumbo size image of Prince Henry the Navigator at the top of the article is delirious POV pushing and absolutely tasteless. The history of Portugal has hundreds of notable figures beyond Henrique. I beg you, please remove that ugly picture or at least move it to another section with a smaller size. Miguelzinho 13:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Was Portugal and its empire a part of the "Spanish Empire" between 1580-1640?
There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Spanish_Empire about whether an anachronistic map of the Spanish Empire should include the Portuguese colonies as of 1580-1640 (indeed, Portugal itself), during the time of the Iberian Union, as "Spanish". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Portugal during World War II
There needs to be an article about this. Other neutral nations, such as Ireland, Spain , Switzerland , and Sweden , have articles about their roles during WWII. In the Estado Novo article World War II is mentioned only once. Basically every single European nation has an article dedicated to its role during WWII. Meanwhile Portugal doesn't even have a paragraph about it's role. --Tocino 00:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Portugese witch trials
I'm interested in witch trials, and think it would be interesting to have cases from all countries in the subject. I know Portugal was a country with very few witch trials, but I have heard about some; in 1599, five people where burned as witches in Lissabon, another one a little later, and one by the Inqusition at Evora in 1626. If anyone know anything and would like to share the information by starting a stub, or at least give a tip on names to google, I would be grateful. I think it would be very interesting to read about! Best wishes--Aciram (talk) 11:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This may be something that is more for personal research rather than something to be put on Wikipedia. It is a very interesting topic and I really haven't heard much about it. I do know, however, that if it is put on Wikipedia's main page on the History of Portugal, it may skew readers to believe that it had a huge impact on the people of Portugal, which I don't think it did? Correct me if I am wrong, but i didn't play a large role, did it? Spartemis (talk) 04:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Spartemis

I agree with Spartemis that this may not belong on the History of Portugal's main page. I do, however think that it is a really interesting topic, and might be more appropriately placed on the "Witch trials in the Early Modern period" page, or somewhere similar. I also looked quickly at the "Portuguese Inquisition" page, and I only saw one brief mention of witchcraft. If you do decide to research this, I think that would be a great place to expand on the topic. Snackerdoodle (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just realized you weren't actually suggesting to add it to this page. I do still think this is something that would better suited to adding onto one of the preexisting witchcraft-related articles; maybe there could be subheadings by country on one of those articles. Snackerdoodle (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC) ---

The first Global Empire was Portugal.

In 1500-1501 - the first one in 4 Continents and with the first Establishments in the Moluccas, Ceram and Banda Islands in 1512-1513 the first in 5 Continents - in fact already in the Australian continental plate - and proclaiming nominal domain on west Papua (New Guinea) in 1526. Let us respect the truth and history.

The art Of course Spain and Portugal joined in 1580 to 1640 had formed wider a double global empire.

The article is good and interesting but it can be (as many others) more courageous in the clarity in the first paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.22.173.196 (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment
I am working on a new map for use at Portuguese Empire: File:The Portuguese Empire.png.

I feel that, as an aid to understanding the article, it is an improvement over File:Portugal Império total.png which just shows a lot of dots and does not allow the reader to locate the places mentioned in the article. I think Império total is more appropriate at Evolution of the Portuguese Empire which covers the full extent of the empire.

I would be interested to know any feedback, as not many people look at the talk page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick [[User talk:The Red Hat

I think that a new map of the Portuguese Empire would help the readers better understand the variation in empires. Portugal is unique in the fact that it was a trading empire. It's goals were to create revenue rather than "save souls," which was the case for the Spanish empire. A map that shows concentrations of Portuguese populations in its empire, as well as the trading networks in the ocean, would be helpful rather than solely a specific map with barriers that would cut off the sphere of influence that Portugal had over other territories. This may bring in the deeper question of what one can qualify as an empire.Spartemis (talk) 03:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Spartemis

Incorrect History
A lot of the history, such as the Carthaginian invasion, doesn't apply to Portugal but only to the eastern section of the Iberian peninsula, modern day Spain. In ancient times, the Iberia spoken of was only a small portion on the eastern side and not the entire peninsula as it's referenced today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Datarune (talk • contribs) 03:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again, you are wrong. There are plenty of documented and sourced incursions of Carthaginian forces into what is today Portuguese territory, and the populations of that territory were involved in Carthaginian expansion and military operations. The Ogre (talk) 13:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Myths
A couple of points:
 * The Armada disaster was no less a temporary setback for Portugal as it was for Spain.
 * Though the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries were periods of great adventures, the Portuguese empire of the time has been described by the historian Garrett Mattingly (famous debunker of the Armada myth) as a 'bankrupt wholesale grocery business' - and all the research since has confirmed this. In fact the Portuguese empire survived only because of the much deplored Iberian Union, and then reached its true period of prosperity in the eighteenth century, not the sixteenth. But what's the truth worth against national myths here? Especially when you can blame everything that went wrong on your big brother! Provocateur 10/12/09

Trading Empire
This article does a good job integrating the aspects of trade for Portugal, but would it be smart to add somewhere in the section that there are different types of empires in the world and Portugal wanted to establish itself as a trading empire? It's goals were to trade and to be successful by creating allies through various networks. It's true that they integrated themselves in different cultures but very often their goal was to return to Portugal richer than they started. Trade was a main reason for exploratory missions. Spartemis (talk) 04:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Spartemis

This is a pretty interesting point, and I agree with your suggestion. I think the parts of this relevant to Portugal could be added in with a few sentences. I don't think there needs to be too much about the varied types of empire on this page, as that would be a discussion more suited to the "Empire" article. Snackerdoodle (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Navigation?
The article certainly covers the discoveries and explorations of Portuguese navigators along with the individuals themselves. However, it was also a time of remarkable advancement in the instruments of navigation and the sciences behind those developments. tools like the ancient kamal, compass, quadrant were already in use, but the astrolabe, nocturnal, and the ephemerides were just beginning to emerge. Not to mention the developments in ship technology itself. There is very little mention of what kinds of tools allowed Columbus to complete a trans-oceanic voyage.--Casini1 (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Intro & the article
This intro is very unfavorable, it needs to be revised. It is so detrimental that it is unreliable. Remember Portugal retained large portions of the empire in a period where other countries lost it. And for instance, much of the 20th century Portugal was in better shape than Spain and in the 19th century Portugal was in better shape than several countries in Europe. Furthermore, the history of the country is not just the empire, battles or kings. More focus on culture of those civilizations and shaping Portugal.
 * It needs more on prehistory: talking (inc. pics) about Stone Age paintings (esp. coa valley) and sites like the ones in Alentejo.
 * Portuguese protohistory (focusing on local peoples, their culture/religion/art and technological achievements/relations with Mediterranean civilizations and how these were described by them. Names of tribe wont do it.
 * Carthaginian Portugal. It is more than we might think.
 * Roman Portugal. the article is poor even in this.
 * Medieval Portugal. More info on battles, castles, art, free fairs, feudalism, invasions and such. stuff covered by regular schoolbooks
 * Modern Portugal, less focus on the empire, and more foccus on other things like urbanism/art/changes in society, as these were quite significant even in our lifetime.--Pedro (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Portugal and Orange (Laranja/Naranja)
Dear Maurice Carbonaro, I do not even know yet the history of Greek terminology for Orange, but I assume that they used the term of Persian origin Arantia / Orange / Oranje (this one of Sanskrit origin) like most or much of the Ancient World who knew the fruit (and most(?) of Indo-European languages who knew the fruit)

In fact Portugal came from the local place and region of Portucale, Portus Galle, Cale (also called Gale). Connection with the Gallaeci etc. (the name itself (not the state) with already more than 2000 years)

And Portugal do have a relation with the Orange:

Even before the official scientific discovery of the scurvy, the Portuguese in their global expansion (especially in the Indian Ocean in this case) in the 16th century, showed a great need for vitamin and refreshments as oranges for the hungry and for this disease, that led to the Arab world (who used "Orange" before) and even much of the Iranians (who were a source of the original word) the adoption of the name of Portugal ( Arabic "Portukali /Portugali/Burtugall" and the Persian "Porteghal") for this fruit.

On the other side was Portugal that eventually spread further into the western world and not only the name of Persian and Sanskrit (before) origin and the West: Laranja/Naranja (Oranje).

Has been a popular replacement of this terminology in the Greek world after the sixteenth century by Ottoman influence, Arabic influence etc.? Maybe?

Thanks for your contribution. Any way it's good the debate and to have new ideas and sources for the etymologies. --LuzoGraal (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Answer to alleged Sanskrit origins of the name
Hallo there LuzoGraal (talk),
 * thanks for getting involved in the debat about the greek etimology of the word "Portugal".
 * It's interesting to know that the name could date back to Sanskrit origins... and not just from the greek name for "orange (fruit)" Πορτοκαλιά (portokalia).
 * On the sanskrit wikipedia dictionary (sa:wikipedia or sa:संस्कृतम्) I have found नारङ्गफलम् (Latin alphabet transliteration: naara.ngaphalam.h).
 * Maybe you (or some expert on the subject) could elaborate further on the matter.

Catch you later. Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 08:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Portuguese exploration of north america
I changed this statement to Between 1498 and 1501, Pêro de Barcelos and João Fernandes Lavrador explored North America. from Between 1491 and 1494. I don't know where the earlier dates came from, but they certainly did sail earlier than Colombus.Pacomartin (talk) 03:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

History of Portugal
Please, don't change my additions, if you didn't know about Countess Theresa you can look that information in her Wikipedia page. Arthur45454 (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Portuguese
Hgfv 92.12.48.33 (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:History of Portugal


text:
Atlanta campaign

The Atlanta campaign was a series of battles fought in the Western Theater of the American Civil War throughout northwest Georgia and the area around Atlanta during the summer of 1864. Union Maj. Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman invaded Georgia from the vicinity of Chattanooga, Tennessee, beginning in May 1864, opposed by the Confederate general Joseph E. Johnston.

Johnston's Army of Tennessee withdrew toward Atlanta in the face of successive flanking maneuvers by Sherman's group of armies. In July, the Confederate president, Jefferson Davis, replaced Johnston with the more aggressive General John Bell Hood, who began challenging the Union Army in a series of costly frontal assaults. Hood's army was eventually besieged in Atlanta and the city fell on September 2, setting the stage for Sherman's March to the Sea and hastening the end of the war.

Military situation
The Atlanta campaign followed the Union victory in the Battles for Chattanooga in November 1863; Chattanooga was known as the "Gateway to the South", and its capture opened that gateway. After Ulysses S. Grant was promoted to general-in-chief of all Union armies, he left his favorite subordinate from his time in command of the Western Theater, William T. Sherman, in charge of the Western armies. Grant's strategy was to apply pressure against the Confederacy in several coordinated offensives. While he, George G. Meade, Benjamin Butler, Franz Sigel, George Crook, and William W. Averell advanced in Virginia against Robert E. Lee, and Nathaniel Banks attempted to capture Mobile, Alabama, Sherman was assigned the mission of defeating Johnston's army, capturing Atlanta, and striking through Georgia and the Confederate heartland.

Union
At the start of the campaign, Sherman's Military Division of the Mississippi consisted of three armies:
 * Maj. Gen. James B. McPherson's Army of the Tennessee (Sherman's army under Grant in 1863), including the corps of Maj. Gen. John A. Logan (XV Corps), Maj. Gen. Grenville M. Dodge (XVI Corps), and Maj. Gen. Frank P. Blair, Jr. (XVII Corps). When McPherson was killed at the Battle of Atlanta, Maj. Gen. Oliver O. Howard replaced him.
 * Maj. Gen. John M. Schofield's Army of the Ohio, consisting of Schofield's XXIII Corps and a cavalry division commanded by Maj. Gen. George Stoneman.
 * Maj. Gen. George H. Thomas's Army of the Cumberland, including the corps of Maj. Gen. Oliver O. Howard (IV Corps), Maj. Gen. John M. Palmer (XIV Corps), Maj. Gen. Joseph Hooker (XX Corps), and Brig. Gen. Washington L. Elliott (Cavalry Corps). After Howard took army command, David S. Stanley took over IV Corps.

On paper at the beginning of the campaign, Sherman outnumbered Johnston 98,500 to 50,000, but his ranks were initially depleted by many furloughed soldiers, and Johnston received 15,000 reinforcements from Alabama. However, by June, a steady stream of reinforcements brought Sherman's strength to 112,000.

Confederate
Opposing Sherman, the Army of Tennessee was commanded first by Gen. Joseph E. Johnston, who was relieved of his command in mid-campaign and replaced by Lt. Gen. John Bell Hood. The four corps in the 50,000-man army were commanded by:
 * Lt. Gen. William J. Hardee (divisions of Maj. Gens. Benjamin F. Cheatham, Patrick R. Cleburne, William H. T. Walker, and William B. Bate).
 * Lt. Gen. John Bell Hood (divisions of Maj. Gens. Thomas C. Hindman, Carter L. Stevenson, and Alexander P. Stewart).
 * Lt. Gen. Leonidas Polk (also called the Army of Mississippi, with the infantry divisions of Maj. Gen. William W. Loring, Samuel G. French, and Edward C. Walthall, and a cavalry division under Brig. Gen. William Hicks Jackson). When Polk was killed on June 14, Loring briefly took over as commander of the corps but was then replaced by Alexander P. Stewart on June 23.
 * Maj. Gen. Joseph Wheeler (Cavalry corps, with the divisions of Maj. Gen. William T. Martin and Brig. Gens. John H. Kelly and William Y. C. Humes).

Johnston was a conservative general with a reputation for withdrawing his army before serious contact would result; this was certainly his pattern against George B. McClellan in the Peninsula Campaign of 1862. But in Georgia, he faced the much more aggressive Sherman. Johnston's army repeatedly took up strongly entrenched defensive positions in the campaign. Sherman prudently avoided suicidal frontal assaults against most of these positions, instead maneuvering in flanking marches around the defenses as he advanced from Chattanooga towards Atlanta. Whenever Sherman flanked the defensive lines (almost exclusively around Johnston's left flank), Johnston would retreat to another prepared position. Both armies took advantage of the railroads as supply lines, with Johnston shortening his supply lines as he drew closer to Atlanta, and Sherman lengthening his own.

Sherman vs. Johnston

Rocky Face Ridge (May 7–13, 1864)
Johnston had entrenched his army on the long, high mountain of Rocky Face Ridge and eastward across Crow Valley. Sherman had earlier decided to demonstrate against the strong Confederate position with the bulk of his force while he sent a smaller portion through Snake Creek Gap, to the right, to hit the Western & Atlantic Railroad at Resaca, Georgia. With sufficient men, the Union Army could cut off the Confederate lines of communication to the south and force Johnston to attack them or disperse his army traveling through the rough terrain to the east. The larger Union force engaged the enemy at Buzzard Roost (Mill Creek Gap) and at Dug Gap drawing away their attention. In the meantime, the third column, under McPherson, passed unnoticed through Snake Creek Gap and on May 9 advanced to the outskirts of Resaca, where it found a small Confederate force entrenched. Fearing defeat, McPherson pulled his column back to Snake Creek Gap, which Sherman's orders gave him authority to do. On May 10, Sherman decided to take most of his men and join McPherson to take Resaca. The next morning, as he discovered Sherman's army withdrawing from their positions in front of Rocky Face Ridge, Johnston retired south towards Resaca. So began the first of a long series of flanking maneuvers by Sherman against Johnston; Sherman became so good at the tactic that his men boasted that Sherman "could flank the devil out of hell, if necessary." Johnston would be flanked out of every position he held until eventually relieved of command. The opportunity to destroy or disorganize the Confederates in the campaign's first battle, however, was missed.

Resaca (May 13–15)
Union troops tested the Confederate lines around Resaca to pinpoint their whereabouts. Full scale fighting occurred on May 14, and the Union troops were generally repulsed except on Johnston's right flank, where Sherman did not fully exploit his advantage. On May 15, the battle continued with no advantage to either side until Sherman sent a force across the Oostanaula River at Lay's Ferry, towards Johnston's railroad supply line. Unable to halt this Union movement, Johnston was forced to retire.

Adairsville (May 17)
Johnston's army retreated southward while Sherman pursued. Failing to find a good defensive position south of Calhoun, Johnston continued to Adairsville while the Confederate cavalry fought a skillful rearguard action. On May 17, Howard's IV Corps ran into entrenched infantry of Hardee's corps, while advancing about 2 mi north of Adairsville. Three Union divisions prepared for battle, but Thomas halted them because of the approach of darkness. Sherman then concentrated his men in the Adairsville area to attack Johnston the next day. Johnston had originally expected to find a valley at Adairsville of suitable width to deploy his men and anchor his line with the flanks on hills, but the valley was too wide, so Johnston disengaged and withdrew.

New Hope Church (May 25–26)
After Johnston retreated to Allatoona Pass from May 19 to 20, Sherman decided that attacking Johnston there would be too costly, so he determined to move around Johnston's left flank and steal a march toward Dallas. Johnston anticipated Sherman's move and met the Union forces at New Hope Church. Sherman mistakenly surmised that Johnston had a token force and ordered Hooker's XX Corps to attack. This corps was severely mauled. On May 26, both sides entrenched.

Dallas (May 26 – June 1)
Sherman's army tested the Confederate line. On May 28, Hardee's corps probed the Union defensive line, held by Logan's XV Corps, to exploit any weakness or possible withdrawal. Fighting ensued at two different points, but the Confederates were repulsed, suffering high casualties. Sherman continued looking for a way around Johnston's line, and on June 1, his cavalry occupied Allatoona Pass, which had a railroad and would allow his men and supplies to reach him by train. Sherman abandoned his lines at Dallas on June 5 and moved toward the railhead at Allatoona Pass, forcing Johnston to follow soon afterward.

Pickett's Mill (May 27)
After the Union defeat at New Hope Church, Sherman ordered Howard to attack Johnston's seemingly exposed right flank. The Confederates were ready for the attack, which did not unfold as planned because supporting troops never appeared. The Confederates repulsed the attack, causing high casualties.

Operations around Marietta (June 9 – July 3)
When Sherman first found Johnston entrenched in the Marietta area on June 9, he began extending his lines beyond the Confederate lines, causing some Confederate withdrawal to new positions. On June 14, Lt. Gen. Leonidas Polk was killed by an artillery shell while scouting enemy positions with Hardee and Johnston and was temporarily replaced by Maj. Gen. William W. Loring. On June 18–19, Johnston, fearing envelopment, moved his army to a new, previously selected position astride Kennesaw Mountain, an entrenched arc-shaped line to the west of Marietta, to protect his supply line, the Western & Atlantic Railroad. Sherman made some unsuccessful attacks on this position but eventually extended the line on his right and forced Johnston to withdraw from the Marietta area on July 2–3.

Kolb's Farm (June 22)
Having encountered entrenched Confederates astride Kennesaw Mountain stretching southward, Sherman fixed them in front and extended his right wing to envelop their flank and menace the railroad. Johnston countered by moving Hood's corps from the left flank to the right on June 22. Arriving in his new position at Mt. Zion Church, Hood decided on his own to attack. Warned of Hood's intentions, Union generals John Schofield and Joseph Hooker entrenched. Union artillery and swampy terrain thwarted Hood's attack and forced him to withdraw with heavy casualties. Although he was the victor, Sherman's attempts at envelopment had momentarily failed.

Kennesaw Mountain (June 27)
This battle was a notable exception to Sherman's policy in the campaign of avoiding frontal assaults and moving around the enemy's left flank. Sherman was sure that Johnston had stretched his line on Kennesaw Mountain too thin and decided on a frontal attack with some diversions on the flanks. On the morning of June 27, Sherman sent his troops forward after an artillery bombardment. At first, they made some headway overrunning Confederate pickets south of the Burnt Hickory Road, but attacking an enemy that was dug in was futile. The fighting ended by noon, and Sherman suffered heavy casualties, about 3,000, compared with 1,000 for the Confederates. Johnston fell back toward Smyrna on July 3 and by July 4 to a defensive line along the west bank of the Chattahoochee River that became known as Johnston's River Line.

Pace's Ferry (July 5)
Johnston put the Chattahoochee River between his army and Sherman's. General Howard's IV corps advanced on Pace's Ferry on the river. The Confederate pontoon bridge there was defended by dismounted cavalry. They were driven away by BG Thomas J. Wood's division of IV Corps. The bridge, although damaged, was captured. Howard decided not to force a crossing against increased Confederate opposition. When federal pontoons arrived on July 8, Howard crossed the river and outflanked the Pace's Ferry defenders. This forced them to withdraw; and this permitted Sherman to cross the river, advancing closer to Atlanta. Johnston abandoned the River Line and retired south of Peachtree Creek, about 3 mi north of Atlanta.

Sherman vs. Hood
Due to public pressure, Confederate President Jefferson Davis had become increasingly irate at Johnston giving ground. Finally, on July 17, Davis stripped Johnston of command and replaced him with John Bell Hood. Hood may have seemed a more able commander than Johnston, especially on the attack, as seen at Gettysburg, but the Army of Tennessee was short on men, talent, and luck. Sherman had been frustrated by Johnston's defensive tactics and was reportedly pleased with the change as the aggressive Hood was more willing to do open battle, thus giving Sherman opportunities to use his superior numbers and firepower to destroy Confederate forces.

Peachtree Creek (July 20)
After crossing the Chattahoochee, Sherman split his army into three columns for the assault on Atlanta with Thomas' Army of the Cumberland, on the left, moving from the north. Schofield and McPherson had drawn away to the east, leaving Thomas on his own. Johnston decided to attack Thomas as he crossed the creek, but Confederate President Jefferson Davis relieved him of command and appointed Hood to take his place. Hood adopted Johnston's plan and attacked Thomas after his army crossed Peachtree Creek. The determined assault threatened to overrun the Union troops at various locations, but eventually the Union held, and the Confederates fell back. The advance of McPherson from the east side of Atlanta distracted Hood from his offensive and drew off Confederate troops that might have joined the attack on Thomas.

Atlanta (July 22)

Hood was determined to attack McPherson's Army of the Tennessee. He withdrew his main army at night from Atlanta's outer line to the inner line, enticing Sherman to follow. In the meantime, he sent William J. Hardee with his corps on a fifteen-mile (24 km) march to hit the unprotected Union left and rear, east of the city. Wheeler's cavalry was to operate farther out on Sherman's supply line, and Cheatham's corps was to attack the Union front. Hood, however, miscalculated the time necessary to make the march, and Hardee was unable to attack until afternoon. Although Hood had outmaneuvered Sherman for the time being, McPherson was concerned about his left flank and sent his reserves—Dodge's XVI Corps—to that location. Two of Hood's divisions ran into this reserve force and were repulsed. The Confederate attack stalled on the Union rear but began to roll up the left flank. Around the same time, a Confederate soldier shot and killed McPherson when he rode out to observe the fighting. Determined attacks continued, but the Union forces held. About 4 p.m., Cheatham's corps broke through the Union front, but massed artillery near Sherman's headquarters halted the Confederate assault. Logan's XV Corps then led a counterattack that restored the Union line. The Union troops held, and Hood suffered high casualties.

Despite being called the Battle of Atlanta, the city itself would not fall until September.

Ezra Church (July 28)
Sherman's forces had previously approached Atlanta from the east and north and had not been able to break through, so Sherman decided to attack from the west. He ordered Howard's Army of the Tennessee to move from the left wing to the right and cut Hood's last railroad supply line between East Point and Atlanta. Hood foresaw such a maneuver and sent the two corps of Lt. Gen. Stephen D. Lee and Lt. Gen. Alexander P. Stewart to intercept and destroy the Union force at Ezra Church. Howard had anticipated such a thrust, entrenched one of his corps in the Confederates' path, and repulsed the determined attack, inflicting numerous casualties. Howard, however, failed to cut the railroad. Concurrent attempts by two columns of Union cavalry to cut the railroads south of Atlanta ended in failure, with one division under Maj. Gen. Edward M. McCook completely smashed at the Battle of Brown's Mill and the other force also repulsed and its commander, Maj. Gen. George Stoneman, taken prisoner.

Utoy Creek (August 5–7)
After failing to envelop Hood's left flank at Ezra Church, Sherman still wanted to extend his right flank to hit the railroad between East Point and Atlanta. He transferred Schofield's Army of the Ohio from his left to his right flank and sent him to the north bank of Utoy Creek. Although Schofield's troops were at Utoy Creek on August 2, they, along with the XIV Corps, Army of the Cumberland, did not cross until August 4. Schofield's force began its movement to exploit this situation on the morning of August 5, which was initially successful. Schofield then had to regroup his forces, which took the rest of the day. The delay allowed the Confederates to strengthen their defenses with abatis, which slowed the Union attack when it restarted on the morning of August 6. The Federals were repulsed with heavy losses and failed in an attempt to break the railroad. On August 7, the Union troops moved toward the Confederate main line and entrenched. They remained there until late August.

Dalton (August 14–15)
Wheeler and his cavalry raided into North Georgia to destroy railroad tracks and supplies. They approached Dalton in the late afternoon of August 14 and demanded the surrender of the garrison. The Union commander refused to surrender and fighting ensued. Greatly outnumbered, the Union garrison retired to fortifications on a hill outside the town where they successfully held out, although the attack continued until after midnight. Around 5 a.m. on August 15, Wheeler retired and became engaged with relieving infantry and cavalry under Maj. Gen. James B. Steedman's command. Eventually, Wheeler withdrew.

Lovejoy's Station (August 20)
While Wheeler was absent raiding Union supply lines from North Georgia to East Tennessee, Sherman sent cavalry Brig. Gen. Judson Kilpatrick to raid Confederate supply lines. Leaving on August 18, Kilpatrick hit the Atlanta & West Point Railroad that evening, tearing up a small area of tracks. Next, he headed for Lovejoy's Station on the Macon & Western Railroad. In transit, on August 19, Kilpatrick's men hit the Jonesborough supply depot on the Macon & Western Railroad, burning great amounts of supplies. On August 20, they reached Lovejoy's Station and began their destruction. Confederate infantry (Patrick Cleburne's Division) appeared and the raiders were forced to fight into the night, finally fleeing to prevent encirclement. Although Kilpatrick had destroyed supplies and track at Lovejoy's Station, the railroad line was back in operation in two days.

Jonesborough (August 31 – September 1)

In late August, Sherman determined that if he could cut Hood's railroad supply lines, the Confederates would have to evacuate Atlanta. Sherman had successfully cut Hood's supply lines in the past by sending out detachments of cavalry, but the Confederates quickly repaired the damage. He therefore decided to move six of his seven infantry corps against the supply lines. The army began pulling out of its positions on August 25 to hit the Macon & Western Railroad between Rough and Ready and Jonesborough. To counter the move, Hood sent Hardee with two corps to halt and possibly rout the Union troops, not realizing Sherman's army was there in force. On August 31, Hardee attacked two Union corps west of Jonesborough but was easily repulsed. Fearing an attack on Atlanta, Hood withdrew one corps from Hardee's force that night. The next day, a Union corps broke through Hardee's line, and his troops retreated to Lovejoy's Station. Sherman had cut Hood's supply line but he had failed to destroy Hardee's command.

Fall of Atlanta (September 2)
On the night of September 1, Hood evacuated Atlanta and ordered that the 81 rail cars filled with ammunition and other military supplies be destroyed. The resulting fire and explosions were heard for miles. Union troops under the command of Gen. Henry W. Slocum occupied Atlanta on September 2.

On September 4, General Sherman issued Special Field Order #64. General Sherman announced to his troops that "The army having accomplished its undertaking in the complete reduction and occupation of Atlanta will occupy the place and the country near it until a new campaign is planned in concert with the other grand armies of the United States."

Aftermath
Sherman was victorious, and Hood established a reputation as the most recklessly aggressive general in the Confederate Army. Casualties for the campaign were roughly equal in absolute numbers: 31,687 Union (4,423 killed, 22,822 wounded, 4,442 missing/captured) and 34,979 Confederate (3,044 killed, 18,952 wounded, 12,983 missing/captured). But this represented a much higher Confederate proportional loss. Hood's army left the area with approximately 30,000 men, whereas Sherman retained 81,000. Sherman's victory was qualified because it did not fulfill the original mission of the campaign—destroy the Army of Tennessee—and Sherman has been criticized for allowing his opponent to escape. However, the capture of Atlanta made an enormous contribution to Union morale and was an important factor in the re-election of President Abraham Lincoln.

Sherman realized that garrisoning Atlanta long-term would be a waste of troops, and that eventually the city would need to be abandoned. But first the army needed to be replenished, and so Sherman occupied Atlanta for the time being. Though the city was already mostly empty, about 1,600 civilians remained (compared to about 10,000 before the war ) and Sherman felt their presence would be an obstacle. So, on September 14 Sherman issued Special Field Orders No. 67, which demanded the evacuation of the civilian population.

Hood, though he had been unable to hold Atlanta, now planned a counter-action. But the details were divulged in a speech given by Confederate President Davis, which provided Sherman a clear view of Hood's strategy. Sherman left Atlanta garrisoned with only a single Corps, and took the rest of the army to chase down Hood in the Franklin–Nashville campaign. Despite the divulging of Hood's plans, Hood was able to seize the initiative, briefly drawing Sherman north from Atlanta. The chase lasted through November, before Sherman returned the army to Atlanta to prepare for the March to the Sea. Despite Hood and Sherman's armies being the main forces in the western theater, they would not meet again, and Hood's army would be effectively destroyed by George Henry Thomas instead. Sherman's Army returned to Atlanta on November 12, spending just a few days to destroy anything of military value, including the railroads. Sherman's move was to be an evolution in warfare: without railroads for supply, the Army would have to live off the land. The Army withdrew from Atlanta on November 15, and so began Sherman's March to the Sea.

Additional battle maps
Gallery: the Atlanta Campaign from the Atlas to Accompany the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies.

Memoirs and primary sources

 * Sherman, William T., Memoirs of General W.T. Sherman, 2nd ed., D. Appleton & Co., 1913 (1889). Reprinted by the Library of America, 1990, ISBN 978-0-940450-65-3.
 * U.S. War Department, The War of the Rebellion: a Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1880–1901.

title: Atlanta campaign


text: User talk:195.188.243.2

title: User talk:195.188.243.2


text:
Spotlighting

Spotlighting or lamping (also known as jacklighting, shining, illuminating, pit-lamping, and the killing lamp) is a method of hunting nocturnal animals using off-road vehicles and high-powered lights, spotlights, lamps or flashlights, that makes special use of the eyeshine revealed by many animal species. A further important aspect is that many animals (e.g., foxes and rabbits) often remain to continually stare at the light, and do not appear to see the light as a threat, as they would a human. It is possible to carefully approach animals on foot to a short distance if bright light is continuously maintained on the animal, greatly improving chances of successful killing. Spotlighting may also be used as a method of surveying nocturnal fauna. Repeated, frequent spotlighting may have a detrimental effect on animals, and is discouraged.

Technique
The spotting and shooting often take place from the moving vehicle. Experienced drivers on familiar territory (such as farmers in their own paddocks) may turn off the vehicle headlights to minimize the distractions.

The most common vehicles used are light four-wheel drive trucks and utilities. A team may consist of three persons: the driver, the shooter, and the spotter. The shooter and spotter stand side by side behind the cab, holding onto a bar at the front of the tray or on top of the cab, which allows them a good 360 degree view. The spotter sweeps the surrounding countryside with a powerful hand-held lamp with a tightly focused beam.

Spotlighting can be conducted by two persons where the driver operates the spotlight or alone where the driver spotlights using a remote mounted spotlight or automotive lighting and shoots from the driver's seat of the vehicle.

Lightweight lamps, torches and hand-held spotlights enable hunters to spotlight by foot. With a slow walking pace, the hunter will move forward while scanning for eyeshine. If spotted out of range, the light is typically turned off and the approach is made in the dark. Once a target is found, the hunter will typically hold the mesmerised animal in the glare of the lamp and shoot for the area between its glowing eyes.

Australia
Various rules govern nocturnal hunting and hunting from motor vehicles, but typically the use of illumination devices is prohibited for deer hunting. Commercial hunters are normally exempt from such regulations where the emphasis is upon population control.

New Zealand
Spotlighting on New Zealand Department of Conservation land is prohibited by law.

North America
Spotlighting is illegal in many locations throughout the United States and Canada.

In Colorado, hunting any wildlife on public land with artificial light is unlawful.

In Manitoba, spotlighting is illegal except for status Indians. In British Columbia, spotlighting is illegal except for status Indians. In Saskatchewan, spotlighting is illegal without exception.

Great Britain and Ireland: lamping
Lamping is a similar practice in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland of hunting at night using powerful lamps and either guns, birds of prey or dogs. It does not always involve vehicles. Animals associated with this form of hunting include fox, rabbit, and hare.

In England, Scotland, and Wales, most forms of hunting with dogs have been made illegal by the Hunting Act 2004 but rabbits and rats were specifically included on a list of exemptions, therefore lamping these animals with dogs is still legal. Hunting fox, rabbit and hare with dogs is legal in Northern Ireland. In Britain lamping foxes with dogs has been rendered illegal, however lamping in order to shoot them remains legal.

In Northern Ireland, lamping is also practiced against foxes and rabbits.

In the Republic of Ireland, it is legal to hunt foxes and rabbits with lamps, with a license and landowner's permission, but it is illegal to use a "mechanically propelled vehicle" or to hunt hares or deer with lights. It is illegal to lamp from a vehicle on or near a public road. An attempt to forbid hunting with guns between midnight and 6 a.m. failed in 2017.

Once an animal has been located in the beam of light, it is either shot or the dog(s) released. The dogs used are typically lurchers (cross between a sighthound and any other breed of dog), or longdogs (cross between two sight hounds, typically a greyhound and a whippet), but may be a cross of many breeds.

Although white light is often used for lamping, using a red or orange filter is preferred, as this has a lesser effect on the night vision of the hunter (human or dog), and is less likely to frighten any potential prey.

title: Spotlighting


text:
South Orkney Islands

The South Orkney Islands are a group of islands in the Southern Ocean, about 604 km north-east of the tip of the Antarctic Peninsula and 844 km south-west of South Georgia Island. They have a total area of about 620 km2. The islands are claimed both by Britain (as part of the British Antarctic Territory since 1962, previously as a Falkland Islands Dependency), and by Argentina as part of Argentine Antarctica. Under the 1959 Antarctic Treaty, sovereignty claims are held in abeyance.

Britain and Argentina both maintain bases on the islands. The Argentine base, Orcadas, established in 1904, is sited on Laurie Island. The 11 buildings of the Argentine station house up to 45 people during the summer, and an average of 14 during winter. The British Antarctic Survey base, Signy Research Station, is located on Signy Island and was established in 1947. Initially operated year-round, since 1995/6 the Signy Research Station has been open only from November to April each year.

Apart from personnel at the bases, there are no permanent human inhabitants on the islands.

History
The South Orkney Islands were discovered in 1821 by two sealers, the American Nathaniel Brown Palmer and the Briton George Powell. The islands were originally named Powell's Group, with the main island named Coronation Island as it was the year of the coronation of King George IV. In 1823, James Weddell visited the islands, gave the archipelago its present name (after the Orkney Islands in the north of Scotland) and also renamed some of the islands. The South Orkney Islands are located at roughly the same latitude south as the Orkney Islands are north (60°S vs 59°N), although it is not known if this was a factor behind the naming of the islands. Similarly the South Shetland Islands, discovered in 1819 by William Smith, are roughly the same latitude south as the Shetland Islands are north (62°S vs 60°N).

Subsequently, the South Orkney Islands were frequently visited by sealers and whalers, but no thorough survey was done until the expedition of William Speirs Bruce on the Scotia in 1903, which overwintered at Laurie Island. Bruce surveyed the islands, reverted some of Weddell's name changes, and established a meteorological station, which was sold to the Argentine Government upon his departure in 1904. This base, renamed Orcadas in 1951, is still in operation and is thus the oldest research station continuously staffed in the Antarctic. In 1908, the United Kingdom declared sovereignty over various Antarctic and South American territories "to the south of the 50th parallel of south latitude, and lying between the 20th and the 80th degrees of west longitude", including the South Orkney Islands. The Islands were subsequently administered as part of the Falkland Islands Dependencies. A biological research station on Signy Island was built in 1947 by the British Antarctic Survey, and was staffed year-round until 1996, when the Station staffing was reduced to 8–10 personnel who remained only during the southern hemisphere summer (November to April each year). In 1962, the islands became part of the newly established British Antarctic Territory.

The Argentine claim to the islands dates from 1925. It was originally justified by the Argentine occupation of the Laurie Island base and later subsumed into a wider territorial claim.

Geography and climate
The islands are situated at latitudes about 60°30' to 60°48' S and longitudes 44°25' to 46°43' W in the Southern Ocean. As a group of islands, the South Orkney Islands are at approximately -60.6°N, -45.5°W.

The archipelago comprises four main islands. Coronation Island is the largest, measuring about 30 mi long; its highest point is Mount Nivea which rises to 4153 ft above sea level. Laurie Island is the easternmost of the islands. The other main islands are Powell and Signy. Smaller islands in the group include Robertson Islands, the Saddle Islands, and Acuña Island. The total area of the archipelago is about 240 sqmi, of which about 90 percent is glaciated.

The Inaccessible Islands about 15 nmi to the west are considered part of the South Orkneys.

The climate of the South Orkneys is generally cold, wet, and windy. Summers are short and cold (December to March) when the average temperatures reach about 3.5 °C and fall to about -12.8 °C in July. The all time temperature range is between 12 and -44 °C. The seas around the islands are ice-covered from late April to November.

South Orkney Trough (-60°N, -45°W) is an undersea trough named in association with the South Orkney Islands and approved 10/77 (ACUF 177).

Flora and fauna
Despite the harsh conditions, the islands do support vegetation and constitute the South Orkney Islands tundra ecoregion. All islands lie in the cold seas below the Antarctic convergence. These areas support tundra vegetation consisting of mosses, lichens and algae, while seabirds, penguins and seals feed in the surrounding waters.

The littoral zone of the South Orkneys is biologically either lifeless or very poor. Amphipods and planarians exist under rocks, along with various algaes, chitons, and some gastropods. With increasing water depth, life becomes more varied: starfish appear beyond 2–3 metres along with sponges, urchins, and ascidians. At 8–10 metres, the variety of starfish increases along with the general biomass, and below 30 metres there are vast colonies of these creatures. Two penguin species, Chinstrap (Pygoscelis antarctica) and Adélie (Pygoscelis adeliae), are present on land.

On Signy Island a parthenogenetic flightless midge originally from South Georgia, Eretmoptera murphyi, was accidentally introduced during a botany experiment in the 1960s. It has since colonized much of the island and is altering the entire soil ecosystem. Some places they can reach 20,000 individuals per m2. Because it can survive in water, there are corcerns it could reach other islands.

Research stations
The two claimant nations maintain research stations on the islands.
 * 🇦🇷 Orcadas Base, Laurie Island (since 1904 – bought as a meteorological station from British scientist William Speirs Bruce in 1904)
 * 🇬🇧 Signy Research Station, Signy Island (since 1947)

title: South Orkney Islands


text:
Talk:MACHINA II/The Friends and Enemies of Modern Music

The text entered was the official press release.


text:
Alexander Grant (Upper Canada politician)

Alexander Grant (20 May 1734 – 8 May 1813) was a Royal Navy officer, businessman, and politician in Upper Canada. During his service with the Royal Navy Grant saw action in the Seven Years' War before becoming a naval superintendent. He then embarked on a career in the ship building industry before losing much of his wealth during the American Revolution. Grant recovered, however, and rose to prominence in civil society, becoming the administrator of Upper Canada in 1805.

Naval career
Grant entered the Royal Navy in 1755 and saw service in North America, on Lake Champlain, during the Seven Years' War. Grant became a naval superintendent in 1763, with his headquarters on Navy Island (in the Niagara River), before moving to Detroit, Michigan. His headquarters again changed, every winter, during which time the regiment was in New York City, up to 1774.

Merchant career
He began to build his own vessels, essentially selling them to himself at a considerable profit. He built a commercial empire by also selling or renting ships to merchants and this was initially solidified during the American Revolution during which he was given military command of most of the Great Lakes.

However, in the course of the revolution Grant lost much of his income with the loss of 12,000 acres (49 km²) of land he owned in New York, and the end of his participation in private shipping.

Civil career
Grant recovered, however, and rose to prominence in civil society, being appointed a justice of the peace in 1786 and, to a succession of governmental and political positions (in both Upper Canada and Lower Canada), he joined the Executive Council of Upper Canada under governor John Graves Simcoe as well as the Legislative Council. In 1799, Grant became a deputy superintendent of Indian Affairs.

In August 1805, Grant became administrator of Upper Canada, upon the death of Lieutenant-Governor Peter Hunter, and continued Hunter's policies until a new lieutenant governor, Francis Gore, arrived from Britain, in August 1806.

Grant died in 1813 at his home Castle Grant in Grosse Pointe Farms near Detroit and was buried on the other side of the Detroit River at St. John's Churchyard (Brock and Sandwich Streets) in Sandwich, now Windsor, Ontario.


text:
Midland Railway Carriage and Wagon Company

The Midland Railway Carriage and Wagon Company was a Birmingham, England, based manufacturer of railway carriages and wagons. It was not part of the Midland Railway.

Its products also included trams and even military tanks.

It has made trains for railways in the UK and overseas, including the London Underground.

After a series of takeovers, its works at Washwood Heath in Birmingham became part of Metro Cammell and are now part of the Alstom group.

History
In 1845, Joseph Wright, a London coach builder, leased land in Saltley, Birmingham with the intention of building a factory for the production of railway rolling stock. Wright, realising that the future lay in the development of the railways devoted his energies, together with those of his sons to building rolling stock and by the 1850s his Saltley site had massively expanded and he was employing a work force of about 800 people. In addition to building stock for practically all the British railways, the firm completed contracts for many countries world-wide. They also had premises in Shrewsbury.

In 1902 rationalisation of the rolling stock industry began when the Metropolitan Amalgamated Railway Carriage and Wagon Co. Ltd. was formed, incorporating Joseph Wright's old firm with other well known companies such as Ashbury, Brown and Marshalls, Oldbury and Lancaster railway carriage companies. In 1929 Vickers, after acquiring the shares of the Metropolitan Company, came together with Cammell Laird and each merged their rolling stock interests to form the great undertaking of Metropolitan-Cammell Ltd.


text:
Metro-Cammell

Metro-Cammell, formally the Metropolitan Cammell Carriage and Wagon Company (MCCW), was an English manufacturer of railway carriages, locomotives and railway wagons, based in Saltley, and subsequently Washwood Heath, in Birmingham. The company was purchased by GEC Alsthom in May 1989; the Washwood Heath factory closed in 2005 and was demolished in early 2019.

The company designed and built trains for the railways in the United Kingdom and overseas, including the Mass Transit Railway of Hong Kong, Kowloon–Canton Railway (now East Rail line), the Channel Tunnel, and the Tyne and Wear Metro, and locomotives for Malaysia's Keretapi Tanah Melayu. Diesel and electric locomotives were manufactured for South African Railways, Nyasaland Railways, Malawi, Nigeria, Trans-Zambezi Railway and Pakistan. DMUs were supplied to Jamaica Railway Corporation and the National Railways of Mexico. The vast majority of London Underground rolling stock manufactured in the mid-20th century was produced by the company, which also designed and built the Blue Pullman for British Railways.

Metropolitan Railway Carriage and Wagon Company
The company was formed in 1863 as the Metropolitan Railway Carriage and Wagon Company , successors to Messrs. Joseph Wright and Sons. Joseph Wright built coaches for the London and Southampton Railway in 1837 and the London and Birmingham Railway in 1838. In 1845, he moved the carriage works from London to Birmingham, where he purchased 6 acre of meadowland in Saltley, adjacent to the Birmingham and Derby Junction Railway line. In 1854, the company built the first 12 carriages for the Sydney to Parramatta line, New South Wales, the first public railway in Australia, which opened in 1855. Several of those are now in the Powerhouse Museum in Sydney.

Metropolitan Amalgamated Railway Carriage and Wagon Company
In 1902, it merged with four other carriage and wagon builders: Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Company Ltd., Brown, Marshalls and Company Ltd., Lancaster Railway Carriage and Wagon Company Ltd., and Oldbury Railway Carriage and Wagon Company Ltd., and became the Metropolitan Amalgamated Railway Carriage and Wagon Company .

Metropolitan was contracted as a builder of the new tanks for the British Army during the First World War. It built all 400 of the Mark V tank and 700 improved Mark V* tanks. These were the most developed heavy tank designs to see service in the war.

In 1917, Metropolitan Railway Carriage and Wagon Company and Vickers Limited took joint control of British Westinghouse. In 1919, Vickers bought out the Metropolitan shares and renamed the company Metropolitan-Vickers. By 1926, the company had changed its name again to Metropolitan Carriage, Wagon and Finance Company. In 1929, the railway rolling stock business of Cammell Laird and Company was merged as Metropolitan-Cammell Carriage and Wagon Company , the resulting company being part owned by Vickers and the Cammell Laird group.

MCCW also built bus bodies. In 1932, Metro Cammell Weymann was formed by the MCCW's bus bodybuilding business and Weymann Motor Bodies. In the Second World War, Metro again built tanks, including the Valentine tank and Light Tank Mk VIII. The Saltley works was closed in 1962 and group administration concentrated at Washwood Heath in 1967.

Closure by Alstom
In May 1989, the railway business was sold to GEC Alsthom (now Alstom). The last trains to be built at the Washwood Heath plant before its closure in 2005 were the Class 390 Pendolino tilting trains for the West Coast Main Line modernisation.

Heavy rail

 * Southern Railway "Brighton Belle" EMU
 * Southern Railway "Crystal Palace" EMU
 * Southern Railway "Coulsdon North & Sutton stock" EMU
 * LNER Tyneside electric units
 * LNER Shenfield line electric units (driving motors and intermediate trailers only)
 * LNER Glossop line electric units (driving motors and intermediate trailers only)
 * The Blue Pullman
 * Metro-Cammell Lightweight "Heritage" diesel multiple unit
 * British Rail Class 101 "Heritage" diesel multiple unit
 * British Rail Class 111 "Heritage" diesel multiple unit
 * British Rail Class 151 diesel multiple unit
 * British Rail Class 156 "Super Sprinter" diesel multiple unit
 * British Rail Class 373 "TGV" electric multiple unit
 * British Rail Class 465/2/9 "Networker" electric multiple unit
 * British Rail Class 466 "Networker" electric multiple unit
 * British Rail Class 483 electric multiple unit (Originally constructed as London Underground 1938 Stock)
 * British Rail Class 503 electric multiple unit
 * British Rail Mark 4 coaching stock
 * Arlanda Express (X3) electric multiple unit
 * Via Rail Renaissance Fleet
 * MTR Metro Cammell EMU (AC) (East Rail line, Hong Kong – formerly operated by Kowloon–Canton Railway, leased to MTR post-merger)

London Underground

 * London Underground Standard Stock (Bakerloo, Central, Piccadilly, Northern lines)
 * London Underground 1935 Stock (Central line)
 * London Underground 1938 Stock (Northern, Bakerloo, Piccadilly, East London and Central lines)
 * London Underground R49 & R59 Stock (District line)
 * London Underground 1959 Stock (Piccadilly line, then Bakerloo and Northern line)
 * London Underground 1962 Stock (Central line)
 * London Underground 1967 Stock (Victoria line)
 * London Underground C69 and C77 Stock (Circle, District and Hammersmith & City Lines)
 * London Underground 1972 Stock (Bakerloo line)
 * London Underground 1973 Stock (Piccadilly line)
 * London Underground D78 Stock (District line)
 * London Underground 1983 Stock (Jubilee line)
 * London Underground 1986 Stock (Central line)
 * London Underground 1995 Stock (Northern line)
 * London Underground 1996 Stock (Jubilee line)
 * London Underground battery-electric locomotives

Other systems

 * Glasgow Subway rolling stock (Glasgow Subway, Scotland)
 * Tyne and Wear Metrocars (Tyne and Wear Metro, England)
 * MTR Metro Cammell EMU (DC) (Kwun Tong line, Tsuen Wan line, Island line, Tseung Kwan O line, Disneyland Resort line, Hong Kong – operated by MTR)
 * Birmingham Maglev (Birmingham International Airport – 3 carriages built, in service from 1984–1995)

title: Metro-Cammell