text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of other countries battleships

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was merge. The motion was to rename the article, but there is almost duplicate content on List of Minor navies battleships. The recommendation is to rename and merge content from both to fit Wikipedia's NPOV policy. The arguments presented was that minor, and other is considered as POV. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:56, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

List of other countries battleships
This is a 'list of things that haven't been covered yet in related lists'. That's actually misleading. Should be split into a number of separate articles. Radiant! 12:44, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Btw, there are about half a dozen articles "List of battleships". I believe those are (just about) encyclopedic enough to let them stand, but ymmv. Radiant! 12:46, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * At the very least it needs a useful title. - TB 14:14, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
 * Keep in one piece, maybe rename. If countries only have 1-3 battleships they don't need their own list. Kappa 14:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. What is an "other" country?  The article describes itself as a list of "minor" countries' battleships.  What is a "minor" country?   On Wikipedia, there are no "other" countries and there are no "minor" countries.   The author meant, "List of battleships that aren't on any other country lists"; but that is silly.   This article actually only makes sense in the context of the table in Battleship, to which it does not even link.  Somebody has created a separate article for each cell in that table, and one of the cells is "Other".  This table and the numerous articles listing battleships that it has engendered need to be thought through again. --BM 14:39, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ridiculous title. Concur with BM above. Fire Star 15:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment As noted above, this is a legitimate list from the Wikipedia ships project. A better procedure would have been to list it on Duplicate articles or add the template to both List of Minor navies battleships and List of other countries battleships. I had at first thought to follow Stan's advice, but am woefully unqualified. DialUp 16:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The usual strategy is to start with list of battleships, then split out long lists for countries having lots of them, cleverly leaving the miscellaneous on the main list where they are visible, and avoiding the issue of what to name the list of the miscellaneous. Stan 16:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Stan, is there anyone from your project that will do this? The only thing I can do is move List of Minor navies battleships over to List of battleships to save the history and merge the few ships from List of other countries battleships. And then copy the links from the table at Battleship#Battleships throughout history over. But I am unknowledgeable about ships. Thanks for your prompt answer, by the way. DialUp 20:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, I think that BM and Stan make good points. When you have a list that needs breakouts, you don't then create a breakout for the part of the list that doesn't need to be broken out! Oh, and if for some reason we do keep it, let's buy an apostrophe for the title. HyperZonktalk 17:54, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes BM has a good point but he's voting to delete the contents, which renders merging it impossible. Kappa 22:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not really voting to delete the contents. I just want to make sure the title is deleted and not turned into a redirect.   If someone wants to Merge then Delete, that is fine with me, but most of the admin's won't do that because of GFDL problems and the necessity of maintaining the edit history.   A 'merge' vote is really 'merge and redirect' and if I'm not comfortable with the title/topic, I hardly ever vote that way, even if I don't mind if the useful content is worked in somewhere else.  --BM 00:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename and/or merge, but do not delete. -Sean Curtin 01:11, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename, but do not delete. Johntex 16:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename. I seem to recall that a "minor power" in the naval sense is a nation that lacks a navy large enough for aggressive actions, and uses their fleet primarily for local self-defense. The various lists of battleships probably need to be consolidated under the "See also" section of the Battleships page. — RJH 17:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename, but do not delete. — Linnwood 07:10, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename. Megan1967 08:14, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Note to Administrators: I think List of other countries battleships can be deleted safetly. It appears outdated by List of Minor navies battleships which is linked to Battleship through a redirect. The only ships listed in other countries that do not appear on the minor navies list are Norway's; but they are on List of Norwegian battleships. DialUp 15:42, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Talk:Pedro de la Rosa

Image copyright problem with Image:JensonButtonpodium.jpg
The image Image:JensonButtonpodium.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --00:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Pedro de la Rosa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111125033320/http://www.hispaniaracing.com:80/news.php?nid=583 to http://www.hispaniaracing.com/news.php?nid=583
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120213174316/http://www.efra.ws/news/report/2005_EFRA_Race-History.pdf to http://www.efra.ws/news/report/2005_EFRA_Race-History.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110604214152/http://www.sportinglife.com/formula1/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=formula1/10/01/19/manual_112748.html to http://www.sportinglife.com/formula1/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=formula1/10/01/19/manual_112748.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130127005815/http://www.formula1.com:80/news/headlines/2013/1/14209.html to http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2013/1/14209.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Pedro de la Rosa. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131012003244/http://www.martinsharp.com/index.php?actionid=!@0Kr.3Tzpuf2&pageid=55&viewtype=normal to http://www.martinsharp.com/index.php?actionid=!@0Kr.3Tzpuf2&pageid=55&viewtype=normal

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Pedro de la Rosa


text:
Highest unclimbed mountain

An unclimbed mountain is a mountain peak that has not been climbed to the top. Determining which unclimbed peak is highest is often a matter of controversy. In some parts of the world, surveying and mapping are still unreliable. There are no comprehensive records of the routes of explorers, mountaineers, and local inhabitants. In some cases, even modern ascents by larger parties have been poorly documented and, with no universally recognized listing, the best that can be achieved in determining the world's highest unclimbed peaks is somewhat speculative. Most sources indicate that Gangkhar Puensum (7570 m) on the Bhutan–China border is the tallest mountain in the world that has not been fully summited. Gangkhar Puensum has been off limits to climbers since 1994 when Bhutan prohibited all mountaineering above 6000 m due to spiritual/religious beliefs.

Unclimbed mountains are sometimes referred to as "virgin peaks". Many virgin peaks exist because no one has had access to that mountain due to its geographic isolation or political instability. Some are off limits due to religious beliefs in that country or region which hold that a certain mountain is sacred and should remain inviolate. Of those, Mount Kailash, a mountain in the Ngari Prefecture, Tibet Autonomous Region of China, with an altitude of 6638 m is one of the most prominent. It lies in the Kailash Range (Gangdisê Mountains) of the Transhimalaya, in the western part of the Tibetan Plateau. Mount Kailash is considered sacred in four religions: Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Bon. Because of its status as a sacred mountain there are annual pilgrimages to see it, but setting foot on it is forbidden.

Additionally, since climbing tall mountains is usually a major undertaking and climbers are attracted to climbing the tallest ones, lower peaks (even if they are very formidable) simply get less attention, and instead the taller peaks are summited again, by parties following a new route, or perhaps during the winter when conditions are generally more treacherous.

Definition of a mountain
Many mountains, in addition to their highest point or peak, also have subpeaks. There is no universally accepted way of deciding when a subpeak is distinct enough to be classified as a mountain in its own right; therefore, any list of the world's mountains is subject to dispute. The topographic prominence of each apex and the general topography of the area both come into consideration when determining their status. Although objective criteria have been proposed, there is no widely agreed standard. In 1994, the International Climbing and Mountaineering Federation classified 82 mountain peaks in the Alps whose summits were at least 4000 m above sea level and with at least 30 m of topographic prominence over any adjacent mountain pass or col, as a distinct peak.

Verification of unclimbed status
It can be difficult sometimes to determine whether or not a mountain peak has been fully summited. Long before modern mountaineering commenced in the middle of the 19th century, evidence indicates that people did indeed travel up to the summits or near to the summits of major mountain peaks. Archaeological excavations in the Andes have shown that humans traveled up to 6739 m in prehistoric times. Permanent settlements as high as 4500 m were established as far back as 12,000 years ago in the Andes. In the Greater Himalaya region, Lhasa, in Tibet, sitting at 3650 m has been permanently occupied since the 7th century and many smaller settlements across the Greater Himalaya thrive at elevations exceeding 4000 m. With humans living at high elevations for many millennia, nearby peaks to such settlements may or may not have been summited at some point in the past. However, many regions away from settlements may never have been explored, especially since some high peaks in the Greater Ranges are so remote that they were unknown to local inhabitants until they were sighted by explorers.

The world's third-tallest peak, Kangchenjunga, has been summited a number of times, but on the 1955 expedition the first climbers of the peak agreed to honor the wishes of locals and not set foot on the topmost part of the mountain. Succeeding mountaineering parties may (or may not) have followed this tradition. Similarly, Nanda Devi has also been climbed but the topmost summit was not ascended and the primary summit is now off limits to climbers. Machapuchare had only one summit attempt back in 1957 when climbers came within 150 m of the summit; Nepal then banned future attempts.

Gangkhar Puensum
The mountain most widely claimed to be the highest unclimbed mountain in the world in terms of elevation is Gangkhar Puensum (7570 m). It is in Bhutan, on or near the border with China. In Bhutan, the climbing of mountains higher than 6000 m has been prohibited since 1994. The rationale for this prohibition is based on local customs that consider this and similar peaks to be the sacred homes of protective deities and spirits, and the lack of high-altitude rescue resources from any locale closer than India. The prohibition was further expanded in 2003 when mountaineering of any kind was disallowed entirely within Bhutan. Gangkhar Puensum will likely remain unclimbed so long as the government of Bhutan prohibits it.

Highest unclimbed non-prohibited peak
It is unclear which is the highest unclimbed non-prohibited mountain. While some recognize only peaks with 100 m of topographical prominence as individual summits, the International Climbing and Mountaineering Federation uses a 30 m cutoff for determining individual summits. Unclimbed summits include one on the massif known as Kabru (7318 m prominence c. 100 m), Labuche Kang III/East (7250 m) with prominence of 570 m and Karjiang (7221 m with a prominence of 895 m).

Most prominent unclimbed peak
Unclimbed candidates with high topographic prominence are by definition independent mountains, but some have relatively modest elevations. With such peaks, there is a greater possibility of undocumented ascents, perhaps occurring long ago.

As of mid-2014 Sauyr Zhotasy (3840 m, prominence of 3252 m), the high point in the Saur Range on the border between Kazakhstan and China, and Mount Siple (3110 m, prominence of 3110 m) on Siple Island off the coast of Antarctica, have no record of successful ascents. The unclimbed status of each of these peaks is difficult to confirm, although Mount Siple in particular is remote, uninhabited (and without any nearby habitation), and seldom visited. The most recent summiting of a formerly unclimbed most prominent mountain (with a prominence of 12,169 ft) was in June 2014 in the Finisterre Range of Papua New Guinea.

List of highest unclimbed peaks
The following peaks, with a minimum prominence of 150 m, were thought to be unclimbed.

Mountains with prominence over 300 m in bold.

title: Highest unclimbed mountain


text:
FREMM multipurpose frigate

The FREMM (Frégate Européenne Multi-Mission; Fregata Europea Multi-Missione), which stands for "European multi-purpose frigate", is a Franco-Italian family of multi-purpose frigates designed by Naval Group and Fincantieri. In France, this surface combatant is known as the "Aquitaine class" (17 units planned, of which 9 were later cancelled), while in Italy it is known as the "Bergamini class" (10 units planned). The lead ship of the class, FRENCH FRIGATE Aquitaine, was commissioned in November 2012 by the French Navy. Italy has ordered six general purpose and four anti-submarine variants. France, on the other hand, has ordered six anti-submarine variants and two air-defense ones.

The FREMM has also been exported to various countries. Notably, the United States Navy selected a FREMM variant for their new Constellation-class frigate of 20 frigates, to be built by Fincantieri, starting with a US$795 million contract for the lead ship.

Background
Three original variants of the FREMM were proposed; an anti-submarine variant (ASW) and a general-purpose variant (GP) and a land-attack variant (AVT) to replace the existing classes of frigates within the French and Italian navies. A total of 27 FREMM were to be constructed (17 for France and 10 for Italy) with additional aims to seek exports. However, budget cuts and changing requirements saw this number drop significantly for France, while the order for Italy remained unchanged. The land-attack variant (AVT) was subsequently cancelled.

A third anti-air warfare variant of FREMM was proposed by DCNS in response to French requirements for a new air-defence frigate, the new variant became known as FREDA ("FREgates de Défense Aériennes", "Air defence frigate"). This new French requirement was due to the third and fourth Horizon-class frigates being cancelled after the first two cost €1.35B each, but this decision left French Navy still in-need of replacements for its aging Cassard-class frigate air-defence frigates.

As of 2009, the FREDA design features a more powerful version of the Héraklès passive electronically scanned array radar and 32 cells of SYLVER A50 vertical launch system in place of the 16 cells of A43 and 16 cells of A70. The SYLVER A50 would allow it to fire the 120 km-range Aster 30 missile. While at one point it was determined that the towed array sonar would not be fitted, this has subsequently been retained on the FREDA design.

At Euronaval 2012 DCNS showed a new concept called FREMM-ER for the FREDA requirement, again based on the FREMM, but specifically mentioning the ballistic missile defense mission as well as anti-air warfare. FREMM-ER has a modified superstructure replacing Héraklès with the new Thales Sea Fire 500 radar, whose four fixed plates resemble those of the US Navy's AN/SPY-1. However, unlike the Héraklès and the SPY-1 (both using passive electronically scanned array technology), the Sea Fire 500 has active electronically scanned array antennas.

Italy
Initial planning assumptions for the Italian Navy are ten FREMM-IT (four ASW variants and six GP variants) at a cost of €5.9 billion. FREMM-IT will replace the Maestrale-class frigate and Lupo-class frigate frigates in service with the Italian Navy.

In the 2013 Italian budget, the Italian government laid out the necessary financing for two more GP variants (FREMM-IT 7 & 8) and the contract was awarded in September 2013. On 15 April 2015, the Italian Parliament confirmed the deal between OCCAR and Orizzonte Sistemi Navali Spa (Fincantieri and Finmeccanica, since 2017 Leonardo) to begin building units 9 and 10, for 764 million Euros.

As of 16 April 2015, the Italian government has approved funding for all ten FREMM-IT to be delivered to the Italian Navy (four ASW variants and six GP variants). FREMM-IT 9 & 10 will have undisclosed enhanced capabilities. All ten Italian FREMM-ITs have extended AAW capabilities, with SAAM-ESD CMS, Aster 30 and Aster 15 missiles for extended area defence. SAAM-ESD CMS use Leonardo MFRA, a 3D active radar (AESA), an evolved version of the Leonardo EMPAR PESA radar (previously embarked on Horizon-class destroyers and the ITALIAN AIRCRAFT CARRIER Cavour). Since the seventh FREMM-IT, there will be updates, such as new conformal IFF antenna and much more stealth response. Since the ninth FREMM-IT, SCLAR-H was replaced with Leonardo ODLS-20. In 2017 the Italian FREMM refit started with the installation on each of two SITEP MS-424 acoustic guns.

In 2020 Italy sold its last two FREMM-class frigates in the current production line (Spartaco Schergat and Emilio Bianchi) to Egypt. Spartaco Schergat was in the final stage of her sea trials while Emilio Bianchi would follow within one year. The deal reportedly also involved other military equipment and was worth 1.2 billion USD. Italy then order two additional FREMM frigates to replace those transferred to Egypt with the anticipated delivery of the replacements by 2025, with a new GP&ASW enhanced configuration, named GP-e. In 2023 Italy planned another 2 FREMM (bringing class fleet to 12 vessels), named FREMM-EVO, with widely improvements (PPAs DBR double radar, integrated X & C band, ATBM capability with Aster 30B1NT missiles, VDS Capatas-4, ecc.)

France
The original plan was for 17 FREMM to replace the nine D'Estienne d'Orves-class aviso avisos and nine anti-submarine frigates of the Tourville-class frigate and Georges Leygues-class frigatees. In November 2005 France announced a contract of €3.5 billion for development and the first eight hulls, with options for nine more costing €2.95 billion split over two tranches (totaling 17).

Following the cancellation of the third and fourth of the Horizon-class frigates in 2005 on budget grounds, requirements for an air-defence derivative of the FREMM called FREDA were placed – with DCNS coming up with several proposals. Expectations were that the last two ships of the 17 FREMM planned would be built to FREDA specifications; however, by 2008 the plan was revised down to just 11 FREMM (9 ASW variants and 2 FREDA variants) at a cost of €8.75 billion (FY13, ~US$12 billion). The 11 ships would cost €670 million (~US$760m) each in FY2014, or €860m (~US$980m) including development costs.

The 2013 White Paper on Defence and National Security committed France to 15 front-line frigates, which was initially interpreted as 2 Horizons, 5 La Fayette-class frigates and a reduction in the FREMM fleet down to 8 ships. The 2014–2019 defence plan restated a target of 11 frigates; of which six ASW FREMM variants would be delivered to replace the Georges Leygues-class frigates by 2019, followed by two anti-air variants to replace the ageing Cassard-class frigates and a decision was to have been taken in 2016 on what version the remaining three would be. In 2014, the French Navy's Chief of Staff, Admiral Bernard Rogel, confirmed that 11 FREMM frigates had been ordered but in 2015 the order was cut to 8 in order to allow for the introduction of five FTI mid-Size frigates from 2024. The FTI will replace the La Fayette class in "first-rank" roles, with three of the La Fayettes also being fitted with active sonar and other improvements so as to extend their service life into the early 2030s.

On 16 April 2021 the French Navy received Alsace, the first of the two air defence FREMM frigates ordered. The primary role of the air defence frigates is conducting the anti-aircraft defense of critical units such as the FRENCH AIRCRAFT CARRIER Charles de Gaulle and Mistral class landing helicopter docks. Besides being equipped with Aster 15 and Aster 30 surface-to-air missiles, the ship holds Exocet MM 40 anti-ship missiles and the MU 90 torpedo system.

United States

On 10 July 2017, it was reported that the United States Congress was interested in foreign designs such as the Fincantieri FREMM for the US Navy's FFG(X) Program. According to Representative Rob Wittman, chairman of the United States House Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces, the US Congress was comfortable with models such as Fincantieri's partnership with Lockheed Martin to build the Freedom-class littoral combat ship version of the littoral combat ship (LCS). If the Italian FREMM design is selected, the Marinette Marine shipyard in Wisconsin, part of the Fincantieri group, would build the guided-missile frigates. Marinette Marine is best known for the US Navy Freedom-class LCS. On 16 February 2018, Fincantieri Marine was one of five companies awarded a $15 million contract for conceptual design of FFG(X), which the Navy would evaluate over 16 months ahead of a final request for proposal in 2019 and contract award in 2020.

On 30 June 2017, it was announced that Leonardo and BAE Systems will collaborate to provide the US military forces with a wide range of upgraded munitions for advanced, large-calibre weapon systems such as the Leonardo Vulcano and Strales/DART guided munitions.

From late May to early June 2018, the Italian Navy deployed Alpino on a good will visit to the United States along the Eastern seaboard, making port calls in Norfolk, Baltimore, New York City, and Boston. She was visited by several US Navy officials who toured her as a potential FFG(X) candidate. Among the visitors was the Italian Ambassador to the United States, Armando Varrichio.

On 30 April 2020, the US Navy announced that Fincantieri had been awarded a $795 million contract for the first FFG(X), to be built at Fincantieri Marinette Marine in Marinette, Wisconsin. The contract includes options for an additional nine ships, which, if all options were exercised, would value the contract at $5.5 billion. On 7 October 2020, US Secretary of the Navy Kenneth Braithwaite announced that first FFG(X) frigate would be named USS Constellation (FFG-62).

Egypt
Egypt ordered two Italian FREMM frigates in 2020 and one French FREMM frigate in 2015. On 16 February 2015, the Egyptian Navy ordered one FREMM vessel to enter service before the opening of the New Suez Canal, as part of a larger deal (including 24 Dassault Rafale aircraft and a supply of missiles) worth US$5.9 billion (€5.2 billion). In order to keep to Egypt's deadlines, France offered to send Normandie, originally intended for the French Navy. The SYLVER A70 VLS and NETTUNO-4100 jamming equipment were removed due to export limitations for such sensitive equipment. The crew will be around 126 sailors compared to 108 in the French Navy. The SATCOM antenna for the French Syracuse satellites was also taken down; however, Egypt will use its own military telecommunications satellite, supplied by Airbus Defence and Space and Thales Alenia Space, in conjunction with its naval vessels. From March 2015, DCNS trained the Egyptian crew in the technology of the ship and DCNS and its partners accompanied the crew for a period of 15 months. On 23 June 2015, French naval shipbuilder DCNS transferred the FREMM frigate Tahya Misr (ex-Normandie) to the Egyptian Navy. A ceremony took place to transfer Normandie, renamed Tahya Misr ("Long Live Egypt") to Egypt, in the presence of General Sedki Sobhy, the Egyptian Minister of Defense, Jean-Yves Le Drian, the French Minister of Defense, Admiral Osama Rabie, Egyptian Navy Commander in Chief, Admiral Bernard Rogel, the French Chief of Navy and Hervé Guillou, Chairman & CEO of DCNS. The initial Italian sale might be followed by the subsequent acquisition of two additional FREMM frigates by Egypt. In April 2021, the second FREMM Bergamini-class frigate, ENS Bernees, joined the Egyptian Navy. The first one joined on 31 December 2020.

Morocco
On 24 October 2007, it was announced that the Royal Moroccan Navy had ordered one FREMM to replace its Descubierta-class corvette. The contract was signed on 18 April 2008 and construction of the Moroccan FREMM began in the summer 2008 with delivery expected in 2012 or 2013; Mohammed VI was launched in September 2011 and handed over on 30 January 2014. The Moroccan ship is similar to the French anti-submarine version, without SYLVER A70 tubes for MdCN cruise missile, and cost €470m.

Indonesia
On 10 June 2021, Indonesia signed a contract with Fincantieri for the order of six FREMM frigates and two Maestrale-class frigates and other logistical support. There may be collaboration between PT-PAL Shipyard on Java and Fincantieri.

Canada
In April 2013, the French government showcased the FREMM class in Halifax, Nova Scotia, with the hope of selling to the Royal Canadian Navy for the Single Class Surface Combatant Project.

In September 2017, a variant of the FREMM was offered directly to the Ministry of Defence, in an attempt to protect intellectual property. This direct bid included delivery of the first ship in 2019 if accepted within the year and a fixed price of $30 billion for all 15 ships, versus the $62 billion estimated for the government's prime-contractor ship building plan. In December 2017 the offer was rejected by the Public Services and Procurement Canada, citing the unsolicited nature of the bid as undermining the fair and competitive nature of the procurement". In October 2018, the Type 26 design was chosen by Canada as the winner of the program. On 8 February 2019, a contact was signed by Canada to build Type 26 vessels.

Australia
In April 2016, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull confirmed that the Italian FREMM class was one of three frigates shortlisted for the Royal Australian Navy's Anzac-class frigate replacement. In September 2016, Fincantieri signed a contract to participate in the Competitive Evaluation Process, conducted by the Department of Defence for nine Future Frigates for the Royal Australian Navy. In June 2018, the contract was awarded to BAE Systems to produce nine Hunter-class frigates.

Brazil
In January 2019, the Italian government made an offer of two Bergamini-class frigates to the Brazilian Navy. The frigates Spartaco Schergat and Emilio Bianchi under construction for the Italian Navy, would be transferred to Brazil for €1.5 billion (R$6.37 billion).

Greece
On 22 January 2009 the Hellenic Navy announced an order for six FREMM to replace an equal number of Elli-class frigates. After the Greek government-debt crisis this was cut down to between two and four ships equipped with SCALP Naval, with France alleged to have offered them to Greece at no cost for the first five years. Germany objected to this deal in October 2011 and no deal has been signed. In February 2013 though and during the formal visit of the President of France, François Hollande, in Athens, according to press reports an agreement which includes the long-term leasing of two FREMM frigates (Normandie and Provence according to initial reports) to the Hellenic Navy has been reached. On 12 January 2018 the Greek daily newspaper Kathimerini reported that the Greek government was set to enter talks with France regarding the procurement of two FREMM frigates, with an option for an additional two. Contacts between Greece and France were to begin initially at a military level, starting in February 2018. In April 2018, Greek deputy Minister for National Defence Fotis Kouvelis stated that an agreement between France and Greece was reached for a five-year lease of two FREMM frigates, which could have been handed over as early as August 2018. After a few days, on 25 April 2018 the Greek minister of Defense Panos Kammenos denied any information regarding the purchase of two frigates from France. Eventually, Greece abandoned all plans for the purchase of FREMMs in 2019 and pursued with the smaller FDI Belharra multi-purpose frigates, offered by Naval Group.

Common equipment

 * Leonardo OTO Melara 76 mm/62 calibre gun (compact for FR-ASW/Super Rapid gun with Davide/Strales guided ammunition for IT-ASW)
 * 2 × torpedo launchers Eurotorp/WASS B515/3 for MU 90 torpedoes with Calzoni AHS (Automatic Handling System)
 * 1 × Leonardo NA-25 DARDO-F fire control system for the 76 mm cannon
 * 2 × SLAT (Systeme de Lutte Anti-Torpille) anti-torpedo system (into Italian Navy only for ASW version) ASW DLS (Anti Submarine Weapon Decoy Launcher System) based on Thales ALERT sonar system, DCNS RATO command system and WASS CMAT weapon system (with 12 tube launcher for 127 mm's WASS C-310 decoy and jammers)
 * NH90 helicopter, with capability for AW101, Cougar and Caracal
 * Thales UMS 4110 CL hull sonar
 * Thales UMS 4249 CAPTAS4 towed sonar (Italian anti-submarine versions only; fitted to both French ASW and air defence variants)
 * Thales TUUM-6 Underwater Telephone
 * 2 × Sigen MM/SMQ-765 EW system: with JASS (Jamming Antenna Sub System) ECM, Nettuno 4100, by ELT Elettronica and Thales ESM (Communications and Radar ESM)
 * 2 × SOFRESUD Quick Pointing Devices "QPD"

French-specific equipment

 * 16-cell MBDA SYLVER A43 VLS for MBDA Aster 15 missiles (in first four ASW variants)
 * The last two ASW variants have been fitted with a 16-cell MBDA A50 VLS for MBDA Aster 30 to be used if deemed necessary.
 * The two AAW variants fitted with 32-cell A50 VLS.
 * 16-cell MBDA SYLVER A70 VLS for MBDA MdCN cruise missile with a range up to 1400 km or Aster 30 anti-air missile (not fitted to AAW variants)
 * MBDA Exocet MM40 Block 3, (Block 3c variant - naval and land-attack capability - entering service with the French Navy from December 2022)
 * 2 × Nexter 20 mm Narwhal remote weapon systems
 * NGDS decoy launcher
 * Héraklès radar
 * Terma Scanter 2001 radar
 * Thales Artemis IRST
 * SETIS combat system
 * Sagem Najir fire control system for the 76mm gun (on French ASW variants)
 * Thales STIR EO MK 2 fire control radar for 76mm gun (on French AAW variants)
 * 4 × torpedo launchers Eurotorp/WASS B515/3 for MU 90 torpedoes
 * Samahé helicopter handling system

Italian-specific equipment

 * 16-cell MBDA SYLVER A50 VLS for MBDA Aster 15 missiles and MBDA Aster 30 missiles
 * Leonardo IRST SASS
 * another one Leonardo NA-25 DARDO-F fire control system for the second cannon (76 mm/62 calibre or 127 mm/54 calibre gun)
 * Leonardo Kronos Grand Naval (MFRA) AESA, 3D, C band radar
 * Leonardo RASS (RAN-30X-I) surface radar (OTH)
 * Leonardo SPS-732, 2D LPI Surveillance X band radar (surface and air surveillance at low level); since the seventh FREMM-IT replaced by more powerful Leonardo SPS-732(V2)
 * Leonardo SPN-730 LPI navigation radar and two navigation radar GEM-Elettronica MM/SPN-753
 * Leonardo SPN-720 radar for helicopter precision approach
 * Leonardo IFF SIR M-E; since the 7th FREMM-IT replaced with Leonardo IFF SIR M5-PA with phased array antenna
 * Leonardo Athena combat system (CMS), with 21, three displays, MFC (Multi Functional Consolle): 17 into COC, 2 in backup COC, 1 on bridge and 1 into Command Planning Room
 * Leonardo SAAM-ESD extended area AAW combat system (for Aster 15 and Aster 30 missiles)
 * 2 × Leonardo (OTO Melara) SCLAR-H DLS Multipurpose Rocket Launcher; since the 7th vessel replaced with Leonardo ODLS-20
 * GP version: 8 × MBDA Teseo Mk-2/A, for naval and land attack missiles
 * ASW version: 4 × MBDA Teseo Mk-2/A missiles and 4 × MBDA MILAS anti-submarine missiles
 * 2 × OTO Melara - Oerlikon KBA 25 mm/80 calibre remote weapon system, controlled by close CMS
 * Curtiss-Wright TC-ASIST helicopter handling system (for both helicopters)
 * Leonardo (WASS) SNA-2000-I mine avoidance sonar
 * L-3 ELAC Nautik SeaBeam 3050, multi-beam echo sounder (only on ASW version)
 * 1 × 7 m rigid-hulled inflatable boat release and recovery lateral systems (Stemar 6.8 m, FNM HPEP 225 hp engine, 38 kn, 6 crew )
 * 1 × 11 m rigid-hulled inflatable boat release and recovery lateral systems (Zodiac Hurricane)
 * 1 × 11m rigid-hulled inflatable boat fast, stern release and recovery system (only on GP version, for CABI Cattaneo CABAT boat)
 * ASW version: 2 × Leonardo OTO Melara 76 mm/62 calibre Davide/Strales CIWS guns, one on the hangar (both with Strales guided ammunition)
 * GP version: 1 × Leonardo OTO Melara 127 mm/64 calibre gun with Vulcano guided ammunition, with a range up to 120 km, and AAHS (Automated Ammunition Handling System) with 350 rounds + 56 in turret and a second Leonardo (OTO Melara) 76 mm/62 calibre Davide/Strales CIWS gun on the hangar (with Strales guided-ammunition)
 * 2 × acoustic guns / LRAD SITEP MASS CS-424: since year 2017, on update works

title: FREMM multipurpose frigate


text:
Frédéric Febvre

Alexandre Frédéric Febvre (1835 – 14 December 1916) was a French actor.

Biography
He was born in Paris, and after the usual apprenticeship in the provinces and in several Parisian theatres in small parts, was called to the Comédie-Française in 1866, where he made his debut as Philip II in Don Juan d'Autriche. He soon became the most popular leading man in Paris, not only in the classical repertoire, but in contemporary novelties. He performed at the Comédie-Française between 1863 and 1894.

He retired from the Paris stage in 1893, in 1894 he toured the principal cities of Europe, and, in 1895, of America. He was also a composer of light music for the piano, and published several books of varying merit. He married Mlle. Harville, daughter of one of his predecessors at the Comédie-Française, herself a well-known actress.

He retired from the Paris stage in 1893, and made a final tour of certain European capitals the following year. He died in Paris.

title: Frédéric Febvre


text:
Talk:Pancake Day

picture
this had a picture of a crepe, but it was described as a pancake
 * I readded this picture because the pancakes eaten on Pancake Tuesday are almost always crêpes rather than American-style pancakes. Hibbleton 21:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Česky:to není pravda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.175.177.26 (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pancake Day


text:
MDP

MDP may refer to:

Medicine and psychology

 * MDP syndrome, a rare genetic disorder
 * Manic depressive psychosis, also known as bipolar disorder
 * Mesolimbic dopamine pathway of the brain
 * Methylene diphosphonate, a pharmaceutical product used especially in nuclear medicine (99mTc-MDP)
 * Muramyl dipeptide, a component of bacterial cell walls with inflammatory properties
 * 10-Methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate, an adhesive monomer for dental adhesive materials
 * A brand name for the medication medronic acid
 * Monocyte Dendritic-cell Progenitors, a type of progenitor cell

Organizations

 * Madison Dearborn Partners, an American private equity firm
 * Malaysian Democratic Party, a Malaysian political party
 * Maldivian Democratic Party, a Maldivian political party
 * Maendeleo Democratic Party, a Kenyan political party
 * Maryland Department of Planning, a state agency of Maryland
 * Michigan Democratic Party, an American political party
 * Microbicides Development Programme, a British organization that studies microbicides
 * Ministry of Defence Police, a British civilian police force
 * Montana Democratic Party, an American political party
 * Movement for Democracy and Progress (Comoros), a politic party in the Comoros
 * Movement for Democracy and Progress (Republic of the Congo), a political party in the Republic of the Congo
 * Democratic Party (South Korea, 2000), formerly known as the Millennium Democratic Party
 * Hungarian Working People's Party (Magyar Dolgozók Pártja), the ruling communist party in Hungary between 1949 and 1956
 * Meredith Corporation (NYSE: MDP), an American media conglomerate
 * Nationalist Democracy Party (Milliyetçi Demokrasi Partisi), a Turkish political party
 * Portuguese Democratic Movement (Movimento Democrático Português)
 * Article 1 – Democratic and Progressive Movement (Italian: Articolo 1 – Movimento Democratico e Progressista), an Italian political party

Science and engineering

 * Minimum Desirable Product, a product with enough features to be desirable for most customers (a stage that follows the Minimum Viable Product)
 * Markov decision process, a probabilistic model that is widely used in artificial intelligence
 * Mask data preparation, a process in electronic design automation
 * Media Dispatch Protocol, a file transfer protocol
 * Membrane dipeptidase, an enzyme
 * Mini DisplayPort, a digital display interface

Other uses

 * Manic Depressive Psychosis (band), an Armenian metal band
 * Management Development Programme, a middle-management form of MBA
 * Mbala language (ISO 639 code: mdp), a Bantu language
 * Medibang Paint, abbreviation and filetype (.mdp) of a graphics editor.

title: MDP


text: Category:Winchester

title: Category:Winchester


text:
Talk:Patrick Friesacher

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Patrick Friesacher. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120716191536/http://www.f1db.com/f1/page/Patrick_Friesacher to http://www.f1db.com/f1/page/Patrick_Friesacher
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131217224051/http://f1rejects.com/drivers/friesacher/index.html to http://f1rejects.com/drivers/friesacher/index.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Patrick Friesacher


text:
Trump squeeze

In contract bridge, the trump squeeze is a variant of the simple squeeze in which one threat is a suit that if unguarded can be established by ruffing. This end position illustrates a trump squeeze play. Hearts are trumps, and the lead is in the North hand. Declarer plays the A (the squeeze card), discarding the 3 from hand, and East has no good discard. If East plays a spade, declarer cashes the A to set up the spade suit, which he can reach with a club ruff after cashing North's K. If East plays a club, declarer cashes the K, ruffs a club, and has the Ace of spades as an entry to dummy.

Here is perhaps the simplest possible example. Assume hearts are trump and both red suit Aces have been played. When declarer leads the A from North, East must drop his guard in one of the minor suits. If he discards a diamond, then declarer ruffs a diamond, setting up the suit and takes the last two tricks with the A and the J.

If East instead discards a club, South cashes the A, ruffs a diamond and enjoys the J for the final trick.

This shows all the elements clearly: The North card that blocks the Suit A threat (A) provides the means of reaching the Suit B threat if it becomes good via ruffing.

The key elements are:
 * A suit that declarer can ruff to set up extra tricks
 * An entry to another suit which can also yield extra tricks
 * One defender who guards both suits

Another example illustrates the squeeze card (a trump) being led from South (declarer) and East being squeezed. Spades are trump and the lead of the 8 squeezes East after South discards a small diamond from dummy. The Q is the blocked threat and clubs can be established by ruffing if the squeezee discards a club.

If East discards a club, South will play the Ace and King of clubs, ruff the third round of that suit and then return to dummy with the A to cash the established club. If East instead elects to bare his K, South will play the two top clubs and the A, dropping the K and then ruffing a club back to hand to win his Q.

If West guards both minor suits, the trump squeeze is not necessary (although it will still work). South can simply play the two top clubs, ruff a club back to hand and then lead the final trump as the squeeze card, catching West in a simple positional squeeze.

A very rare example is the double trump squeeze, where both opponents suffer the same fate. Here is an example from the quarterfinals of the 2004 Olympiad, in the match between Italy and the USA. Declarer, Norberto Bocchi of Italy, declared 4 and achieved the following end position with the lead in dummy:

Declarer led the Ace of hearts from dummy, discarding the 8, and the defence had no answer. If both pitched spades, declarer could play the Ace and King of spades, establishing the ten. If both pitched diamonds, a spade to the Ace and a diamond ruff would establish the Queen.

If one pitched a spade and the other a diamond, then declarer's play depended on who released the diamond guard. If it were West, a spade to the Ace and a ruff of the Ten of diamonds would set up the Queen. If it were East, a spade to the Ace and a lead of the Queen of diamonds would smother the Jack and create a ruffing finesse position, since declarer has the Ten (if West covers, declarer will ruff; if West ducks the Queen, declarer will discard from dummy and then ruff the Ten).

At the table, East (Michael Rosenberg) discarded a spade and West (Zia Mahmood) had to release his low diamond. Bocchi played a spade to reach his hand, then ruffed his low diamond, dropping the King from Zia and then made his Queen when he returned to hand with a high spade.

Note that the squeeze was not automatic; if the East-West diamond holdings are reversed, the squeeze will fail, as it will if West holds King-Jack doubleton. Bocchi understood that his only chance was to find West (Zia) with the King-doubleton and East (Rosenberg) with the Jack-doubleton. He read the situation accurately when West discarded the seven of diamonds and made the only play that gave him a chance.

title: Trump squeeze


text:
Dudley Fenner

Dudley Fenner (c. 1558–1587) was an English puritan divine. He helped popularise Ramist logic in the English language. Fenner was also one of the first theologians to use the term "covenant of works" to describe God's relationship with Adam in the Book of Genesis.

Life
He was born in Kent and educated at Peterhouse, Cambridge. There he became an adherent of Thomas Cartwright, and publicly expounded his presbyterian views, with the result that he was obliged to leave Cambridge without taking his degree. For some months he seems to have assisted the vicar of Cranbrook, Kent, but it is doubtful whether he received ordination.

He next followed Cartwright to Antwerp, and, having received ordination according to rite of the Reformed church, assisted Cartwright for several years in preaching to the English congregation there. The leniency shown by Archbishop Grindal to puritans encouraged him to return to England, and he became curate of Cranbrook in 1583. In the same year, however, he was one of seventeen Kentish ministers suspended for refusing to sign an acknowledgement of the Queen's supremacy and of the authority of the Prayer Book and articles. He was imprisoned for a time, but eventually regained his liberty and spent the remainder of his life as chaplain in the Reformed church at Middelburg.

Fenner and his wife, Joan, had four daughters:
 * More-fruit Fenner (died 1602)
 * Free-gift Fenner (born before 1583, died September 1583)
 * Faint-not Fenner (baptized 1585, died 1604)
 * Well-abroad Fenner

Works
A list of his authentic works is given in Cooper's Athenae Cantabrigienses (Cambridge, 1858-1861). They rank among the best expositions of the principles of Puritanism. His textbook, The Arts of Logic and Rhetoric, was a popular textbook on the Ramist school of logic; it used Scripture passages to demonstrate his theories. His major work was Sacra theologia (Geneva, 1585).

title: Dudley Fenner


text:
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Beslan school hostage crisis/archive1

Beslan school hostage crisis
Not a self-nom. This article went through a turbulent period in the couple of months after 1 September 2004, but has been pretty stable since November 2004, and looks quite good to me. One slight weakness is the descent into short one-sentence paragraphs towards the end, which I will try to address now. Another weakness is references, but I suspect that a large number of the "External links" are references. I doubt that there is much on paper yet (reportage? press coverage?). -- ALoan (Talk) 13:00, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * support -- I remember the disputes as it was written as the crisis evolved, and this is certainly a case where many eyes scrutinized the article's factuality. The lack of printed references is not an problem in this case imho, but it would be desirable to have a photograph of the siege (but I suppose they're all copyrighted by press agencies?) there seems to be some lingering dispute about use of the t-word, but that's a WP-wide issue and should not be held against this article. dab (ᛏ) 14:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * support. copyrighted images are not an issue, as long as its related to the subject a valid fair use claim can be made.  ALKIVAR ™[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 12:39, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. ALoan himself already addresses the chief weaknesses and I think these should be resolved. In addition, the article is vague at times, and should quote sources more. Examples "Some injured died in hospitals.", "allegedly" (which sound like an episode of HIGNFY), etc.. The article displays "telegram style" at times: "A few of the escapees were said to be cornered in a residential 2 story house within 40 metres from the gym. Whether or not they had hostages is unknown. The house was destroyed using tanks and flame throwers by 23:00 3 September 2004.". A good copyedit seems needed. Jeronimo 21:29, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. Agree with the above. If the external links were used properly as references, then format them as such. - Taxman 20:06, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. An article like this has a particular need of good references, as there were a lot of conflicting reports at the time, yet there is no references section and at least one of the inline links doesn't seem to be working. SlimVirgin 20:33, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. Not nearly enough information about the political background for the average reader to put it into context. Fawcett5 04:46, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Oleta Kirk Abrams

Untitled
Stub restored from page history to temporary subpage. Andrewa 13:03, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

vfd link
This article was proposed for deletion Feb. 2005. Votes for deletion/Oleta Kirk Abrams Joyous 20:57, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Oleta Kirk Abrams


text:
User talk:AlisonRussell

Hi Alison,

Can you tell us where you got image:David.jpg from? I see you are a newbie and so would you please have a look at Copyrights? Images that we use must be compatible with our licence. If you think you've made a mistake, don't worry, just list it on copyright problems and it'll be deleted in due course.

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Dunc|☺ 13:06, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

title: User talk:AlisonRussell


text:
György Klapka

György (Móric) Klapka (Georg Klapka; 7 April 1820 – 17 May 1892) was a Hungarian general. He was one of the most important Hungarian generals of the Hungarian War of Independence of 1848–1849, politician, member of the Hungarian Parliament, and deputy War Minister.

Early life
Klapka was born at Temesvár, Kingdom of Hungary on 7 April 1820 in a German-speaking Roman-Catholic family of Moravian origin. His ancestors migrated there from Moravia during the reign of Joseph II (1780–1790) his grandfather founding military pharmacies during the Austro-Turkish War of 1787–1791. In the following decades the families prestige grew, and György Klapka's father, József Klapka, became the mayor of Temesvár for nearly 15 years, being elected for two times deputy in the Hungarian Diet, being later ennobled by the king. His mother was Júlia Kehrer.

He had five brothers and sisters. He lost his mother at an early age. As a child, he recalls, I had the greatest pleasure of watching military ceremonies, where I admired the uniforms of the Hungarian generals, as well as spending much time on the ramparts of the fortress of Temesvár. Despite his Moravian origin Klapka considered himself a Hungarian. He made his early education at the Roman Catholic secondary schools from Kecskemét and Szeged. His mother tongue was German, he learned Latin in the school, then Hungarian in Kecskemét. His parents wanted to make him a priest, but he was attracted to a career as a military officer. After graduating from the military school in Karánsebes, he joined the Imperial-Royal Army in 1837.

''No sooner had I put on the uniform than the oath I was to take was read out in front of me. As soon as I said the words, my bosom tightened, for I felt that from now on I was no longer a free man, but a slave: that I was no longer ruled by my own will, but by the will of others. But these shackles were of my free will, and such shackles must be worn, and so I endured them with patience. Very soon I got used to the strict iron discipline of my position, saw the necessity of it, and adapted to it'' he wrote in his memoirs about the beginning of his military career. He served as a cadet in the 2nd Artillery Regiment in Vienna, then in the Bombardier Corps.

In the spring of 1842, after his family's Hungarian nobility had been confirmed, he was commissioned, at the proposal of Sebő Vukovics, to the Hungarian Nobiliary Royal Bodyguards (Magyar királyi nemesi testőrség), as a delegate of the Temes County, continuing his career in the Guards of Vienna, where he became friend with Artúr Görgei. He was transferred from Vienna to Pancsova, to the 12th Border Guard Infantry Regiment of the German-Banat border guards. He was here when he retired from the army in 1847 with the rank of artillery Lieutenant. Here he was sent as lieutenant to the Border Region Division, but soon he disarmed. In 1847 he thought to go to north India, in Lahore and to become an officer in the army of one of the Indian princes, but hearing the news about the revolution from Paris from February 1848 he decided to remain in Hungary.

Before becoming a general
After the victory, on 15 March, of the Hungarian Revolution of 1848, Klapka volunteered in the Hungarian army, and he was conscripted as captain. In May 1848 he was appointed by Batthyány Government with two Hungarian officers to go to Kolozsvár and in the Székely Land to find out if Transylvania wanted to reunite with Hungary, and to measure how many from the Székely border guard units could be sent to Hungary. On 13 June he was appointed as a captain to the 16 Hungarian Battalion in Veszprém. Starting with August he joined the Hungarian military operations in Bácska (Southern Hungary) against the Serbian insurgents.

On 25 September he was sent to be the temporary director of the Komárom fortress, called the Gibraltar of the Danube. During that time he prevented Wilhelm Mertz, the constable of the fortress, from delivering it in the hands of the Habsburgs, and played a role in forcing Mertz and the officers loyal to the Habsburgs, to leave Komárom, securing this very important stronghold for Hungary. From 16 October Klapka supervised also the fortification works from Pozsony. During that time, as the commander of the concentrated Hungarian national guards concentrated at Nagyszombat, he participated in the military operations against the Austrian troops led by Balthasar von Simunich which broke into Hungary from Moravia.

On 13 November he was appointed chief of general staff of the Bánság army corps, and together with general Antal Vetter, he elaborated a plan to crush the Serbian insurgency, but this plan failed because of its weak execution by the main commander of the military operations: general Ernő Kiss. In the end of December 1848 he worked in the general staff section of the Hungarian Ministry of Defence.

When in December 1848 the main Austrian imperial troops led by Field Marshal Alfred I, Prince of Windisch-Grätz attacked Hungary, he was appointed as major in the Hungarian army, by 9 January 1849 he was already a colonel. Together with his chief Antal Vetter he elaborated the plan of retreating the main Hungarian troops behind the Tisza river, and became commander of the Upper Tisza Corps (Felső-tiszai hadtest). Before this the Upper Tisza Corps was led by the Minister of War General Lázár Mészáros, who was defeated by the Austrian troops led by Lieutenant-General Franz Schlik in the Battle of Kassa. Klapka took over these beaten troops in January 1849, reorganized them, and beat Schlik in three consecutive battles at Tarcal (20 January), Bodrogkeresztúr (23 January), and Tokaj (31 January). Thanks to these victories Klapka held the Hungarian defensive line along the Tisza river, and won precious time for the Hungarian commandment to organize the counter-attack against Windisch-Grätz imperial troops. From 29 January 1849 he was under the command of Lieutenant-General Henryk Dembiński the main commander of the Hungarian armies. After their victory at 5 February 1849 in the Battle of Branyiszkó, the Upper Danube Corps led by Artúr Görgei approached to the Tisza river from North-West, menacing, together with Klapka's corps, to encircle and destroy Schlik's army. Understanding the importance of this chance, Klapka tried to convince Dembiński, to attack from the South Schlik's corps, but the latter refused, ordering Klapka to retreat. This wrong decision of the main commander enabled Schlik to escape the danger, and to retreat. Klapka defeated him again on 8 February at Hidasnémeti, but the Austrian general was able to retreat towards West, joining the main imperial troops led by Windisch-Grätz.

Klapka participated during 26–27 February in the Battle of Kápolna, commanding the right wing of the Hungarian army at Verpelét. The battle was lost because of Dembiński's poor army leading and indecision. After Dembiński's order of retreat, at 1 March Klapka fought successful rearguard actions against the Austrian corps led by Ladislaus von Wrbna at Egerfarmos.

At 3 March he was one of the leaders of the revolt at Tiszafüred of the Hungarian officers dissatisfied with Dembiński's leadership, and forced him to resign, supporting Görgei's election to the main command.

For his victories against Schlik he received on 13 March the 3d Class Hungarian Military Decoration.

General and deputy War Minister
At 28 March, only 29, he received the rank of General.

Klapka elaborated the plan of the Spring Campaign of the Hungarian army, which in the end of May, after a series of victories, brought the liberation of almost all Hungary from the Austrian armies. The plan's main purpose was to distract the attention of the Austrian commanders with the attack from the North of the VII Corps, while the other three corps (I, II, III) had to march undetected from South and to attack from the flank the main Austrian troops stationed at Gödöllő. But Klapka was the one who, unwillingly revealed the plan to the enemy, which could cause a catastrophe for the Hungarian army. Initially, the victory of the Hungarian VII Corps led by András Gáspár against Schlik in the Battle of Hatvan at 2 April, deceived Windisch-Grätz to think that the attack of the Hungarian forces would come from that direction but the failed attack of Klapka's I corps against the Austrian I Corps led by Josip Jelačić in the first phase of the Battle of Tápióbicske (he sent his troops in the city without scouting before that, to see if any enemy troops were in there, thus his troops were ambushed by enemy infantry and a cavalry brigade), forced the III corps led by János Damjanich to intervene, and to turn the tide of the battle – which could have become a serious defeat for the Hungarians – into a victory, made the Austrian Field-Marshal suspicious, that the main Hungarian attack could come from other directions, and not from where he expected that. However Jelačić's vain report to Windisch-Grätz that his troops won the battle of Tápióbicske, deceived him, to think that the Croatian general was attacked only by minor Hungarian forces, so he still was not sure from where to expect the enemy's attack. Furthermore, Windisch-Grätz was informed about the attack of a Hungarian detachment, on 24 March against Losonc, which took prisoner half of the 500-600 strong Austrian detachment, making him to think that important Hungarian troops will attack also from the North-East. But Klapka's attack made Windisch-Grätz aware of a danger coming from South, which may be considered his error.

In the Battle of Isaszeg from 6 April, the first decisive battle of the Spring Campaign, after initial successes, Klapka's I Corps were pushed back by Jelačić's superior forces, which made Klapka waver, and to think seriously to retreat from the battlefield, letting Damjanich's III Corps alone, but the arrival of Görgei, and his order to resist at all costs, then the arrival of the II Corps led by Lajos Aulich, convinced him to remain and fight. At the end of the battle Klapka's I corps charge chased the enemy from Isaszeg and brought the victory for the Hungarians. The fluctuating behavior of Klapka during the battle showed that despite being a good strategist, creating good operation plans, which, in the Spring Campaign, enabled him to defeat the superior imperial troops (55,000 Austrians against 47,500 Hungarians), he could be hesitating in their execution. During the battle of Isaszeg Damjanich criticized Klapka of being too timorous and sensible to the complaints of his soldiers, instead of being resolute and determined. Luckily the main commander of Army of the Upper Danube (Feldunai Hadsereg) was Görgei, who was the most able Hungarian general to carry out Klapka's plans, led the army in the best way, being able to take quickly the correct decisions after short thinking, being very determined in his decisions, showing no hesitation even before the most unexpected situations, and thanks to this the Hungarian army emerged victorious in the Spring Campaign.

The second phase of the campaign was elaborated not by Klapka but by the chief of the general staff, József Bayer. The second phase of the Spring Campaign started not very well Klapka, whose soldiers were sent to encircle the enemy in the First Battle of Vác, got lost in the rainy-foggy weather in the morning of 10 April, and did not arrive on the battlefield, but luckily Damjanich again was able to resolve the problem, and defeat the enemy alone. But in the other battles of this phase of the Spring campaign Klapka distinguished himself. In the Battle of Nagysalló (19 April), he played a leading role in that victory, in the same way as in the relief of Komárom (26 April).

In the middle of April he received the 2nd Class Hungarian Military Decoration.

At 30 April 1849 he was named deputy War Minister substituting Görgei, who was leading the Siege of Buda (04-21 May 1849). Quite in the first day in his office in Debrecen Klapka had a conflict with Sándor Petőfi, the Hungarian national poet, then a major in the Army of Transylvania under the command of Lieutenant General Józef Bem. The cause of the conflict was the article written by Petőfi in the newspaper Honvéd, in which he published a letter of Bem against general Károly Vécsey, accusing the latter of high treason, cowardice and incapacity, because he did not help Bem in his failed attempt to capture the fortress of Temesvár. Hearing about this Klapka and other Hungarian generals, who were on Vécsey's side, accused Petőfi of being undisciplined, dressing not accordingly to a soldier, besmirching the Hungarian army to the public, thus weakening the will of the nation to fight against the enemy. Klapka was angered on Petőfi also because of the poet's former conflicts with other Hungarian officers and war ministers like Lieutenant General Antal Vetter and Lieutenant General Lázár Mészáros (against whom he wrote also a satirical poem), so he reprimanded the poet, who came to the war office seeking permission to go to the freshly liberated Pest, to bury his father. At the end of the quarrel, seeing that Klapka would not allow him to go, Petőfi promptly resigned his military title and quit the army. After this, thinking himself free from military discipline, Petőfi wrote a letter to Klapka, declaring that he cannot bear offenses from Klapka, which offended his dignity, and wrote a poem entitled Egy goromba tábornokra (About a Rude General), in which he named Klapka an unworthy man and a weak general. Klapka prosecuted Petőfi for this, and when he met him on 14 May at Pest, he arrested the poet. Petőfi was saved by General Görgei, whose favorite poet he was, liberating him from the arrest, sending a deputation made of officers to ask for pardon from Klapka in the name of Petőfi.

In the middle of May 1849, the news about the upcoming Russian intervention spread throughout Hungary, and the need to take measures against this grave danger became imminent. The enemy had a huge numerical advantage against the Hungarian army: the attacking Russian and Austrian armies had 358 000 soldiers (plus another 75 000 soldiers in Galicia and Walachia in reserve) and 770 cannons against 150 000 Hungarian soldiers with 440 cannons.

In the second part of May, Klapka was designated to elaborate the united operation plan of all the armies from Hungary. According to this operation plan the main army under Görgei had to defend the Western border, while the army of Transylvania under Józef Bem had to defend mountain passes in the Eastern Carpathians, but in the same time he had to crush also the Romanian revolt from the Western Carpathians, to take the fortresses of Gyulafehérvár and Déva, then to attack towards West, taking the Titel Plateau, liberating Pétervárad, then advancing to the Adriatic Sea, or to the Western front. Although it was accepted by the Ministry Council on 20 May, this operation plan was met with harsh criticism from Görgei and Bem, who accused it of no concern for the imminent Russian intervention which menaced from North and from East, and that Lieutenant General Bem and General Mór Perczel had been designated to carry out military actions which exceeded their capacities, while the other Hungarian corps were condemned to almost complete inactivity. Bem declared that he would not carry out the military actions entailed on him by the operation's plan, and would remain in Transylvania to defend it from the imminent Russian attack, while Görgei said that the only correct thing to do was to immediately attack with all forces on the Western front towards Vienna, to crush the Austrian army before the Russians could intervene. As a result of these reactions and the start of the Russian intervention on 15 June 1849, Klapka's operation plan was not carried out. In June, when Görgei took over his duties in the War Ministry, Klapka substituted him in the command of the Army of the Upper Danube, being entrusted, together with the chief of the general staff Colonel József Bayer, to attack the imperial forces led by Field-Marshal Julius Jacob von Haynau in the region of the Vág river, and push them towards Pozsony and Vienna, but on 16 June they were defeated by the Austrians in the Battle of Zsigárd. Among the causes of the defeat was that Klapka did not tolerate that the head of the Central Operations Bureau, Colonel József Bayer, should have the authority over him. Their disagreements and contradictory orders affected the Hungarian troops' already weak chances of success during the Battles of Zsigárd, Ihász and Győr. When Görgei took over the main command, in the Battle of Pered from 20 to 21 June 1849, Klapka had the mission to attack with the VIII corps the Austrians in the Csallóköz, but his troops were forced to retreat in the first day of the Battle of Alsónyárasd. Nevertheless, at the end of the battle Klapka's troops secured the retreat of the Hungarian army, by securing the bridge from Aszódpuszta.

During the Second Battle of Komárom of 2 July, Klapka commanded the left wing of the Hungarian army, retreating initially from Ószőny, but at the end of the battle, after fierce fighting, recaptured the important locality from the Austrian IV corps led by General Ludwig von Benedek. At the end of this battle Görgei was heavily wounded, and once again, Klapka took over the command from him, until he was again able to lead the army. During this period under the lead of Klapka, the Hungarian officers decided to oppose the decisions of the Hungarian government, which demanded the immediate retreat of the army from Komárom, and the deposition of Görgei from the commandment of the Army of the Upper Danube. Klapka and the officers refused to fulfill both these orders, forcing the government to accept their decision to remain for several days in Komárom, and to keep Görgei as their commander. On 7 July, on the order from Kossuth, Klapka sent the I. corps led by General Nagysándor towards Szeged, but when Görgei took notice of this, he resigned from the leadership of the Army of the Upper Danube, to protest this decision taken without his knowledge. Hearing about this Klapka ordered the I. corps to return to Komárom, as a result of which Görgei retracted his decision, remaining the commander of the army.

On 11 July, because Görgei was still unable to lead the army, Klapka commanded the Hungarian forces in the Third Battle of Komárom. He had to carry out Kossuth's plan, supported also by Görgei, to break the Austrian blockade on Komárom, then retreat with three corps towards Southern Hungary, where Kossuth intended to concentrate the Hungarian troops. The Hungarians tried to break the Austrian blockade from the West against Komárom, but, because of the inactivity of two of the corps commanders, the battle was lost. Klapka led this battle without much determination because he did not understand the reason for attacking the Austrian army, when after the battle, no matter what its outcome would be, the bulk of the Hungarian army had to retreat towards Szeged. In this battle, Klapka's main goal was to avoid the loss of too many Hungarian soldiers.

Klapka's heroic "last man standing" as the defender of Komárom
On 12–13 July, when, under Görgei's command, the Army of the Upper Danube retreated from Komárom to the East, Klapka remained with the II and VIII corps (around 18,300 soldiers) in Komárom, having the duty to defend with at all costs the fortress and to "bind" as many enemy troops around it, preventing them to participate in the campaign against the Hungarian armies. As the captain of the encircled fortress, cut off from the other Hungarian armies, Klapka decided to make a heroic stand against the superior enemy, to resist until nothing more could be done, and if he would be forced to leave Komárom, he would do it only with honour. He wrote this in July:

''I say it already from now: no matter what will be the situation, we can leave this place only with honor, or we will be buried together under the crumbling ruins of this [fortress]. Long live the Fatherland, and its heroic army!''

Until 23 July this task was fulfilled with success, forcing 28,000 imperial soldiers to secure the fortress, but then half of these troops were sent to Pest. On 25 July a Hungarian raiding unit captured a stagecoach in which they found documents containing the list of the imperial troops around Komárom, from which Klapka understood that his troops in the fortress were more numerous than the besiegers, and as the imperial troops were divided, being on both banks of the Danube, which prevented them from helping each other when attacked, he had the opportunity to defeat the enemy in detail.

In the night of 29–30 June Klapka sent troops on the left bank of the Danube, chasing away the Austrian troops from the North-West of Komárom. In the night of 3 August 1849, Klapka personally led the Hungarian troops to the right bank of the Danube, attacking the Austrian blockade around the fortress, crushing the imperial forces led by Lieutenant Field Marshal Anton Csorich in the Fourth Battle of Komárom, causing them 1,500 casualties, capturing 30 cannons, many thousands of rifles, ammunition and an entire herd of oxen. This was the last important battle won by the Hungarians in the Hungarian War of Independence. After the battle Klapka's troops advanced to the west and occupied the city of Győr, liberating a huge territory from North Transdanubia, cutting the connection and supply lines between Vienna and the troops led by Haynau in Central Hungary. Hearing the news of this victory the citizens of Székesfehérvár revolted against the occupying Austrian forces and chased them away. Klapka started recruitment from the liberated territories, which added 5,000-6,000 new recruits to his troops, and planned to attack the Austrian province of Styria.

However on 11 August he received news of the disastrous situation on the other fronts, and halted his operations. He understood that his victory came a little too late to change the fate of the Hungarian war of independence. Two days after this, at 13 August 1849, 10 days after Klapka's victory, the main Hungarian army led by Artúr Görgei surrendered in front of the Russian troops at the Szöllős Meadow near the village of Világos.

Klapka, together with his 25,000 soldiers, retreated on 15 August to Komárom. On 19 August the Austrian and Russian troops arrived to the fortress and began to encircle it; on 14 September the number of Austrians reached 44,000 soldiers and 154 cannons, and the Russians numbered 12,000 soldiers and 56 cannons. The Austrians then the Russians too demanded the surrender of the fortress but Klapka and the Hungarian military council refused. Thanks to the intervention in the negotiations of the Habsburg Minister of Defense Ferenc Gyulay, himself a Hungarian, on 21 August a 14-day armistice was signed, which allowed Klapka to send four commissioners to travel across all Hungary to ascertain about the military situation in the country, and to be sure that the Hungarian army had lost the Independence War. After the commissioners turned back with the news of the surrender of the Hungarian armies and the majority of the fortresses, instead of deciding to surrender as well, like the Austrians and the Russians hoped, the defenders of Komárom became more combative and wanted even more than before, to continue their fight. Klapka ordered new battalions and one division to be formed, and the trenches around the fortress to be strengthened. He even founded a personal guards unit made up of grenadiers.

During the Austro-Russian siege the Hungarian composer Béni Egressy who was in the besieged Komárom, wrote the Klapka March, in honor of the general. This military march is played often today during military parades in Hungary. The march's lyrics, entitled Fel, fel vitézek a csatára (Rise, Rise Soldiers to the Battle) were written much later, in 1861, by Kálmán Thaly.

At the end of August all of the mobile Hungarian troops surrendered, as well as the fortresses, with the exception of Pétervárad, which held until 7 September. Only the fortress of Komárom refused to surrender. On 5, 7, 10, 25 and 27 September the Hungarian defenders fought with success against the enemy troops, furthermore the Hungarian Hussars executed successful sorties against the besieging army. For example, on 5 September 300 hussars, led personally by Klapka, routed a Russian Cossack unit in the Battle of Hetény.

Seeing that they had no success in their attempts to take the fortress by force, the Austrians tried distraction, attempting to diminish the morale, fighting spirit and the unity of the defenders. They sent in the fortress different leaflets, fake reports, orders, which tried to persuade the defenders to treachery, to revolt, to refuse to fulfil orders, or to desert, promising them amnesty in exchange. This method had a certain success, because the number of the desertions increased, and Klapka was forced to take more drastic measures against them. As a result, 15 Hungarian deserters were executed publicly in the main square of Komárom.

The Austrians even paid a hitman to assassinate Klapka, named Fehérhegyi, allegedly he was born in New York state. He was caught before he could assassinate Klapka. Found on him was a letter of credence from the Austrian officer Lieutenant-Colonel Hoyos, which demonstrated that he worked for the Austrians. Fehérhegyi was sentenced to death by court martial and executed. The Austrians continued to send demands to surrender, and on 19 September the Hungarian military council of Komárom decided to resume the talks with the Austrians. Some of the officers were against this and conjured against Klapka, but they were caught and put to jail. Klapka sent a demand to the besiegers demanding the Austrians to give total amnesty for all people from Hungary, who participated in the revolution and in the War of Independence, and to liberate the war prisoners. Probably Klapka knew that these conditions could not be accepted, but he wanted to win time, hoping for a new Hungarian uprising or a foreign help. He also hoped that with these exaggerated demands he would be able to obtain at least amnesty for the defenders of Komárom. This was rejected, Lieutenant Field Marshal Anton Csorich demanding unconditional surrender, so the Hungarians decided to continue the resistance. On 26 September the main commander of the Austrian forces Julius Jacob von Haynau arrived to Komárom, took over the leadership of the besieging forces and ordered general attack against the fortress, but it was easily repulsed by the Hungarian artillery and a Hussar squadron. This was the last military engagement of the Hungarian War of Independence of 1848–1849.

Haynau understood that taking Komárom would be a very hard and long task that would cause thousands of deaths among his troops, so he decided to seek a compromise with Klapka and the defenders. Finally on 27 September 1849 the delegation of the defenders agreed with Field Marshal Haynau about the conditions of the capitulation of the fortress. These conditions were as follows:

- The soldiers could leave without their arms, while the officers could leave retaining theirs;

- Those officers who prior to the Hungarian War of Independence were in the Austrian army, received passport to leave the country;

- Those who did not wanted to leave could return home, without being prosecuted;

- Those Hungarian officers who prior to the war were not in the Austrian army could return home, they were free to work in any profession, start businesses, but they were prohibited to be conscripted in the army again;

- The former soldiers of the Habsburg armies received total amnesty;

- Those who wanted to leave the country, had to ask for passports in 30 days;

- The officers received payment for 30 days, while the simple soldiers for 10 days in Austrian banknotes (equivalent to 500 000 Forint's);

- The vouchers used as money by the soldiers and the people of Komárom during the siege, would be redeemed in Austrian banknotes;

- The crippled, the sick and the wounded people and soldiers who were in the hospitals of Komárom would receive medical attendance;

- Everybody would retain their personalities and realties.

The amnesty given by the Austrians regarded only the soldiers but Klapka knew that the civilian population, intellectuals or politicians, who lived or retreated in Komárom, who participated in the Hungarian revolution and politics could be prosecuted by the Austrians after the surrender of Komárom. So he gave to all of them military certificates. Between 2–5 October 1849 Klapka surrendered the fortress to Haynau, with this ending the Hungarian War of Independence.

Before the fortress was handed over on 2–4 October, Klapka bid farewell to his soldiers which ended with these lines:

"You have bowed before the iron stick of the events - this circumstance and the honor [of our nation] you have saved should be a comfort to you all! Accept the warmest thanks of the country for your manly and determined struggles! Accept also my most heartfelt and most intimate farewell. God bless you all!"

On 2 October the Hungarian troops started to evacuate one by one the fortifications and different buildings of the fortress and the town. The soldiers formed lines before the Starfort (Csillagerőd), while the military orchestra played the Klapka March. Then came Klapka, who rode before their lines, then he stopped on the middle and said goodbye to them. Then the soldiers put their weapons in stacks and took farewell to each other. In the end, all of them received Geleitscheins (safe conduct papers), which assured them their total freedom and immunity.

At the end, Klapka declared:

"We had done what the human capacity can achieve, and we can stand before God's and the world's court without shame."

Indeed, in the history of the 1848-1849 European revolutions, only Komárom and Venice put their weapons down with such favorable conditions. The capitulation of Komárom was the last event from the Hungarian Revolution and War of Independence, and it was the last place in the European revolutions of 1848-1849, which ended the resistance against the united forces of the monarchies.

So the capitulation of Komárom by Klapka was the last military event of the European 1848-49 Revolutions.

Exile
Klapka left the country at once, and lived thenceforward for many years in exile, at first in England and afterwards chiefly in Switzerland. He became a Swiss citizen, settled in Geneva and started to work in the financial services, becoming even a deputy in the Swiss parliament. He went to Istanbul, working at a bank. He continued by every means in his power to work for the independence of Hungary, especially at moments of European wars, such as 1854, 1859 and 1866, at which an appeal to arms seemed to him to promise success. Using his international reputation as a great Hungarian general, won in the press of the European countries, he became a sort of "wandering ambassador" of the Hungarian cause, trying to win supporters to start a new Hungarian freedom war. He tried to create an alliance with the states and nations which were neighbours with Hungary, like the Principality of Serbia or Moldavia and Wallachia, and supported the Polish Uprising of 1863–1864 against Russia. In 1859, Alexander John Cuza, the first Ruler of the United Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia, offered general Klapka military support asking for a favourable reconfiguration of other peoples' situation in the Habsburg Empire (including Romanians): "In May 1859 two agreements were signed between Alexandru Ioan Cuza and general Klapka, commander of the Hungarian revolutionaries, by which A. I. Cuza commits to obtain and provide weapons to Hungarian revolutionaries, helping them against Austria, at the same time setting the principles for reconciliation between the nationalities of Austria." During the Crimean War (1853-1856), the Ottoman government wanted to appoint him as a commander of an army, but they renounced upon the protests of Austria.

Hungarian corps
During the Second Italian War of Independence (1859) he used his influence to help Lajos Kossuth to meet and sig an agreement with Napoleon III the emperor of France, to organize, in 1862, in Italy a Hungarian Legion from the Hungarian soldiers from Italy, which had to break in Hungary, and organize a rebellion there against the Habsburgs. Klapka, who became a member of the Hungarian National Directorate (Magyar Nemzeti Igazgatóság), which was fulfilling the role of a Hungarian government in exile. Klapka was appointed to organize and then lead the Hungarian Legion of Italy but it was not Napoleon's interest to destroy the Habsburg Empire, so, after the Battle of Solferino he concluded a peace treaty with the Habsburgs, without asking the Italians' or the Hungarians' opinion. As a result of this the Hungarian Legion disbanded, and Klapka protested against this by retiring. He was more and more disappointed with Kossuth's role and activity in leading the fight for the Hungarian cause in Europe, believing that Kossuth's policy was condemned to fail.

When the Austro-Prussian War from 1866 broke out, the Hungarian politicians and officers in exile agreed with the Minister President of Prussia Otto von Bismarck to form a Hungarian Legion, which had to fight against Austria, and start a national uprising in Hungary. The only problem was that the Prussians gave him the acceptance to organize the Hungarian legion too late, after their decisive victory over the Austrians in the Battle of Königgrätz. Once again Klapka was designated to organize a Hungarian corps in Silesia, and as major-general to lead it into Hungary. He gathered 1,500 soldiers from war prisoners and volunteers, organizing them in an infantry battalion, a hussar company, and a battery. When on 26 July the blessing of the Legion's flag was performed at Neisse, the preliminary Pruso-Austrian ceasefire negotiations were already started. In this situation Klapka had strong doubts about the chances of success without Prussian support. He was informed about the armistice when he was preparing to cross the Hungarian border, and the Prussians asked him to retreat, and stop his military actions. But he refused and crossed the Silesian-Moravian-Hungarian border in the Moravka valley, and at 14:00 on 2 August (or 3 August, according to Zsolt Vesztróczy) entering Hungarian territory through the Jablonka Pass.

He advanced until Turzófalva, but the Slovak population which lived there did not want to join his troops. Then Klapka's 1,500 soldiers were met by much superior Austrian troops, which tried to encircle him, so, in order to escape he had to retreat back in Silesia. Klapka protested against this betrayal by the Prussians, retired, and once again, the Hungarian Legion was disbanded.

Return
After the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 Klapka was permitted to return to his native country, but as well as in the case of Artúr Görgei, the emperor Franz Joseph I of Austria did not allow him to join the army, because he did not forgive his campaign attempt in Hungary from 1866. As a result of this Klapka turned to politics, between 1868 and 1872 becoming member of the right wing Deák Party, being elected in the Hungarian Parliament as a deputy of Illava, then his hometown Temesvár. He did not speak often from the pulpit, instead he edited a political magazine. In 1868 he became the president of the associations of the Hungarian veteran soldiers of 1848–1849.

After a while he retired from politics and tried his luck in economy, spending his time in Istanbul and Genoa, founding businesses there.

In 1864 he married Inez Martha d'Arbouin, daughter of an English businessman settled in Brussels. They settled in France and had two sons and a daughter: György, Ernő and Márta. In this period Klapka spent much of his time in Cognac.

From the 1870s, Klapka could not withstand homesickness, so he returned to Hungary. He was celebrated by the crowd in Budapest and in other towns, he was offered to return in politics, but he refused, continuing to work in finance.

In 1877 he tried to convince Hungary to open a war against the Russians to help the Ottomans. During the Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878) he became a military counselor of the Ottoman army.

In his last years he lived in the Archduke Joseph Hotel (József Főherceg Szálloda) in Budapest. He died on 17 May 1892 in Budapest. His coffin was escorted to the cemetery by a huge crowd singing the Klapka March. The first handful of earth which was thrown on his coffin was taken from Komárom, the fortress which he defended so heroically in 1849. He was buried in the Kerepesi Cemetery in Budapest. A memorial was erected to his memory at Komárom in 1896 and the city's museum was named after him.

Appearance and personality
"He was slender, of medium stature, with an elegant, delicate appearance: his dark glossy, moony eyes showed a spirited, poetic personality, fiery bravery and seas of beautiful conceptions. His dark hair, cambering slightly on the high, delicate forehead, and his long dense black beard completed the nice, noble and manly face."

Klapka's qualities, skills as military commander
"Klapka had a high military qualification, he was a reasonable theorist and a great strategist, the military history being always his favourite reading. As commander we can hold only one flaw against him: that he was still too young, and because of this he had many fantasies, which error ameliorated day after day."

"Klapka was one of the most genius commanders, having higher military culture, to which he could add wordly culture too. He was a good general and he excelled with high military ideas, but moreover he was the man of the sentiments, in contrast with Görgei's rigid strong-mindedness. In his personal relations, as a soldier, although he was inclined to follow Görgei, but he was a better patriot, than to refuse to cooperate with the government. But this relation often paralyzed his capacity of decision. He was a chief too humane, and besides an excellent brother in arms. He was the enemy of any violence, and if in critical situations he had to show hustle, he was able to show his humanity also in these cases."

Author
He wrote the following works:
 * Memoiren von Georg Klapka (April-October, 1849.). Mit einem Anhange, die historischen Actenstücke enthaltend, dem Porträt des Verfassers, einer Karte von Ungarn und dem Plane des Kriegsschauplatzes in Komorn.  Leipzig, 1850 (in German) (full text)
 * Der Nationalkrieg in Ungarn und Siebenbürgen in den Jahren 1848 und 1849. Mit einer Karte von Ungarn. Leipzig, 1851 (in German) (full text)
 * Der Krieg im Orient in den Jahren 1853 und 1854 bis Endre Juli 1855. Eine historisch-kritische Skizze der Feldzüge an der Donau, in Asien und in der Krim, mit einem Blick auf die mögliche Wendung der künftigen Kriegsereignisse. Geneva, 1855. (in German) (full text)
 * The eastern question. Translated from the German, with a preface and appendix by Humphry William Freeland. London. (1877)
 * Emlékeimből Függelékül: gróf Teleki László levelei. Bpest, 1886. arczk. Bud. Szemle XLV. 1886 (in Hungarian) (full text)

Here were mentioned only the original editions in the language in which Klapka wrote them. These books were translated very quickly in English, French, German and Hungarian.

Besides of these he wrote many articles in Hungarian and foreign newspapers and magazines, like: La Presse from Paris, Independence from Bruxelles, and Pesti Napló, Századunk, Honvédmenház Könyve, Pesti Hirlap, Nemzet, Budapesti Szemle, Ország-Világ, all these Hungarian newspapers and magazines.

Legacy
In 1849, Béni Egressy wrote the Klapka March to honor Klapka as a great commander and Hungarian patriot.

The writer Jerome Klapka Jerome, best known for Three Men in a Boat, was named after him by his father who was impressed by György Klapka's reputation as a great general and patriot, when the latter was spending his time in Great Britain.

title: György Klapka


text:
User talk:Chickapow

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you were just trying to experiment, then use the sandbox instead. Thank you. -- The Anome 13:10, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

What you call nonsense is merely information. Please hush now. Chickapow 13:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Uploading childish graffiti is considered vandalism. If you repeat this, you are likely to be blocked from editing. -- The Anome 13:15, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Do you always threaten people? How about calming down and taking a hot shower. Please quit harassing me. Chickapow 13:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's not a threat, it's a warning. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. Vandalism (among other things) constiutes grounds for banning. Break the rules, and you will be be blocked. Moderate your behavior, keep within the rules, and you will not be blocked. Please see Help for some advice on editing here. -- The Anome (Note to self: 69.19.150.170 -> O1 Dialup Services) 13:24, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Okay. Just a word of advice though: don't jump to conclusions. My upload of "Dr" Sarfati was because I didn't want to use a copyrighted image, so I drew what he approximately looked like. I thought that was fair. Moreoever, I resent you calling my serious attempt at a drawing "childish graffiti." Nevertheless, I will do as you and the Help file says. Have a good one. Chickapow 13:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Chickapow


title: User:SS88


text:
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paris

Paris
I think this article should benominated because it is rich in detail. It is interesting to many people. This article is also rich in photos. (nominated by Wikipedian231 13:13, 17 Feb 2005 )

 * Object for now - please do something about the two ugly preformatted tables and merge the two timelines (the timeline and population history may each be better placed in a separate page). -- ALoan (Talk) 13:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Fixed the population. David.Monniaux 15:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Still object - on another look, there are lots of single-sentence paragraphs or lists which could be explained or expanded upon (I know there are several subsidiary "Main article"s, but they could be summarised more fully here too).  The lead section is also rather inadequate.  Does it (should it?) be consistent with WikiProject Cities, and would Template:Infobox City be useful? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. ALoan mentions the main problems already, but also there are no references. These are basic requirement for featured articles, so please do not nominate articles without them. They will not pass. Suggest to refer to peer review. Jeronimo 08:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. Agree with the above. Its like we're sharing the same mind. - Taxman 16:48, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)


text:
Seawaymax

A Seawaymax vessel is one of the maximum size that can fit through the canal locks of the St. Lawrence Seaway, linking the inland Great Lakes of North America with the Atlantic Ocean.

Seawaymax vessels are 225.55 m in length, 23.80 m wide, and have a draft of 8.08 m and a height above the waterline of 35.5 m. A number of lake freighters larger than this size cruise the Great Lakes and cannot pass through to the Atlantic Ocean. The size of the locks limits the size of the ships which can pass and so limits the size of the cargoes they can carry. The record tonnage for one vessel on the Seaway is 28,502 tons of iron ore while the record through the larger locks of the Great Lakes Waterway is 72,351 tons. Most new lake vessels, however, are constructed to the Seawaymax limit to enhance versatility by allowing the possibility of off-Lakes use.

title: Seawaymax