text:
War of the Fifth Coalition

The War of the Fifth Coalition was a European conflict in 1809 that was part of the Napoleonic Wars and the Coalition Wars. The main conflict took place in Central Europe between the Austrian Empire of Francis I and Napoleon's French Empire. The French were supported by their client states—the Kingdom of Italy, the Confederation of the Rhine and the Duchy of Warsaw. Austria was supported by the Fifth Coalition which included the United Kingdom, Portugal, Spain, and the Kingdoms of Sardinia and Sicily, although the latter two took no part in the fighting. By the start of 1809 much of the French army was committed to the Peninsular War against Britain, Spain and Portugal. After France withdrew 108,000 soldiers from Germany, Austria attacked France to seek the recovery of territories lost in the 1803–1806 War of the Third Coalition. The Austrians hoped Prussia would support them, having recently been defeated by France, but Prussia chose to remain neutral.

On 10 April 1809, Austrian forces under Archduke Charles crossed the border of Bavaria, a French client state. The French response, under Louis-Alexandre Berthier, was disorganised but order was imposed with the arrival of Napoleon on 17 April. Napoleon led an advance to Landshut, hoping to cut off the Austrian line of retreat and sweep into their rear. Charles crossed the Danube at Regensburg, which allowed him to retreat eastwards, although he failed to reach the Austrian capital, Vienna, before the French. A French assault across the Danube was repulsed on 21–22 May at the Battle of Aspern-Essling but a repeat attack was successful in July. Napoleon won a major victory at the 5–6 July Battle of Wagram, which forced the Austrians to sign the Armistice of Znaim on 12 July. Austrian invasions of the Duchy of Warsaw and Saxony (where they fought alongside the Black Brunswickers) were repulsed and they were driven out of their territories in Italy. British forces landed in Walcheren, in the French client state of Holland, but were unable to seize their objective of capturing Antwerp and were later withdrawn.

The war ended with the Treaty of Schönbrunn, which was regarded as harsh towards Austria as she lost her Mediterranean ports and 20% of her population. Despite the eventual French victory, their defeat at Aspern-Essling showed that Napoleon could be defeated on the battlefield. The war led to the Tyrolean Rebellion, the 1809 Gottscheer rebellion and rebellions in Italy which, although suppressed, foreshadowed future nationalist and anti-French risings. After Schönbrunn, Austria became a French ally and this was cemented by the marriage of Napoleon to the Austrian princess Marie Louise.

Background
In 1809, Europe was embroiled in warfare, pitting revolutionary France against a series of coalitions in the Coalition Wars almost continuously since 1792. A brief period of peace followed the March 1802 Treaty of Amiens before British-French relations deteriorated, leading to the War of the Third Coalition in May 1803. Britain was joined in their coalition by Sweden in 1804 and Russia and Austria in 1805. In August 1805, the 200,000-strong French Grande Armée invaded the German states, hoping to defeat Austria before Russian forces could intervene. The French emperor Napoleon successfully wheeled his army into the Austrian rear and defeated them at the Battle of Ulm, fought from 15 to 20 October. The Austrian capital, Vienna, was captured in November and a Russo-Austrian army was decisively defeated at the 2 December Battle of Austerlitz. The Treaty of Pressburg, signed soon afterwards, ended Austrian participation in the war.

Austerlitz incited a major shift in the European balance of power. Prussia felt threatened in the region and, alongside Russia, declared war against France in the 1806 War of the Fourth Coalition. After French victories at the Battle of Jena-Auerstadt on 14 October, France occupied the Prussian capital, Berlin. France invaded Poland in November, where Russian forces were stationed, and occupied Warsaw. Russian and French armies fought in February 1807 at the violent, indecisive Battle of Eylau. The action in Poland culminated on 14 June 1807 when the French defeated Russia at the Battle of Friedland. The resulting Treaty of Tilsit in July left France as the dominant power in Western Europe, with many client states including the Duchy of Warsaw. This weakened Prussia and allowed Russia to expand into Finland and South-Eastern Europe.

Peninsular War
In 1807, France tried to force Portugal to join the Continental System, a commercial embargo against Britain. When the Portuguese prince regent, John, refused to join, Napoleon sent General Junot to invade Portugal in 1807, resulting in the six year Peninsular War. The war weakened the French empire's military, particularly after Spanish forces and civilians rebelled against France after Napoleon overthrew the Spanish king. After the French defeat at the Battle of Bailén, Napoleon took command of the French forces, defeating the Spanish armies before returning to France. Jean-de-Dieu Soult drove the British out of Spain in the Battle of Corunna in January 1809.

In the beginning of 1809, the French client kingdom of Spain, ruled by Napoleon's brother Joseph Bonaparte, controlled much of Spain and northern Portugal. British and Portuguese forces under Arthur Wellesley launched new offensives from Spring 1809. Spanish regular armies including those led by General Joaquín Blake continued to fight and guerrilla activity in the countryside made French operations hazardous. A significant French presence, numbering 250,000 in June 1809, remained in the peninsula throughout the War of the Fifth Coalition.

The Napoleonic occupation of France's own ally Spain persuaded many in Austria that Napoleon could not be trusted and declaring war was the only way to prevent him from destroying the Habsburg monarchy. The Spanish guerrillas inspired popular resistance against Napoleon, and the Austrians hoped that French preoccupation in Spain would make it easier to defeat France.

Austria plans for war
After Austria was defeated in 1805, the nation spent three years reforming its army. Encouraged by the events in Spain, Austria sought another confrontation with France to avenge their defeats and regain lost territory and power. Austria lacked allies in central Europe; Russia, its main ally in 1805, made peace with Napoleon at Tilsit and was engaged in wars with erstwhile allies like Britain in the Anglo-Russian War (1807–12), Sweden in the Finnish War and the Ottoman Empire in the Russo-Turkish War (1806–1812). France tried to reinforce their relationship with Russia through the September–October 1808 Congress of Erfurt. Under the treaty Russia agreed to support France if it was attacked by Austria. In early 1809, Austrian minister Johann Philipp Stadion secured Russian tsar Alexander I's agreement that the Russians would move slowly and "avoid every collision and every act of hostility" during any advance into Austria. At the same time, the French minister Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord secretly advised Alexander to resist France. During the War of the Fifth Coalition, Russia remained neutral even though they were allied to France.

Austria hoped Prussia would assist them in a war with France but a letter from Prussian minister Baron von Stein discussing the negotiations was intercepted by French agents and published in the Le Moniteur Universel on 8 September. Napoleon confiscated Stein's holdings in Westphalia and pressured King Frederick William III into dismissing him, and Stein fled into exile in Austria. On the same day that Stein was compromised the Convention of Paris agreed a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops from Prussia, where French garrisons had been in place since the end of the War of the Fourth Coalition. The withdrawal was contingent on the payment of heavy reparations, totalling 140 million francs, over 30 months. The Prussian Army was also limited in size to 42,000 men, one sixth of its pre-war total. The convention severely restricted the ability of the Prussian state to wage war. Despite this setback Stadion hoped Prussia would change their mind and that an Austrian advance into the French-controlled Confederation of the Rhine in Germany would lead to popular uprisings that would distract the French.

France withdrew 108,000 troops from Germany, more than half their strength there, to reinforce the French armies in Spain in October 1808. This lent support to Stadion's pro-war faction at the Austrian court. Stadion recalled Klemens von Metternich, his ambassador to Paris, to convince others to support his plan and by December 1808 Emperor Francis I was persuaded to support the war. Francis' support was tentative and the decision to proceed was made at an 8 February 1809 meeting that included the emperor, Archduke Charles and Stadion. The empire's poor financial situation (it could only afford to maintain its army on home soil until late spring) lent urgency to the decision. Charles disputed the prospects for success but accepted Francis' decision to prepare for war and the army was mobilised.

Austria and Prussia requested that Britain fund their military campaigns and requested a British military expedition to Germany. In April 1809 the British treasury supplied £20,000 in credit to Prussia, with additional funds promised if Prussia opened hostilities with France. Austria received £250,000 in silver, with a further £1 million promised for future expenses. Britain refused to land troops in Germany but promised an expedition to the low countries and to renew their campaign in Spain. After Prussia decided against war, the Fifth Coalition formally consisted of Austria, Britain, Portugal, Spain, Sicily and Sardinia, though Austria was the majority of the fighting effort.

Austrian army and strategy
Austria built the largest army in its nation's history, though its fighting quality was hampered by numerous factors. The men were conscripted from across the Austrian Empire and included Austrians, Hungarians, Czechs, Poles, Croats and Serbs; some, including the Hungarians, did not enthusiastically support their Austrian rulers. Conscription focused on the lower classes of society and the private soldiers, most of the non-commissioned officers, and many junior officers were illiterate. The army was well drilled in massed column formations which were effective against cavalry but vulnerable to artillery fire, which hampered it in some battles of the campaign. The regular infantry were thought too slow-witted to be trained in skirmishing; this role had traditionally been filled by grenzer light infantry units, but their quality declined since the potential conflicts with the Ottoman Empire ended. The deficiency was only partly remedied by recently created volunteer jäger units.

The Austrian militia, the Landwehr, were intended as a home defence force but were moved to serve with the field army. The force was equipped with second rate weapons, were poorly trained, and forbidden to accept officers from the landowning classes, leading to poor leadership. They were used later in the war as cannon fodder to divert French fire. The Austrian cavalry was of reasonably good quality, though in 1809 it was hampered by large numbers of its horses being only partly trained. The artillery was not as dynamic as in some contemporary armies, being placed under infantry commanders in the field and lacking proper horse artillery to manoeuvre quickly. The Austrian army was supposed to be supplied by a large wagon train, which restricted its manoeuvrability. Its senior officers were appointed based on aristocratic backgrounds and seniority, rather than ability; this led to elderly generals – the average being 63. The field commander, Archduke Charles, was unable to dismiss any of his commanders. He favoured doctrine over flexibility and expected his generals to follow a guide he had published in 1806.

Charles and the Aulic Council were divided on the best strategy for the coming war, Charles favoured an offensive launched from Bohemia where there was a concentration of Austrian forces and an attack could quickly isolate the French in northern Germany. The Aulic Council disagreed because the Danube river would split the forces of Charles and his brother Archduke Johann of Austria. They suggested that the main attack should be launched south of the Danube to maintain safer communications with Vienna. In the end the Council prevailed but the disagreement delayed the Austrian preparations by a month. The Austrian plan called for the I Corps under Heinrich Graf von Bellegarde, consisting of 38,000 troops, and the II Corps of 20,000 troops under Johann Kollowrat, to attack Regensburg (Ratisbon) from the Bohemian mountains by way of Cham. The Austrian center and reserve, comprising 66,000 men of Hohenzollern's III Corps, Rosenberg's IV Corps, and Lichtenstein's I Reserve Corps, would advance on the same objective through Schärding. The left wing, made up of the V Corps of Archduke Louis, Hiller's VI Corps, and Kienmayer's II Reserve Corps, a total of 61,000 men, would move toward Landshut and guard the army's flank. Two other theatres would be opened in Poland and Italy. Historian Steven Englund considers that Austria "might well have won the campaign" if the nation had focused on Germany.

French preparations
The French army mostly consisted of veterans of Napoleon's earlier campaigns, though recent conscripts formed large parts of some units, negatively affecting their fighting ability. The army was enthusiastic and keen to fight well under Napoleon's direct leadership. Napoleon was not certain about Austrian planning and intentions. He returned to Paris from his campaigns in Spain in winter 1808–09 and instructed the main French field commander in southern Germany, Louis Alexandre Berthier, on planned deployments and concentrations for this likely new second front. His rough ideas about the possible upcoming campaign included the decision to make the Danube valley the main theatre of operations, as he had done in 1805, and to stop Austrian forces that might invade northern Italy by positioning some of his own forces under the command of Eugène de Beauharnais and Auguste Marmont. Faulty intelligence gave Napoleon the impression that the main Austrian attack would come north of the Danube. On 30 March, he wrote a letter to Berthier explaining his intention to mass 140,000 troops in the vicinity of Regensburg (Ratisbon), far to the north of where the Austrians were planning to make their attack. It was expected that this redeployment would take until mid-April to accomplish and Napoleon instructed Berthier that if the attack came before 15 April he was to fall back towards the Lech.

Austria strikes first

The first indication of an Austrian attack was a formal note sent by Archduke Charles to French Marshal François Joseph Lefebvre on 9 April. It stated that Charles had orders from Francis to invade Bavaria, a French client state under Maximilian I. In the early morning of 10 April, leading elements of the Austrian army crossed the Inn River into Bavaria; there was no formal declaration of war. Bad roads and freezing rain slowed the Austrian advance in the first week, but the opposing Bavarian forces of Lefebvre's corps gradually retreated. Davout's III Corps withdrew westerwards towards Ingolstadt, anticipating orders to concentrate with other French forces. The Austrian attack had occurred about a week before Napoleon anticipated, disrupting French plans. Napoleon ordered that an Austrian attack before 15 April should be met by a general French concentration around Donauwörth and Augsburg in the west, but his orders arrived fragmented and out of sequence and were poorly interpreted by Berthier who was more accustomed to staff duties than field command. Berthier focussed on an ambiguous sentence that called for Davout to station his III Corps around Regensburg "whatever happens"; it is likely that Napoleon intended this to apply only if the Austrians attacked after 15 April. On 14 April Berthier ordered Davout's corps, together with those of Lefebvre and Oudinot, to march to Regensburg which Davout had recently vacated.

The marching and countermarching left the Armée d'Allemagne with its two wings separated by 75 mi and joined by a thin cordon of Bavarian troops. On the same day the Austrian advance guard had beaten the Bavarians near Landshut and secured a good crossing place over the Isar by evening. Charles planned to destroy Davout's and Lefebvre's isolated corps in a double-pincer manoeuvre. Napoleon arrived in Donauwörth on 17 April and took command from Berthier. When Napoleon realised that many of the Austrian forces had crossed the Isar and were marching towards the Danube, he insisted that the entire French army deploy behind the Ilm River in a bataillon carré in 48 hours. His orders were unrealistic because he underestimated the number of Austrian troops that were heading for Davout; Napoleon believed Charles only had a single corps over the Isar, but the Austrians had five corps moving towards Regensburg, totalling 80,000 men.

Landshut Maneuver
Davout anticipated facing overwhelming forces and withdrew most of his forces, leaving 2,000 men from Regensburg. The northbound Austrian columns in the Kelheim–Abbach zone encountered four columns of Davout's men heading west towards Neustadt in the early hours of 19 April. The Austrian attacks were slow, uncoordinated, and easily repulsed by the experienced French III Corps. Napoleon knew there was fighting in Davout's sector and devised a new strategy to defeat the Austrians: while the Austrians attacked to the north, André Masséna's corps, augmented by Oudinot's forces, would strike southeast towards Freising and Landshut in hopes of threatening the Austrian flank and relieving the pressure on Davout. Napoleon intended the corps of Davout and Lefebvre to pin the Austrians while his other forces swept into the Austrian rear.

The central Austrian V Corps were defeated in the Battle of Abensberg, allowing the French to advance. Napoleon was working under false assumptions that made his goals difficult to achieve. Masséna's advance to Landshut required too much time, permitting Hiller to escape south over the Isar. The Danube bridge, which provided easy access to Regensburg, and the east bank had not been demolished. This allowed Austrians to cross the river and stopped France from destroying the forces. On 20 April, the Austrians had suffered 10,000 casualties, lost 30 guns, 600 caissons, and 7,000 other vehicles, but were still a potent fighting force. With the main French army near Landshut, if Charles had attacked Davout he could have destroyed his corps and fallen on the rear of Napoleon's force. He retained the bridge at Regensburg and the road to Straubing and Vienna as an avenue of retreat.

On 21 April, Napoleon received a dispatch from Davout that spoke of the Battle of Teugen-Hausen. Davout held his ground; although Napoleon sent reinforcements, about 36,000 French troops had to fight 75,000 Austrians. When Napoleon learned that Charles was not withdrawing to the east, he realigned the Armée d'Allemagne's axis in an operation later called the Landshut Maneuver. All of the French forces, except 20,000 troops under Jean-Baptiste Bessières that were chasing Hiller, attacked Eckmühl to trap the Austrians and relieve their beleaguered comrades. On 22 April, Charles left 40,000 troops under Rosenberg and Hohenzollern to attack Davout and Lefebvre while detaching two corps under Kollowrat and Lichtenstein to march for Abbach and gain undisputed control of the river bank. Napoleon arrived at 1:30 pm while the battle continued. Davout ordered an attack along the entire line despite numerical inferiority; the 10th Light Infantry Regiment successfully stormed the village of Leuchling and captured the woods of Unter-Leuchling with heavy casualties. Recognising the threat posed by Napoleon's forces on his left flank, Charles ordered a withdrawal towards Regensburg, granting the field to France.

Napoleon sent Masséna to occupy Straubing as he thought the Austrians might retreat along that route. Charles moved his men across the Danube at Regensburg, leaving 6,000 in the fortress to block a pursuit. Lacking time for a siege, Napoleon ordered Marshal Jean Lannes to storm the walls, succeeding at his second attempt and capturing the town by 5:00 pm in the Battle of Ratisbon. With the Austrian army safely in Bohemia, Napoleon marched towards Vienna. Hiller fought a series of delaying actions, attempting to buy time for the defence of Vienna. After a short fight at Wels on 2 May, Hiller gathered 40,000 troops at the bridge in Ebersberg. Masséna launched a costly frontal at the Battle of Ebersberg and captured the position on 3 May, with Hiller withdrawing along the Danube. Charles attempted to move his army to defend Vienna but was outpaced by Napoleon who captured the city on 13 May. The garrison withdrew north of the Danube and destroyed the bridges behind them.

Aspern-Essling
On 16 and 17 May, the main Austrian army under Charles arrived in the Marchfeld, a plain northeast of Vienna just across the Danube that served as a training ground for Austrian military forces. Charles kept most of his forces several miles away from the riverbank, hoping to concentrate them at the point where Napoleon decided to cross. On the 20th, Charles learned from his observers on the Bissam hill that the French were building a bridge at Kaiserebersdorf, just southwest of the Lobau island, that led to the Marchfeld. On 21 May, Charles concluded that the French were crossing at Kaiserebersdorf and ordered a general advance for 98,000 troops and the accompanying 292 guns, organized into five columns. The French bridgehead rested on two villages: Aspern to the west and Essling to the east. Napoleon did not expect to encounter opposition, and the bridges linking the French troops at Aspern-Essling to Lobau were not protected with palisades, making them vulnerable to Austrian barges that had been set ablaze.

The Battle of Aspern-Essling started at 2:30 pm on 21 May. The initial attacks were made by the first three columns on Aspern and the Gemeinde Au woods but were poorly coordinated and failed. Later assaults succeeded in taking and holding the western portion of the village. The Austrians did not attack Essling until 6:00 pm because the fourth and fifth columns had longer marching routes. The French successfully repulsed the attacks against Essling throughout the day. Fighting commenced by 3 am on 22 May, and four hours later the French had captured Aspern again. Napoleon had 71,000 men and 152 guns on the other side of the river, but the French were still outnumbered. Napoleon launched a massive assault against the Austrian center designed to give enough time for the III Corps to cross and secure a victory. Lannes advanced with three infantry divisions and travelled for a mile before the Austrians, inspired by the personal presence of Charles who rallied the Zach Infantry Regiment, opened a heavy fire on the French that caused the latter to fall back. At 9:00 am, the French bridge broke again. Charles launched another massive assault an hour later and captured Aspern for the final time, but struggled to capture Essling. A few hours later, the Austrians returned and took all of Essling except the staunchly defended granary. Napoleon ordered the Imperial Guard under Jean Rapp, to support a withdrawal from the granary. Rapp disobeyed his orders and led a bayonet charge that drove the Austrians from Essling, for which he was later commended by Napoleon. Napoleon realised his bridgehead was untenable and ordered a withdrawal, giving command to Lannes. Lannes was struck by a cannonball and mortally wounded. The French withdrew to Lobau by nightfall, burning their pontoons bridge in behind them. Charles had inflicted the first major defeat in Napoleon's military career and caused the first fatality among his marshals, but his exhausted army could not pursue the French.

Wagram
After the defeat at Aspern-Essling, Napoleon took more than six weeks to plan and prepare contingencies before making another attempt at crossing the Danube. The French brought more troops, more guns, and instituted better defensive measures to ensure the success of the next crossing. From 30 June to the early days of July, the French recrossed the Danube, with more than 188,000 troops marching across the Marchfeld towards the Austrians. Immediate resistance to the French advance was restricted to the outpost divisions of Nordmann and Johann von Klenau; the main Habsburg army was stationed five miles (8 km) away, centered on the village of Wagram. Napoleon ordered a general advance at noon on 5 July; an early attack by Masséna on the left flank captured Leopold and Süssenbrunn but the French were held off elsewhere by a strong Austrian defence.

For 6 July, Charles planned a double-envelopment that required a quick march from the forces of his brother John, who was a few kilometers east of the battlefield. Napoleon's plan envisaged an envelopment of the Austrian left with Davout's III Corps while the rest of the army pinned the Austrian forces. Klenau's VI Corps, supported by Kollowrat's III Corps, started the battle on the second day at 4:00 am with a crushing assault against the French left, forcing the latter to abandon both Aspern and Essling. Meanwhile, Bernadotte had unilaterally ordered his troops out of the central village of Aderklaa, citing heavy artillery shelling, and compromised the French position. Napoleon was livid and sent two divisions of Masséna's corps supported by cavalry to regain the critical village. After difficult fighting in the first phase, Masséna sent in Molitor's reserve division, which slowly captured Aderklaa back for the French, only to lose it again following fierce Austrian bombardments and counterattacks. To delay the Austrian army for Davout's materializing assault, Napoleon sent 4,000 cuirassiers under Nansouty against the Austrian lines. To dissuade the Austrians from attacking, Napoleon formed a 112-gun grand battery in the center of his lines. As Davout's men were progressing against the Austrian left, Napoleon formed the three small divisions of MacDonald into a hollow, oblong shape that marched against the Austrian center. The lumbering phalanx was devastated by Austrian artillery but managed to break through the Austrian forces. With the Austrians at Wagram weakened by the need to reinforce their left against Davout, Oudinot was able to capture the village and split the Austrian army. Upon learning that his brother's forces would not arrive until the evening, Charles ordered a withdrawal at 2:30 pm. The Austrians withdrew in good order, the main army westwards and the left-wing to the north.

The French suffered heavy losses, around 32,000 men, with their commanders particularly affected as around 40 French generals were killed and wounded; Austrian losses stood at around 35,000. Fighting was renewed at Znaim on 10–11 July. On 12 July, Charles signed the Armistice of Znaim, which led to lengthy peace negotiations between Napoleon and Metternich.

Italian front
In Italy, Archduke John battled Napoleon's stepson Eugène. The Austrians defended against several bungled French assaults at the Battle of Sacile in April, causing Eugène to fall back on Verona and the Adige river. Eugène was able to concentrate his forces while John detached troops to support Charles. John won victory at the 30 April Battle of Caldiero but was forced to retreat due to Eugène's increasing superiority and the movements on the Austria-Bavaria front. John was defeated in the 8 May Battle of Piave River and forced out of Italy. Eugène pursued John into Hungary where he heavily defeated him at the Battle of Raab. Eugène detached MacDonald to pursue John and joined Napoleon at Vienna with the rest of his army.

In the Dalmatian Campaign, Marmont, under the nominal command of Eugène, was fighting against an Austrian invasion led by General Stoichewich. Marmont launched a counteroffensive in the mountains on 30 April, but this was repulsed by the Grenzer troops. Further attacks in May led to a series of victories against a dispersed Austrian force. By the end of the month Marmont was able to march with the bulk of his troops to join the emperor at Vienna.

Failed British feint operation
In July 1809, the British launched the Walcheren Campaign in the Netherlands to relieve the pressure on the Austrians and to weaken French naval power. The plan was to land a force at Walcheren and advance along the Western Scheldt to the harbour of Antwerp, a French naval base. The Royal Navy's patrols into the Western Scheldt and a dockyard strike at Antwerp alerted the French to the area's vulnerability and efforts were made to improve the defences and reinforce its garrisons. John Pitt, 2nd Earl of Chatham's force of over 39,000, a larger army than that serving in the Iberian Peninsula and the largest British Expeditionary Force of the Napoleonic Wars, landed at Walcheren on 30 July. The expedition was not capable of landing sufficient troops on the southern side of the Western Scheldt to capture the reinforced garrison at Cadzand due to a lack of boats. An advance on Antwerp depended on the capture of Flushing on the northern shore to allow the passage of Royal Navy vessels up the Western Scheldt. It took until 13 August for siege batteries to be set up and Flushing did not surrender until 16 August. The British forces had meanwhile been suffering from "Walcheren Fever", thought to be a combination of Malaria and Typhus, and lost 4,000 men to the disease during the campaign. By comparison only 106 men were killed in action. By 24 August Chatham had decided that the fever had reduced his force too much and the defences of Antwerp were too strong to assault. The campaign ended without the British achieving any of their main objectives. The first British troops were withdrawn on 7 September, though a disease-ravaged garrison was maintained until 9 December. The failure of the campaign led to the resignation of the British prime minister, the Duke of Portland, and his replacement by Spencer Perceval.

Austro-Polish War
Austria invaded the Duchy of Warsaw with initial success. Poniatowski's army lost to the Austrians at the Battle of Raszyn on 19 April and Warsaw was occupied four days later, with the occupation lasting until 1 June. The Poles went on to invade Galicia, with some success, but the offensive quickly stalled with heavy casualties. The Austrians also won a few battles but were hampered by Russian troops whose intentions were unclear and did not allow them to advance.

After the Austrian invasion of the Duchy of Warsaw, Russia reluctantly entered the war against Austria to fulfil their treaty of alliance with France. The Russian army, under the command of General Sergei Golitsyn, crossed into Galicia on 3 June 1809. Golitsyn advanced as slowly as possible, with instructions to avoid any major confrontation with the Austrians. There were minor skirmishes between the Russian and Austrian troops, with minimal losses. The Austrian and Russian commanders were in frequent correspondence and shared some operational intelligence. A courteous letter sent by a Russian divisional commander, General Andrei Gorchakov, to Archduke Ferdinand was intercepted by the Poles, who sent an original to Emperor Napoleon and a copy to Tsar Alexander, resulting in Gorchakov's removal from command by Alexander. There were constant disagreements between Golitsyn and Poniatowski, with whom the Russians were supposed to cooperate in Galicia. As a result of the Treaty of Schönbrunn, Russia received the Galician district of Tarnopol.

The war at sea
Since the Napoleonic Wars started, British fleets launched numerous attacks on French fleets, ports, or colonies and British and French navies continued their fighting in 1809. Britain overwhelmed France in the Atlantic after the French defeat at Trafalgar Campaign and Atlantic campaign of 1806, and remnants of French fleet was stationed at bases in Bay of Biscay. French colonies on the Caribbean and the Atlantic provided shelters and could be major threats to the British fleet. The French Atlantic Fleet was blockaded in Brest by a British force under James Gambier but the French were keen to intervene in the Caribbean following the British invasion of Martinique in January 1809. A storm in February scattered Gambier's fleet and allowed the French, under Jean-Baptiste Philibert Willaumez, to put to sea and move to anchor in the Basque Roads. On 23 February three French frigates attempting to join the main fleet were damaged in the Battle of Les Sables-d'Olonne. A stalemate ensued with the French anchored under the guns of coastal batteries but blockaded by the British. Willaumez was replaced by Zacharie Allemand on 16 March, who consolidated the anchorage defences. The British Admiralty sent Captain Lord Cochrane to lead an attack on the French. Cochrane's 11 April assault with fireships caused panic in the French fleet and many vessels ran aground. Gambier failed to capitalise on the situation by sending in the main British fleet, though Cochrane's smaller force destroyed a number of vessels over the following days. The action confined the French fleet to its anchorage and allowed the British and Spanish to displace the French from Haiti that year and an invasion of Guadeloupe in early 1810.

Italian rebellions
Archduke John issued proclamations in April 1809 calling on the population of Veneto to rise up against the French for the sake of Italian nationalism. A portion of the population of Venice, including many criminals, rose up and took over public buildings, destroying taxation and conscription records. The revolt continued after the withdrawal of Austrian forces in May, spreading to the rest of Veneto. The rebels were inspired by the Tyrolean Rebellion. The French garrison and militia were unable to contain the rebels, who were unplacated by the abolition of French taxes on flour, meat and wine. Many towns in Veneto came under rebel control and rebels entered Emilia-Romagna where Bologna was threatened and Ferrara was besieged for ten days. The rebellion ended in November 1809 and Napoleon reacted strongly: 4,000 troops were sent to Bologna from Naples and 675 citizens arrested, of whom 150 were killed. In the mountains and marshes of the region, some rebels remained and acted as brigands until the end of French occupation.

Rebellion in Tyrol
In Tyrol, Andreas Hofer led a rebellion against Bavarian rule and French domination that resulted in early isolated victories in the first Battles of Bergisel. Hofer freed the Tyrol of Bavarian occupation by late August but on 29 September an Italian force under Luigi Gaspare Peyri captured Trento, though they could advance no further. The next month, with troops made available after the Treaty of Schönbrunn, a Bavarian force under Jean-Baptiste Drouet, Comte d'Erlon travelled to end the rebellion. Supported by Franco-Italian forces, a three-pronged attack occupied the region with 45,000 troops by early November. Hofer went into hiding but was betrayed by one of his men in January 1810 and executed by the French.

Gottscheer rebellion
One of the counties ceded to France was Gottschee (in modern-day Slovenia), which was to form part of the Illyrian Provinces. The ethnic German population, the Gottscheers, led by Johann Erker, rebelled against the French garrison. Rebels were quickly defeated and the French intended to burn down the city of Gottschee. After petitions from local clergy this was not carried out, but the city was looted for a period of three days from 16 October.

Black Brunswickers
The Duchy of Brunswick had been incorporated in to the French client state of the Kingdom of Westphalia but its duke, Frederick William, sided with the Austrians in 1809. His force of a few thousand volunteer Brunswickers fought alongside Austrian troops under General Kienmayer in Saxony, a French client state led by Frederick Augustus I. They were successful, defeating a corps under the command of Junot at the Battle of Gefrees. After taking the Saxon capital, Dresden, and pushing back an army under the command of Napoleon's brother, Jérôme Bonaparte, the Austrians were effectively in control of all of Saxony. By this time, the main Austrian force had already been defeated at Wagram and the Armistice of Znaim had been agreed. The Duke of Brunswick refused to be bound by the armistice and led his corps on a fighting march right across Germany to the mouth of the River Weser, from where they sailed to England and entered British service.

Aftermath
After the main Austrian force was defeated at Wagram, the nation's forces collapsed, according to historian Charles Esdaile, and Emperor Francis was forced to sue for peace. Englund attributes the end to "diplomatic considerations" and believes that Austria could have continued to fight. The Treaty of Schönbrunn, signed on 14 October 1809, imposed a heavy political toll on the Austrians. Metternich and Charles succeeded in negotiating lighter terms in return for Austrian co-operation and most of the hereditary Habsburg territories were preserved. The lands given to the French were significant and included Carinthia, Carniola, and the Adriatic ports, removing Austria's access to the Mediterranean. West Galicia was given to the Duchy of Warsaw. The lands of the short-lived Duchy of Salzburg, acquired by Austria as territorial compensation for losses on the Adriatic Coast and the loss of Tyrol in the Peace of Pressburg, were transferred to Bavaria. Russia was ceded the district of Tarnopol. Austria lost over three million subjects, about 20% of the kingdom's total population. Emperor Francis agreed to pay an indemnity equivalent to almost 85 million francs, gave recognition to Napoleon's brother Joseph as the King of Spain, and reaffirmed the exclusion of British trade from his remaining dominions. After the Austrian defeat, Napoleon married the daughter of Emperor Francis, Marie Louise. Napoleon hoped the marriage would cement a Franco-Austrian alliance and provide legitimacy to his regime. The alliance gave Austria respite from war with France, which it had pursued on and off for ten years, and restored her status as a great European power; marital ties did not prevent Francis from declaring war on France in 1813.

The impact of the conflict was not all positive from the French perspective. The revolts in Tyrol and the Kingdom of Westphalia during the conflict were an indication that there was discontent over French rule among the German population. Just a few days before the conclusion of the Treaty of Schönbrunn, an 18-year-old German named Friedrich Staps approached Napoleon during an army review and attempted to stab the emperor, but he was intercepted by General Rapp. The emerging forces of German nationalism were strongly rooted by this time, and the War of the Fifth Coalition nurtured their development. In 1813, during the War of the Sixth Coalition, there were anti-French risings and spontaneous guerrilla activity, though whether this was fuelled by pan-German nationalism or patriotism for the old order is debated by historians; a united Germany did not come about until 1871.

The war undermined French military superiority and the Napoleonic image. The Battle of Aspern-Essling was the first major defeat in Napoleon's career and was warmly greeted by much of Europe. The Austrians had shown that strategic insight and tactical ability were no longer a French monopoly. The decline in the tactical skill of the French infantry led to increasingly heavy columns of foot soldiers eschewing manoeuvres and relying on sheer weight of numbers to break through, a development best emphasized by MacDonald's attack at Wagram. The Armée d'Allemagne did not have the qualitative edge of the Grande Armée partly because raw conscripts replaced many of the veterans of Austerlitz and Jena, eroding tactical flexibility. Napoleon's armies were increasingly composed of non-French contingents, undermining morale. Although Napoleon's manoeuvers were successful, as evidenced by overturning the awful initial French position, the growing size of his armies made military strategies more difficult to manage. The scale of warfare grew too large for Napoleon to fully manage, which became evident during the next Napoleonic war, the French invasion of Russia in 1812.

Englund describes the war as "the first modern war" for the use of "symmetrical conscript armies of singularly large size," that were divided into corps and commanded decentralized in theatres. He concludes that "it was a war of magnitude and maneuver more than before and the decisive factor was attrition more than dramatic one-(or two-)day pitched battles."

title: War of the Fifth Coalition


text:
Jari Tervo

Jari Tervo (born 2 February 1959) is a Finnish author. He is a major name in Finnish literature.

Writing
Tervo writes traditional plot-driven prose, ranging from humorous (Poliisin poika) to a detective story (Myyrä). His works often include autobiographical elements; for example, Kallellaan is a diary, and Minun sukuni tarina has a protagonist who is the author himself, all but in name. Despite his renown in Finland, only one of his novels has been translated into English: Pyhiesi Yhteyteen, translated as Among the Saints in 2014.

He was given the Veijo Meri Award in 2018.

Tervo was published by WSOY until 2016, but followed his editor,, to Otava.

Television
Tervo was a team captain on Finnish TV's version of Have I Got News For You, Uutisvuoto, from the beginning of the show in 1998 until 2017.

Personal life
Tervo is married to the writer.

Novels

 * Pohjan hovi, 1992 (The Court of the North)
 * Poliisin poika, 1993 (Policeman's Son)
 * Pyhiesi yhteyteen, 1995, published in English as Among the Saints in 2014
 * Tuulikaappimaa, 1997 (Windswept Expanse)
 * Minun sukuni tarina, 1999 (My Family Chronicle)
 * Kallellaan, 2000
 * Suomemme heimo, 2001
 * Rautapää, 2002
 * Myyrä, 2004 (The Mole)
 * Ohrana, 2006
 * Troikka, 2008
 * Koljatti, 2009
 * Layla, 2011
 * Jarrusukka, 2013
 * Esikoinen, 2013
 * Revontultentie, 2014
 * Pyrstötähti, 2015
 * Matriarkka, 2016
 * Aamen, 2018
 * Pääskyt talvehtivat järven pohjassa, 2021

Short story collections

 * Siat ja naudat, 1994
 * Taksirengin rakkaus, 1998
 * Siperian tango: Valitut novellit, 1993–2003, 2003

Poetry

 * Tuulen keinutuoli, 1980
 * Sillankorvassa, illansuussa, 1983
 * Kaistan taivasta, 1988
 * Muistoja Pohjolasta, 1990
 * Intialainen lippalakki: Valitut runot, 1978–90, 1999

Non-fiction

 * Loiri, 2019
 * Ukko, with Kati Tervo, 2022

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

title: Jari Tervo


text: Category:Scots Guards

title: Category:Scots Guards


text:
Treaty of Schönbrunn

The Treaty of Schönbrunn (Traité de Schönbrunn; Friede von Schönbrunn), sometimes known as the Peace of Schönbrunn or the Treaty of Vienna, was signed between France and Austria at Schönbrunn Palace near Vienna on 14 October 1809. The treaty ended the Fifth Coalition during the Napoleonic Wars, after Austria had been defeated at the decisive Battle of Wagram on 5–6 July.

Prelude
During the Peninsular War and the Spanish resistance against Napoleon, Austria had tried to reverse the 1805 Peace of Pressburg by sparking national uprisings in the French-occupied territories of Central Europe (most notably the Tyrolean Rebellion against Napoleon's Bavarian allies).

These attempts ultimately failed, after French forces occupied Vienna in May 1809. The Austrians under Archduke Charles were able to repulse them at the Battle of Aspern on 21-22 May; however, Napoleon withdrew his forces and crushed Charles' army at Wagram a few weeks later. The archduke had to sign the Armistice of Znaim on 12 July. In October, Austrian Foreign Minister Johann Philipp Stadion was superseded by Klemens von Metternich.

Terms
France imposed harsh peace terms: Austria had to cede the Duchy of Salzburg to Bavaria and lost its access to the Adriatic Sea by waiving the Littoral territories of Gorizia and Gradisca and the Imperial Free City of Trieste, together with Carniola, the March of Istria, western ("Upper") Carinthia with East Tyrol, and the Croatian lands southwest of the river Sava to the French Empire (see Illyrian Provinces). West Galicia was ceded to the Duchy of Warsaw, and Tarnopol district to the Russian Empire.

Austria recognized Napoleon's previous conquests from other nations as well as the rule of his brother Joseph Bonaparte as King of Spain. Austria also paid to France a large indemnity and the Austrian army was reduced to 150,000 men - a promise not fulfilled. The Graz Schlossberg fortress, whose garrison had firmly resisted the French occupation forces, was largely demolished.

Austria also had to apply Napoleon's Continental System, as Britain remained at war with France. One contemporary British view on the treaty was: "This Treaty is certainly one of the most singular documents in the annals of diplomacy. We see a Christian King, calling himself the father of his people, disposing of 400,000 of his subjects, like swine in a market. We see a great and powerful Prince condescending to treat with his adversary for the brushwood of his own forests. We see the hereditary claimant of the Imperial Sceptre of Germany not only condescending to the past innovations on his own dominions, but assenting to any future alterations which the caprice or tyranny of his enemy may dictate with respect to his allies in Spain and Portugal, or to his neighbours in Italy. —We see through the whole of this instrument the humiliation of the weak and unfortunate Francis, who has preferred the resignation of his fairest territories to restoring to his vassals their liberties, and giving them that interest in the public cause which their valour would have known how to protect.—O, the brave and loyal, but, we fear, lost Tyrolese!"

Though considerably weakened, Austria remained a European great power. Emperor Francis I approached to the French by marrying his daughter Marie Louise off to Napoleon (whom she at first detested) in 1810. As a result of Metternich's change of policies, the Austrian forces joined the French invasion of Russia in 1812.

Assassination attempt
During the negotiations at Schönbrunn, Napoleon narrowly escaped an attempt on his life. On 12 October, shortly before signing the treaty, the emperor exited the palace with a large entourage to observe a military parade. Seventeen year old Friedrich Staps, son of a Lutheran pastor from Naumburg, had arrived in Vienna and demanded an audience to present a petition. He was refused by the emperor's aide General Jean Rapp, who shortly thereafter observed Staps in the courtyard pushing through the crowd towards Napoleon from a different direction, and had him arrested.

Taken to the palace, Staps was found to be carrying a large kitchen knife inside his coat, concealed in the petition papers. Interrogated, Staps frankly revealed his plans to kill the emperor, calling him the misfortune of his country. Brought forward to Napoleon, he asked whether Staps would thank him if he was pardoned, to which Staps replied: "I would kill you none the less."

Napoleon left Vienna on 16 October and the next day Staps was shot by Württemberg fusiliers outside the palace. At this execution, he is said to have shouted "Long live freedom! Long live Germany!" Napoleon, impressed and fearing a greater conspiracy, instructed his police minister Joseph Fouché to keep the incident secret.

Soon after the German campaign of 1813, Staps came to be seen as a martyr of the burgeoning German nationalism. He was the subject of a poem by Christian Friedrich Hebbel and a play by Walter von Molo.

title: Treaty of Schönbrunn


text:
Marjetica Potrč

Marjetica Potrč (born 1953) is an artist and architect based in Ljubljana, Slovenia. Potrč's interdisciplinary practice includes on-site projects, research, architectural case studies, and drawings (visual essays and diagrams). Her work documents and interprets contemporary architectural practices (in particular, with regard to energy infrastructure and water use) and the ways people live together. She is especially interested in social architecture and how communities and governments can work together to make stronger, more resilient cities. In later projects, she has also focused on the relationship between human society and nature, and advocated for the rights of nature.

Her work almost always involves collaborations, both with other artists, architects, and specialists from various disciplines as well as with local communities. "Her projects display a unique sensibility for identifying the existing social capital in a community, which she utilizes as she works to find solutions to everyday problems." (statement from the Curry Stone Foundation). Through these collaborations, including, especially, with the students in her Design for the Living World class, her work explores new methodologies, tools, and strategies that local residents can use to make their communities and living environments better able to respond to future challenges. She describes such collaborative work as a "partnership in knowledge exchange" and stresses the importance of developing new alliances, such as between environmentalists and Indigenous peoples, to create a new "hybrid" knowledge that goes beyond the standardized, objective knowledge of the modernist discourse.

Background and early career
Potrč was born in Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia, then part of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Her parents were both writers. Her father, Ivan Potrč, was a well-known Slovenian social realist novelist and playwright, originally from the Styria region, and the main editor at the Mladinska Knjiga publishing house. Her mother, Branka Jurca, was a teacher, magazine editor, and well-known children’s author. She was born in the Karst region of western Slovenia but moved to Maribor, where she met Marjetica's father.

Marjetica Potrč received degrees in architecture (1978) and sculpture (1986, 1988) from the University of Ljubljana. In 1990, she moved to the United States. Her installations from this period often involved various kinds of walls; for example, Two Faces of Utopia (1993, made for the Slovenian Pavilion at the Venice Biennial), and the series Theatrum Mundi: Territories (1993–1996). At the time, she noted: "I don't make objects. I build walls" – a statement that positions her work against object-based sculpture. In 1994, she moved back to Ljubljana. Since then, Potrč's work has developed at the intersection of visual art, architecture, and the social sciences.

On-site projects
In 2003, Potrč was invited to spend six months in Caracas, Venezuela, as part of the Caracas Case Project, and carry out research on the informal city. There, in collaboration with the Israeli architect Liyat Esakov and local residents, she developed the project Dry Toilet, in which an ecologically safe, waterless toilet was installed in the upper part of the La Vega barrio, a district in Caracas that has no access to the municipal water grid. Dry Toilet is one of a series of community-focused on-site projects by Potrč that are characterized by participatory design and a concern with sustainability issues, particularly in relation to energy and water infrastructures. Other important projects are Power from Nature (Barefoot College, Rajasthan, India, and the Catherine Ferguson Academy, Detroit, Mich., USA, 2005), The Cook, the Farmer, His Wife and Their Neighbour (Stedelijk Goes West, Amsterdam, 2009), Rainwater Harvesting on a Farm in the Venice Lagoon (Sant'Erasmo Island, Venice Lagoon, 2010), The Soweto Project (9UB, Soweto, South Africa, 2014), and Of Soil and Water: King's Cross Pond Club (Relay Art Programme, King's Cross, London, 2015). In Potrč's view, sustainable solutions that are implemented and disseminated by communities serve to empower these communities and help create a democracy built from below.

From 2011 to 2018, Marjetica Potrč was a professor of social design at the University of Fine Arts/HFBK in Hamburg, Germany, where she taught Design for the Living World, a class on participatory practices. She and her students carried out participatory design projects in various countries around the globe (Germany, Greece, Israel, Mexico, the United States, and South Africa, to name just a few). In these projects, Potrč and her students saw themselves as mediators and collaborators with the community and developed new methodologies and a new vocabulary for their participatory practice, such as "rituals of transition", "relational objects", and "performative actions", among others.

In an interview with Laura Bernhardt, Potrč noted: "This is how I understand my role as a mediator in participatory practices and in collaborative projects. When, as an artist, designer or architect your involvement is creating and fostering relations, you  understand it as a laboratory where you and the others—the local residents—are testing ideas, exchanging knowledge, and becoming involved in local governance. You see  that you are not “merely” a co-author but also the mediator of a process. And what can be better? The artist or designer involved in these projects has to trust the conceptual framework of the project.  So basically, it’s not about following established values, but about creating new values that correspond to contemporary times."

The Soweto Project (2014) is of particular note. She and the class spent two months in the Soweto district of Johannesburg, where they worked with the residents of the Orlando East neighborhood to transform a degraded public space that was being used as a dumping ground into a community space.

Since 2010, Potrč has collaborated on a number of projects with the architectural and design practice Ooze (Eva Pfannes and Sylvain Hartenberg), based in Rotterdam. These projects, which focus largely on water purification, include Between the Waters: The Emscher Community Garden in Essen, Germany (2010), where they constructed a complete sustainable water supply system on an island in the Emscher River; Of Soil and Water: King's Cross Pond Club, in London (2015), where they created a natural swimming pond with its own micro-ecological environment on a construction site; and Future Island, on the Albano Campus of Stockholm University (2023), in which they created an island with separate heated and unheated zones that stage the effects of climate change in real time.

Architectural case studies

Potrč's large gallery installations, which she calls "architectural case studies," are a unique practice that has long been a central part of her work. These houses, which she describes as "theatrical objects", represent real-life architectural practices as they relate to environmental, social, economic, and political issues. The source of the work is always acknowledged, and a black-and-white documentary photograph of the original situation is presented as part of the documentation.

For example, Hybrid House: Caracas, West Bank, West Palm Beach (Palm Beach Institute of Contemporary Art, Lake Worth, Florida, 2003), illustrates how three very different 21st-century communities — a Caracas barrio, a Jewish settlement on the West Bank, and a temporary housing community in West Palm Beach, Florida — negotiate issues of space, security, energy, water, and communications in contested environments.

Another architectural case study, Duncan Village Core Unit, first presented in 2002 at Galerie Nordenhake in Berlin, offers an example of collaboration between municipal government (in this case, in East London, South Africa) and residents: the city provided service core units connected to the water, energy, and sewage infrastructure, and the new residents built their homes around them. In later installations, new elements were added, such as a water tank, a satellite dish, a sunshade, a house, and urban agriculture, to illustrate the kind of growing structure built by the residents.

Potrč describes the architectural case study Caracas: Growing Houses, first exhibited in Architektonika 2, at the Hamburger Bahnhof – Museum of Contemporary Art in Berlin in 2012, as a "three-dimensional portrait of an informal city." Two self-built houses from a Caracas barrio negotiate their presence and shared infrastructure. In contrast to the modernist city of Caracas, the rural-like informal city of the barrios foregrounds community and not individualism. The houses "grow" in two ways, Potrč explains. First, because you see that this is self-built architecture, and second, because the architecture grows and changes as the families who live there grow and interact with each other: "Existence is always a coexistence."

The School of the Forest/Miami Campus (2015) is an architectural case study of a community center in the Amazonian state of Acre, in Brazil. It draws its inspiration from the Universidade da Floresta, an initiative launched in Acre in 2005, that brings together knowledge from local communities with scientific knowledge, treating both systems with equal respect. In the exhibition at the Pérez Art Museum Miami, a series of lectures, seminars, and workshops were held in the building constructed in the gallery.

The case study The House of Agreement Between Humans and the Earth (2022), inspired by the palafitas of Amazonia, is a simple wooden house held together by fiber rope. The work combines built architecture with the notion of social architecture in dialogue with nature. The base, representing earth, supports the world of social agreements, including agreements between humanity and nature. Ropes extending to the gallery ceiling – connecting earth and sky – represent human dependence on and coexistence with nature. Drawn images on the structure illustrate such agreement as reflected in society and the life of the planet, in particular the struggle for the rights of nature in Australia. The work was exhibited at the 23rd Biennale of Sydney in 2022.

Research projects
Ever since her six-month research residency in Caracas, in 2003, Potrč's practice has included extended research projects in regions that are reinventing themselves. Among these, the most significant have been her projects in the Amazonian state of Acre in western Brazil in 2006 (in conjunction with the São Paulo Art Biennial); the Lost Highway Expedition, in nine cities in the Western Balkans, which she co-organized in collaboration with a group of artists and architects; her research project on water issues in post-Katrina New Orleans (2007); and her multipartite installation for the 23rd Biennale of Sydney (2022), which focused on the rights of rivers and the human relationship with nature, in which she collaborated with the Wiradjuri elder Ray Woods. As noted earlier, collaboration with individuals, groups, and organizations is an integral part of nearly all her research projects.

Visual essays and diagrams
These research projects provide the basis not only for her architectural case studies but also for visual essays and large-format diagrams, which present her findings to wider audiences. Potrč constructs her visual essays as narratives that use simple images and text to convey and interpret the challenges and strategies of the communities she has studied. Such works include, among others, The Struggle for Spatial Justice (2005), Florestania (2006), The Citizens of Duncan Village Speak Out (2012), The Struggle for Natural Justice (2017), and, for the Biennale of Sydney, The Rights of a River (2021) and The Life of the Lachlan River (2022). Her diagrams include The Great Republic of New Orleans (2007), The Earth Drawings (2009–2019), and The World in the Age of Stories (2020). The diagrams are often exhibited as wall drawings, as in her presentation at 23rd Biennale of Sydney.

Notable exhibitions
Potrč's work has been featured in major international exhibitions, including:

 * Skulptur Projekte Münster (1997)
 * São Paulo Biennial (1996, 2006)
 * Venice Biennale of Art (1993, 2003, 2009)
 * Yinchuan Biennial (2018)
 * Biennale of Sydney (2022)

Since 2003, she has regularly shown her work at Galerie Nordenhake in Berlin and Stockholm, as well as, formerly, at the Max Protetch Gallery (2002–2009) and the Meulensteen Gallery (2009–2012) in New York.

Important solo exhibitions include:

 * Hugo Boss Prize 2000: Marjetica Potrč, Guggenheim Museum, New York (2001)
 * Urgent Architecture, List Visual Arts Center, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts (2004)
 * Personal States, Portikus, Frankfurt am Main (2006)
 * Forest Rising, The Curve at the Barbican Art Gallery, London (2007)
 * In a New Land, Galerie Nordenhake, Berlin (2011)
 * Soweto House with Prepaid Water Meter, Eli and Edythe Broad Art Museum at Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan (2012)
 * School of the Forest/Miami Campus'', Pérez Art Museum, Miami (2015)
 * Acuerdo Social, FLORA ars+natura, Bogotá (2017)
 * Shelter: Closed and Open, VISUAL Centre for Contemporary Art, Carlow, Ireland (2018)
 * Water and Land, City Gallery, Piran, Slovenia (2022)

Selected awards and grants

 * The Medal of Merit of the Republic of Slovenia (2023)
 * Curry Stone Design Prize (2008)
 * Vera List Center for Arts and Politics Fellowship (2007–2008)
 * Hugo Boss Prize (2000), administered by the Guggenheim Museum
 * Pollock-Krasner Foundation grants (1993 and 1999)
 * Prešeren Fund Award (1994)

Book publications

 * Marjetica Potrč, Urgent Architecture (2003). Edited by Michael Rush with essays by Carlos Basualdo, Liyat Esakov, Marjetica Potrč, Michael Rush, and Eyal Weizman. Lake Worth, Fla.: Palm Beach Institute of Contemporary Art.
 * Marjetica Potrč, Next Stop, Kiosk (2003). Edited by Lívia Páldi with essays by Zdenka Badovinac, Hans Ulrich Obrist, Lívia Páldi, Marjetica Potrč, and Goran Tomčić. Ljubljana: Moderna galerija. Distributed by Revolver Archiv für aktuelle Kunst.
 * Marjetica Potrč, Urban Negotiation (2003). Edited by Ana Maria Torres with essays by Kosme de Baranano, Ana Maria Torres, Marjetica Potrč, Max Protetch, and Francesco Careri. Valencia, Spain: Instituto Valenciano de Arte Moderno (IVAM).
 * Marjetica Potrč, Florestania (2009). Hanover, NH: Dartmouth College.
 * Marjetica Potrč and Design for the Living World, The Soweto Project (2014). Berlin: Archive Books.

Articles, reviews, and talks

 * Carlos Basualdo and Reinaldo Laddaga, "Rules of Engagement," Artforum International, March 2004, pp. 166–170.
 * Eleanor Heartney, "A House of Parts," Art in America, May 2004, pp. 140–143.
 * Marco Scotini, "Dry Toilet," Domus, no. 891, Geo-Design (April 2006), pp. 88–91.
 * Marjetica Potrč, "New Territories in Acre and Why They Matter", e-flux Journal, no. 00, November 2008. The essay was reprinted in Florestania (Dartmouth College, 2009) and the catalogues for the exhibitions The School of the Forest/Miami Campus (Perez Art Museum, Miami, 2015) and Eco-Visionaries (Bildmuseet, Umeå, Sweden, 2018).
 * Anna Dezeuze, "Vivere di avversità: l'arte della precarietà / Thriving On Adversity: The Art of Precariousness", Lotus International, no. 143 (2010), p. 122–129. (In Italian and English.)
 * "Interview with Marjetica Potrč", by Felix Meritis at the symposium "Actors, Agents and Attendants II: Housing the Social", SKOR, Foundation for Art and Public Domain, Amsterdam, December 13, 2011.
 * Marjetica Potrč, "A Vision of the Future City and the Artist's Role as Mediator", talk at the Harvard Graduate School of Design, April 18, 2012.
 * “Artists at Work: Marjetica Potrč”, interviewed by Berit Fischer, Afterall Online, June 2012.
 * Linda Weintraub, "Marjetica Potrč: DIY Renewal for Slums and Condos", To Life!: Eco Art In Pursuit of a Sustainable Planet, University of California Press, 2012, pp. 247–252.
 * Marjetica Potrč, "Public Space is a Social Agreement", talk for the Art, Culture and Technology Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, October 2015.
 * Marjetica Potrč, "The Soweto Project". In Public Space? Lost and Found, Edited by Gediminas Urbonas, Ann Lui and Lucas Freeman, MIT Press, 2017, pp. 235–243.
 * Marjetica Potrč, "Artist Talk", in conversation with Dr. Gabriele Knapstein, Galerie Nordenhake Berlin, September 2019.
 * Marjetica Potrč, "On Collaboration", talk for the Of Public Interest Lab, Department for Research and Further Education in Architecture and Fine Art, Royal Institute of Art, Stockholm, November 2020.
 * Marjetica Potrč, "The Artist as Mediator: Changing the Culture and Creating New Values", interviewed by Laura Bernhardt, Current - Kunst und Urbaner Raum (Stuttgart), no.1, 2021, p. 21–27. (In German and English.)
 * Marjetica Potrč, "Artist Talk", in conversation with Gilly Karjevsky, at Galerie Nordenhake, Berlin, March 17, 2023.
 * Marjetica Potrč, "The Personhood of Nature", talk and conversation with Nitin Bathla, Santiago del Hierro, Laura Turley, Anna Wienhues, and others, as part of the lecture series, Sessions on Territory: Urbanism in a Broken World: REPAIR, ETH Zurich D-ARCH, ONA Fokushalle E7, Zurich, May 25, 2023.

title: Marjetica Potrč


text: Category:Black metal musical groups

title: Category:Black metal musical groups


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copacetic (0th nomination)

Another dicdef. Move to Wiktionary. Guanaco 01:54, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: The etymology looks pretty sketchy to me, but whether or not it is, I think Wiktionary should develop this one according to its own standards, esp. since this is a Jazz Age term and a jazz music term. Geogre 03:46, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Like, man, this article is a real drag. a) dicdef, b) what's there is unverifiable and unreferenced. AHD4 lists it as a standard word (saying nothing about a jazz connection, BTW):
 * SYLLABICATION: co·pa·cet·ic; VARIANT FORMS: co·pa·set·ic; Very satisfactory or acceptable; fine: “You had to be a good judge of what a man was like, and the English was copacetic” (John O'Hara). ETYMOLOGY: Origin unknown.

Dpbsmith 13:53, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: "Etymology obscure" in every source I've examined. First usage 1919.  At the same time, look at the quote selection (John O'Hara).  What I'm saying is that it's a jazz-community-derived term popular in the 1950's as a hepcat slang.  First use in print is already among the hipsters.  Best argument I've heard is that it derives ultimately from the "jazzing" musicians of New Orleans, but it's obscure. What it ain't is appropriate for us, as you note. Geogre 14:22, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * A better article already exists at Copacetic. Delete this one.  --Ardonik 08:36, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, definatly something you may find in a dictinary but not an encyclopedia. But wicktionary already has a good article on it.  And shouldn't wikipedia have a votes to move to wicktionary or something?--Ryan B.  (Talk, contributions)  09:16, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)


text:
Stanley Medical College

Stanley Medical College (SMC) is a public medical college located in Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. Though the original hospital is more than 200 years old, the medical college was formally established on 2 July 1938.

The medical college and the hospital include a Centre of Excellence for Hand and Reconstructive Microsurgery and a separate cadaver maintenance unit, the first in the country. By legacy, the hospital's anatomy department receives corpses for scientific study from the Monegar Choultry from which the hospital historically descended.

History
Stanley Medical College and Hospitals is one of the oldest centers in India in the field of medical education. The seed for this institution was sown as early as 1740 when the East India Company first created the medical department. The Stanley Hospital now stands on the old site of the Monegar Choultry established in 1782. In 1799, the Madras Native Infirmary was established with Monegar Choultry and leper asylum providing medical services.

In 1830, philanthropist Raja Sir Ramasamy Mudaliar endowed a hospital and dispensary in the Native Infirmary. In 1836, Madras University established M.B. & G.M. and L.M & S medical courses in the Native Infirmary. In 1903, a hospital assistant course was introduced with the help of the East India Company. In 1911, the first graduating class was awarded their Licensed Medical Practitioner (LMP) diplomas.

In 1933, a five-year D.M. & S (Diploma in Medicine & Surgery) course was inaugurated by Lt. Colonel Sir George Fredrick Stanley, a British parliamentarian. The school was named after him by the Governor of Madras Presidency on 2 July 1938. In 1941, three medical and surgical units were created. This was expanded to seven medical and surgical units in 1964. In 1938, 72 students studied, and then from 1963, 150 students were admitted each year.

In 1990, the Institute of Social Paediatrics was established. Initially established as a centre for children and for improving research programmes. The institute houses several departments of the hospital including nephrology, dermatology, and neurology and provides treatment for adult patients from Stanley.

Hospital
The college is associated with the Government Stanley Hospital which has 1580 beds for in-patient treatment. The hospital has an out-patient attendance of around 5000 patients per day. It has an 8-storey surgical complex equipped to perform up to 40 surgeries simultaneously, and a separate pediatrics block with all specialities under one roof.

Admissions
Admissions to Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery (MBBS) and post-graduate (MD, MS, other diplomas and higher specialties) are through state (85% seats) and national (15%) entrance examinations. Reservations of seats and reduced tuition are available to reserved communities. Admissions are open only to Indian citizens and are highly competitive. Admissions to the MBBS program (about 250 seats per year) are based on NEET (National Eligibility cum Entrance Test). Several seats in post-graduate programs are reserved for physicians in government service.

Affiliated hospitals

 * Government Stanley Hospital, Chennai
 * Government Raja Sir Ramasamy Mudaliar Lying-in Hospital, Chennai
 * Government Hospital for Thoracic Medicine, Tambaram, Chennai
 * Government Peripheral Hospital, Tondiarpet, Chennai

Notable people

 * Vilayanur S. Ramachandran, Neurologist and Cognitive Science researcher
 * Govindappa Venkataswamy, founder of Aravind Eye Hospitals
 * Ramaswami Venkataswami, founder of IRRH & DPS (Hand Rehabilitation / Plastic Surgery)
 * Mirudhubashini Govindarajan, Infertility Expert, Founder and Clinical Director Women's Center and Hospitals
 * Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran, Chief Medical Examiner-Coroner for the County of Los Angeles
 * C. U. Velmurugendran, Padma Shri recepiant and former Chief of Neurology (STANLEY AND Madras Medical College)
 * N. Mathrubootham, Psychiatrist
 * Sondur Sriniwasachar professor of Bio-chemistry at Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences
 * Thomas Thomas The first Indian Cardiothoracic surgeon.
 * Mohammed Rela, world renowned liver transplant surgeon, Director & Chairman of Dr. Rela Institute and Medical centre, Crompet, Chennai, India
 * Prathap C. Reddy, founder of Apollo Hospitals
 * Natesan Rangabashyam, Gastroenterologist and Padma Bhushan recipient
 * Thenumgal Poulose Jacob, Vascular surgeon and Padma Shri recipient
 * K. R. Palaniswamy, Gastroenterologist and Padma Shri recipient
 * Subramanian Kalyanaraman, neurosurgeon, Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar laureate
 * Ganesan Venkatasubramanian, psychiatrist, Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar laureate
 * Belle Monappa Hegde Cardiologist Padma Bhushan recipient
 * T. M. A. Pai, Founder of Manipal University, KMC, Manipal

title: Stanley Medical College


text:
Human zoo (disambiguation)

A human zoo is a public exhibition of humans.

Human Zoo may also refer to:

Music

 * Human Zoo (Gotthard album), 2003, or the title track
 * Human Zoo (Electric Six album), 2014
 * "Human Zoo", a 2018 song by Boy George and Culture Club from the 2018 album Life

Other uses

 * The Human Zoo (book), a 1969 book by Desmond Morris
 * The Human Zoo (radio), a UK radio programme presented by Tommy Boyd
 * Human Zoo (film), a 2009 film by Rie Rasmussen
 * The Human Zoo, a reality television series with psychologist Philip Zimbardo

title: Human zoo (disambiguation)


text:
Thunderhill Raceway Park

Thunderhill Raceway Park is a motorsports complex located 7 miles west of Willows, California, United States, in the Sacramento Valley. It is the venue for the longest automobile race in the United States, the 25 Hours of Thunderhill, held annually during the first weekend in December.

Thunderhill has two tracks: the original 3-mile track known as Thunderhill East and a 2-mile track known as Thunderhill West. The two tracks can also be combined to offer a 5-mile track, the longest road course in America. Thunderhill also offers two large skid pad areas as well for drifting and car control events.

The venue is available for a wide variety of events or functions. It can be rented for racing events, lapping day events, drifting events, go kart events, driving schools, ride and drive programs, corporate events, commercials, a movie location, trade shows, weddings, receptions, swap meets etc.

San Francisco Region Properties, Inc., dba Thunderhill Park is the wholly-owned subsidiary of the San Francisco Region Sports Car Club of America. Thunderhill Raceway has its own board of directors and is operated completely independently of the non-profit subsidiary.

History
Thunderhill Raceway Park was built in 1993 originally as a 1.9-mile, 9-turn track. Following the closure of the Baylands Raceway in Fremont, CA, the purchase of the land and construction of Thunderhill was funded by the San Francisco Region Sports Car Club of America.

In late 1997, the track was expanded to its present-day 3-mile configuration, adding six new turns, a bypass for the "cyclone" corner, and additional paved paddock space.

Thunderhill West was conceptualized in 2013 and built in 2014 as a standalone track. Connectors were made to connect the original track with the new west track to make a five-mile-long track. At the time of construction, this was the longest racetrack in California, and it gained the nickname "Thunderschleife" as a nod to the Nurburgring Nordschleife.

title: Thunderhill Raceway Park


text:
Address space layout randomization

Address space layout randomization (ASLR) is a computer security technique involved in preventing exploitation of memory corruption vulnerabilities. In order to prevent an attacker from reliably redirecting code execution to, for example, a particular exploited function in memory, ASLR randomly arranges the address space positions of key data areas of a process, including the base of the executable and the positions of the stack, heap and libraries.

History
The Linux PaX project first coined the term "ASLR", and published the first design and implementation of ASLR in July 2001 as a patch for the Linux kernel. It is seen as a complete implementation, providing a patch for kernel stack randomization since October 2002.

The first mainstream operating system to support ASLR by default was OpenBSD version 3.4 in 2003, followed by Linux in 2005.

Benefits
Address space randomization hinders some types of security attacks by making it more difficult for an attacker to predict target addresses. For example, attackers trying to execute return-to-libc attacks must locate the code to be executed, while other attackers trying to execute shellcode injected on the stack have to find the stack first. In both cases, the system makes related memory-addresses unpredictable from the attackers' point of view. These values have to be guessed, and a mistaken guess is not usually recoverable due to the application crashing.

Effectiveness
Address space layout randomization is based upon the low chance of an attacker guessing the locations of randomly placed areas. Security is increased by increasing the search space. Thus, address space randomization is more effective when more entropy is present in the random offsets. Entropy is increased by either raising the amount of virtual memory area space over which the randomization occurs or reducing the period over which the randomization occurs. The period is typically implemented as small as possible, so most systems must increase VMA space randomization.

To defeat the randomization, attackers must successfully guess the positions of all areas they wish to attack. For data areas such as stack and heap, where custom code or useful data can be loaded, more than one state can be attacked by using NOP slides for code or repeated copies of data. This allows an attack to succeed if the area is randomized to one of a handful of values. In contrast, code areas such as library base and main executable need to be discovered exactly. Often these areas are mixed, for example stack frames are injected onto the stack and a library is returned into.

The following variables can be declared:
 * $$E_s$$ (entropy bits of stack top)
 * $$E_m$$ (entropy bits of  base)
 * $$E_x$$ (entropy bits of main executable base)
 * $$E_h$$ (entropy bits of heap base)
 * $$A_s$$ (attacked bits per attempt of stack entropy)
 * $$A_m$$ (attacked bits per attempt of  base entropy)
 * $$A_x$$ (attacked bits per attempt of main executable entropy)
 * $$A_h$$ (attacked bits per attempt of heap base entropy)
 * $$\alpha$$ (attempts made)
 * $$N$$ (total amount of entropy: $$N = (E_s-A_s) + (E_m-A_m) + (E_x-A_x) + (E_h-A_h)\,$$)

To calculate the probability of an attacker succeeding, a number of attempts $α$ carried out without being interrupted by a signature-based IPS, law enforcement, or other factor must be assumed; in the case of brute forcing, the daemon cannot be restarted. The number of relevant bits and how many are being attacked in each attempt must also be calculated, leaving however many bits the attacker has to defeat.

The following formulas represent the probability of success for a given set of $α$ attempts on $N$ bits of entropy.

 * $$g \left ( \alpha\, \right ) = 1 - { \left ( 1 - {2^{-N}} \right ) ^ \alpha\,} \,\text{ if } 0 \le \, \alpha\,$$ (isolated guessing; address space is re-randomized after each attempt)
 * $$b \left ( \alpha\, \right ) = \frac{\alpha\,} \,\text{ if } 0 \le \, \alpha\, \le \, {2^N}$$ (systematic brute forcing on copies of the program with the same address space)

In many systems, $$2^N$$ can be in the thousands or millions. On 32-bit systems, a typical amount of entropy N is 8 bits. For 2004 computer speeds, Shacham and co-workers state "... 16 bits of address randomization can be defeated by a brute force attack within minutes." (The authors' statement depends on the ability to attack the same application multiple times without any delay. Proper implementations of ASLR, like that included in grsecurity, provide several methods to make such brute force attacks infeasible.  One method involves preventing an executable from executing for a configurable amount of time if it has crashed a certain number of times.) On  64-bit systems, these numbers typically reach the millions at least.

Android, and possibly other systems, implement Library Load Order Randomization, a form of ASLR which randomizes the order in which libraries are loaded. This supplies very little entropy. An approximation of the number of bits of entropy supplied per needed library appears below; this does not yet account for varied library sizes, so the actual entropy gained is really somewhat higher. Attackers usually need only one library; the math is more complex with multiple libraries, and shown below as well. The case of an attacker using only one library is a simplification of the more complex formula for $$l = 1$$.

E_m = \begin{cases} \log_2 \left (l \right ) &\text{ if } \beta\, = 1, l \ge \, 1 \\ \sum_{i=l}^{l - \left ( \beta\, - 1 \right )} \log_2 \left (i \right ) &\text{ if } \beta\, \ge \, 1, l \ge \, 1 \end{cases} $$
 * $l$ (number of libraries loaded)
 * $β$ (number of libraries used by the attacker)

These values tend to be low even for large values of $l$, most importantly since attackers typically can use only the C standard library and thus one can often assume that $$\beta\, = 1$$. However, even for a small number of libraries there are a few bits of entropy gained here; it is thus potentially interesting to combine library load order randomization with VMA address randomization to gain a few extra bits of entropy. These extra bits of entropy will not apply to other mmap segments, only libraries.

Reducing entropy
Attackers may make use of several methods to reduce the entropy present in a randomized address space, ranging from simple information leaks to attacking multiple bits of entropy per attack (such as by heap spraying). There is little that can be done about this.

It is possible to leak information about memory layout using format string vulnerabilities. Format string functions such as printf use a variable argument list to do their job; format specifiers describe what the argument list looks like. Because of the way arguments are typically passed, each format specifier moves closer to the top of the stack frame. Eventually, the return pointer and stack frame pointer can be extracted, revealing the address of a vulnerable library and the address of a known stack frame; this can eliminate library and stack randomization as an obstacle to an attacker.

One can also decrease entropy in the stack or heap. The stack typically must be aligned to 16 bytes, and so this is the smallest possible randomization interval; while the heap must be page-aligned, typically 4096 bytes. When attempting an attack, it is possible to align duplicate attacks with these intervals; a NOP slide may be used with shellcode injection, and the string '/bin/sh' can be replaced with '////////bin/sh' for an arbitrary number of slashes when attempting to return to system. The number of bits removed is exactly $$\log_2\!\left (n \right )$$ for $n$ intervals attacked.

Such decreases are limited due to the amount of data in the stack or heap. The stack, for example, is typically limited to $8 MB$ and grows to much less; this allows for at most $19 bits$, although a more conservative estimate would be around 8–$10 bits$ corresponding to 4–$16 KB$ of stack stuffing. The heap on the other hand is limited by the behavior of the memory allocator; in the case of glibc, allocations above 128 KB are created using mmap, limiting attackers to 5 bits of reduction. This is also a limiting factor when brute forcing; although the number of attacks to perform can be reduced, the size of the attacks is increased enough that the behavior could in some circumstances become apparent to intrusion detection systems.

Limitations
ASLR-protected addresses can be leaked by various side channels, removing mitigation utility. Recent attacks have used information leaked by the CPU branch target predictor buffer (BTB) or memory management unit (MMU) walking page tables. It is not clear if this class of ASLR attack can be mitigated. If they cannot, the benefit of ASLR is reduced or eliminated.

Implementations
Several mainstream, general-purpose operating systems implement ASLR.

Android
Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich provides address space layout randomization (ASLR) to help protect system and third-party applications from exploits due to memory-management issues. Position-independent executable support was added in Android 4.1. Android 5.0 dropped non-PIE support and requires all dynamically linked binaries to be position independent. Library load ordering randomization was accepted into the Android open-source project on 26 October 2015, and was included in the Android 7.0 release.

DragonFly BSD
DragonFly BSD has an implementation of ASLR based upon OpenBSD's model, added in 2010. It is off by default, and can be enabled by setting the sysctl vm.randomize_mmap to 1.

FreeBSD
Support for ASLR appeared in FreeBSD 13.0. It is enabled by default since 13.2.

iOS (iPhone, iPod touch, iPad)
Apple introduced ASLR in iOS 4.3 (released March 2011).

KASLR was introduced in iOS 6. The randomized kernel base is 0x01000000 + ((1+0xRR) * 0x00200000), where 0xRR is a random byte from SHA1 (random data) generated by iBoot (the 2nd-stage iOS Boot Loader).

Linux
The Linux kernel enabled a weak form of ASLR by default since the kernel version 2.6.12, released in June 2005. The PaX and Exec Shield patchsets to the Linux kernel provide more complete implementations. The Exec Shield patch for Linux supplies 19 bits of stack entropy on a period of 16 bytes, and 8 bits of mmap base randomization on a period of 1 page of 4096 bytes. This places the stack base in an area 8 MB wide containing 524,288 possible positions, and the mmap base in an area 1 MB wide containing 256 possible positions.

ASLR can be disabled for a specific process by changing its execution domain, using. A number of sysctl options control the behavior of mainline ASLR. For example, kernel.randomize_va_space controls what to randomize; the strongest option is 2. vm.mmap_rnd_bits controls how many bits to randomize for mmap.

Position-independent executable (PIE) implements a random base address for the main executable binary and has been in place since April 18, 2004. It provides the same address randomness to the main executable as being used for the shared libraries. The PIE feature cannot be used together with the prelink feature for the same executable. The prelink tool implements randomization at prelink time rather than runtime, because by design prelink aims to handle relocating libraries before the dynamic linker has to, which allows the relocation to occur once for many runs of the program. As a result, real address space randomization would defeat the purpose of prelinking.

In 2014, Marco-Gisbert and Ripoll disclosed offset2lib technique that weakens Linux ASLR for PIE executables. Linux kernels load PIE executables right after their libraries; as a result, there is a fixed offset between the executable and the library functions. If an attacker finds a way to find the address of a function in the executable, the library addresses are also known. They demonstrated an attack that finds the address in fewer than 400 trys. They proposed a new randomize_va_space=3 option to randomize the placement of the executable relative to the library, but it is yet to be incorporated into the upstream as of 2024.

The Linux kernel 5.18 released May 2022 reduced the effectiveness of both 32-bit and 64-bit implementations. Linux filesystems call  to respond to a file-backed mmap. With a change in 5.18, files greater than 2 MiB are made to return 2 MiB-aligned addresses, so they can be potentially backed by huge pages. (Previously, the increased alignment only applied to Direct Access (DAX) mappings.) In the meantime, the C library (libc) has, over time, grown in size to exceed this 2 MiB threshold, so instead of being aligned to a (typically) 4 KiB page boundary as before, these libraries are now 2 MiB-aligned: a loss of 9 bits of entropy. For 32-bit Linux, many distributions show no randomization at all in the placement of the libc. For 64-bit Linux, the 28 bits of entropy is reduced to 19 bits. In response, Ubuntu has increased its mmap_rnd_bits setting. Martin Doucha added a Linux Test Project testcase to detect this issue.

Kernel address space layout randomization
Kernel address space layout randomization (KASLR) enables address space randomization for the Linux kernel image by randomizing where the kernel code is placed at boot time. KASLR was merged into the Linux kernel mainline in kernel version 3.14, released on 30 March 2014. When compiled in, it can be disabled at boot time by specifying nokaslr as one of the kernel's boot parameters.

There are several side-channel attacks in x86 processors that could leak kernel addresses. In late 2017, kernel page-table isolation (KPTI aka KAISER) was developed to defeat these attacks. However, this method cannot protect against side-channel attacks utilizing collisions in branch predictor structures.

, finer grained kernel address space layout randomization (or function granular KASLR, FGKASLR) is a planned extension of KASLR to randomize down to the function level.

Microsoft Windows
Microsoft's Windows Vista (released January 2007) and later have ASLR enabled only for executables and dynamic link libraries that are specifically linked to be ASLR-enabled. For compatibility, it is not enabled by default for other applications. Typically, only older software is incompatible and ASLR can be fully enabled by editing a registry entry HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management\MoveImages, or by installing Microsoft's Enhanced Mitigation Experience Toolkit.

The locations of the heap, stack, Process Environment Block, and Thread Environment Block are also randomized. A security whitepaper from Symantec noted that ASLR in 32-bit Windows Vista may not be as robust as expected, and Microsoft has acknowledged a weakness in its implementation.

Host-based intrusion prevention systems such as WehnTrust and Ozone also offer ASLR for Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 operating systems. WehnTrust is open-source. Complete details of Ozone's implementation are not available.

It was noted in February 2012 that ASLR on 32-bit Windows systems prior to Windows 8 can have its effectiveness reduced in low memory situations. A similar effect also had been achieved on Linux in the same research. The test code caused the Mac OS X 10.7.3 system to kernel panic, so it was left unclear about its ASLR behavior in this scenario.

NetBSD
Support for ASLR in userland appeared in NetBSD 5.0 (released April 2009), and was enabled by default in NetBSD-current in April 2016.

Kernel ASLR support on amd64 was added in NetBSD-current in October 2017, making NetBSD the first BSD system to support KASLR.

OpenBSD
In 2003, OpenBSD became the first mainstream operating system to support a strong form of ASLR and to activate it by default. OpenBSD completed its ASLR support in 2008 when it added support for PIE binaries. OpenBSD 4.4's malloc(3) was designed to improve security by taking advantage of ASLR and gap page features implemented as part of OpenBSD's  system call, and to detect use-after-free bugs. Released in 2013, OpenBSD 5.3 was the first mainstream operating system to enable position-independent executables by default on multiple hardware platforms, and OpenBSD 5.7 activated position-independent static binaries (Static-PIE) by default.

macOS
In Mac OS X Leopard 10.5 (released October 2007), Apple introduced randomization for system libraries.

In Mac OS X Lion 10.7 (released July 2011), Apple expanded their implementation to cover all applications, stating "address space layout randomization (ASLR) has been improved for all applications. It is now available for 32-bit apps (as are heap memory protections), making 64-bit and 32-bit applications more resistant to attack."

As of OS X Mountain Lion 10.8 (released July 2012) and later, the entire system including the kernel as well as kexts and zones are randomly relocated during system boot.

Solaris
ASLR has been introduced in Solaris beginning with Solaris 11.1 (released October 2012). ASLR in Solaris 11.1 can be set system-wide, per zone, or on a per-binary basis.

Exploitation
A side-channel attack utilizing branch target buffer was demonstrated to bypass ASLR protection. In 2017, an attack named "ASLR⊕Cache" was demonstrated which could defeat ASLR in a web browser using JavaScript.

title: Address space layout randomization