Brechtel198 | 05 Nov 2019 12:19 p.m. PST |
…it's only you who insists that the measure of military commitment was the size of the regular army, and it;s only you who insists that militia and naval personnel don;t count. Please point out where I ‘insisted' that naval personnel ‘don't count.' Further, the British militia did not serve except as filler replacements for the regular army. The Prussian Landwehr and the French National Guard did. And you have completely neglected the contributions of the French navy to the wars, particularly the French naval units that served with the Grande Armee. Why is that? That contribution was significant. |
Brechtel198 | 05 Nov 2019 12:19 p.m. PST |
…but naval battles in 1788 to 1790 predate the era. Which ones and between which belligerents? Are you referring to the Russo-Swedish War of 1788-1790? And since the French Revolution hadn't begun by 1788… |
Brechtel198 | 05 Nov 2019 12:22 p.m. PST |
…the original nonsensical claim was that Britain contributed money rather than manpower to the struggle against Napoleon. The source for this was Elting's remark about the size of the regular British army. Elting went on to contradict himself elsewhere in the same book, and forgot about the militia and the Royal Navy, so is not a credible source on the matter. The source for this idea is the manner in which Great Britain waged war. The British army at the beginning of the wars was a collection of regiments that incurred defeats against the French until some progressive officers, such as Sir John Moore, began to reform the British Army and get serious about the use of light troops. And it should be noted that France had defeated Great Britain when it allied itself with the new United States in 1778, and that includes the use of seapower. What ruined the French Navy was the Revolution and what it did to discipline, the French naval officer corps, and anything else that was considered by the revolutionaries to be anti-revolution. Great Britain invested huge sums to arm and equip the coaltions' allies and did not attempt to create a large army, even though they had the means to do so. Counting the British militia into its war effort is ludicrous insofar as the militia units were not deployed into any combat areas. And naming the British Isles as a combat theater is rubbish. |
Brechtel198 | 05 Nov 2019 12:23 p.m. PST |
Attempting to paint Napoleon as some liberating force for which Europe should be forever grateful really is one of the most spurious arguments put forward by chroniclers such as Elting et al. Perhaps you could point out where Col Elting said this? What is accurate is that the French Revolution, Napoleon, and the Grande Armee did change Europe and many of the changes brought about were benficial legally, socially, and polticially. Some, such as the coming of the rise of Prussia in Germany, were not. |
Brechtel198 | 05 Nov 2019 12:23 p.m. PST |
One of the reasons the French army was able to march so quickly across Europe was its policy that troops should not have to wait for the supply train to catch up and were free to "secure" supplies from the local populace Where do you think all of the armies ‘secured' their supplies during the period? Perhaps you could describe the supply services of the armies of Austria, Prussia, and Russia? |
Brechtel198 | 05 Nov 2019 12:24 p.m. PST |
Elting is very misleading by downplaying the Royal Navy… Where did Col Elting ‘downplay' the Royal Navy and its contributions? The book is an organizational history of the Grande Armee, not the Royal Navy. And the Royal Navy did not fight the Grande Armee… |
Brechtel198 | 05 Nov 2019 12:24 p.m. PST |
If so why use such a nonsensically misleading figure as Elting's? How is Col Elting's figure ‘misleading'? It's quite clear in the book what he is talking about. It appears to me that you are ‘upset' because the British are being ‘criticized.' Why is that? The British are not sacrosanct and had as many failures during the period as anyone else. Even Wellington's ‘Invincibles' had a difficult time in North America against the Americans. The British lost two of the three major actions on the Niagara frontier in 1814 and the third was a bloody tie. None of Wellington's veterans participated in that campaign. The British invasion of the US at Plattsburg was defeated in 1814. The British operations against Baltimore was defeated in 1814 with the British ground commander being killed in action at North Point which was a successful American delaying action. The British did burn Washington and defeat the militia at Bladensburg prior to Baltimore. In both of those actions, however, the British lost more in killed and wounded than the Americans did. Finally, the British were disastrously defeated at New Orleans in January 1815. And, no, the war wasn't over yet. |
Brechtel198 | 05 Nov 2019 12:26 p.m. PST |
. Ultimately, Bonaparte won some wars (even though any sane person counts the revolutionary/empire period as one huge war) won a lot of battles, but in the end he lost and died a squalid death. And that's the fact that a few people find hard to swallow. Napoleon won in Italy in 1796-1797 concluding with a peace treaty. Napoleon and France won again in 1800-1801 ending with a victorious peace treaty with the Austrians and later with the British. The French won in 1805, 1806, 1807, and 1809 all ending with victorious treaties. Napoleon lost in Russia, Germany in 1813, and in France in 1814 as well as in Belgium in 1815. And your point is what? Napoleon died of stomach cancer in exile. If that is the definition of a 'squalid death' I have yet to find that definition anywhere. |
Brechtel198 | 05 Nov 2019 12:26 p.m. PST |
Hardly belittling Napoleon. The British/allies won, the French lost. It's fact not opinion. The allies won in the end, but they lost multiple wars to the French, including Great Britain, for years, taking beatings that would affect their countries for decades. |
Brechtel198 | 05 Nov 2019 12:28 p.m. PST |
All these millions of books that you claim to have read, own and endlessly quote from. Are actually just someone else's opinion, with dates thrown in. They're no more credible than anything else on here. You don't agree with reading books on military history or using them as source materials for further study or just more information? Credible sources, both primary and secondary, are more than just opinion. The good ones, and there are many, are the result of painstaking research, using historical inquiry and historical methodology to arrive at conclusions based on factual material, not on mere opinion which too many times is based on either a lack of knowledge of the subject being discussed or national bias. I had a principal that I worked for once when I was still teaching and she did not believe in books, only in technology, and that is not the way to run a school, nor to train new teachers. And it is not the way to conduct historical research or discussions. |
Brechtel198 | 05 Nov 2019 12:28 p.m. PST |
The more relevant consideration is total military effort. By this reckoning, Britain demonstrably contributed more than any other country to the struggle against Napoleon. I agree-that is a correct observation. But it is only true because of the immense subsidies sent to the allies to keep up the coalitions and the fighting. |
4th Cuirassier | 05 Nov 2019 12:29 p.m. PST |
Someone's out of the Dawghouse, then |
Brechtel198 | 05 Nov 2019 12:31 p.m. PST |
The Royal Navy throughout maintained a fleet in which otherwise unremarkable individual warships carried more artillery than did entire land armies. What were the targets of a period warship? What were the targets of field artillery on the battlefield? Warships of the period had to fight similarly armed warships. And the artillery they carried had to be able to defeat, destroy, and/or capture their opponents warships. Armies used field artillery, which was mobile enough to follow the armies anywhere, used that artillery against troops in the field, light fortifications and the like. Different subject, different approaches to the particular problem at hand. |
James Cullen | 05 Nov 2019 1:41 p.m. PST |
This is a ridiculous thread. I am appalled at how nasty and vindictive it has become and how everyone seems to be talking past each other/moving the goal posts. Lets kill this topic as a waste of time and space |
4th Cuirassier | 05 Nov 2019 2:40 p.m. PST |
Stifle so you aren't tempted to rise to it. |
Basha Felika | 05 Nov 2019 2:49 p.m. PST |
I wish I could type that quickly |
Asteroid X | 05 Nov 2019 8:18 p.m. PST |
Well, since we are all supposed to be adults with a shared interest of GAMING, I think we can see how easily many of our miniatures got involved in their employment historically … Some pretty funny comments, though! |
von Winterfeldt | 06 Nov 2019 2:19 a.m. PST |
What is accurate is that the French Revolution, Napoleon, and the Grande Armee did change Europe and many of the changes brought about were benficial legally, socially, and polticially. Some, such as the coming of the rise of Prussia in Germany, were not. Your opinion of course, Napoleon didn't introduce any beneficial changes instead forcing allies to contribute blood for his megalomania, Boney and the Grande Armée brought sorrow and misery. |
von Winterfeldt | 06 Nov 2019 2:44 a.m. PST |
And who was murdered by Napoleon? Which individual or private citizen who disagreed with Napoleon politically was murdered by Napoleon's order or ‘organization'? Palm for example |
von Winterfeldt | 06 Nov 2019 2:51 a.m. PST |
And the Royal Navy did not fight the Grande Armee… I wouldn't boil down the French forces to just the Grande Armée. The Royal Navy fought the enemy on all fronts, and yes navies did play significant roles by keeping up supplies for land forces, not to ignore the transportation of troops, maybe Boney did not understand this. |
Brechtel198 | 06 Nov 2019 4:55 a.m. PST |
Palm wasn't 'murdered.' He was tried by competent authority, found guilty, and executed. Interestingly, those accused and convicted of similar crimes were were granted clemency. There is an excellent article on Palm on The Napoleon Series by Tom Holmberg. link |
von Winterfeldt | 06 Nov 2019 5:13 a.m. PST |
Boney was well known to influence the outcome of trials – or trying to do so. I did not read of any such a criminal attitude against a publisher like Palm by Frederic Willaim III by the way. |
von Winterfeldt | 06 Nov 2019 5:16 a.m. PST |
Napoleon lost in Russia, Germany in 1813, and in France in 1814 as well as in Belgium in 1815.And your point is what? The point is that he lost his miliary wits after 1809 – disastrous campaigns were the result from 1812 onwards, I don't know of any great commander who performed so poorly loosing 4 campaigns in sequence. British gold won't do to explain the cardinal blunders of Boney in his later days. |
Au pas de Charge | 06 Nov 2019 6:53 a.m. PST |
Actually, most of the great commanders wargamers admire eventually "lost". That's because they admire their flair, style and technique over the lasting results. It's true not only for commanders but for Nations. That's why we like reading about Charles XII, Hannibal, Lee, Gustavus Adolfus and maybe not as enthusiastically about some commanders that won in the mechanical sense of the word. Even with commanders who were "winners" in the technical sense of the word, Like Frederick the Great, we tend to appreciate their recovery from reverses as much or more than merely from their great victories. Similarly, for the Second Boer War, the wargaming fascination is how the British got repeatedly outfought and not on how the Boers eventually got put in camps and were "losers" Also, Napoleon's later campaigns still possessed more originality and flair than his opponents and cannot only be judged by their ultimate results. Waterloo is a fascinating study because it's a campaign and battle that Napoleon should have won. The British got lucky but it's the potential for the french to somehow pull it off that makes rereading about the battle remain fresh and fascinating. After all, without a Napoleon, who would really have ever heard of Wellington or Bluecher? |
Brechtel198 | 06 Nov 2019 6:59 a.m. PST |
Well said, MP. Welcome back, by the way. You were missed. |
Brechtel198 | 06 Nov 2019 7:03 a.m. PST |
It is an interesting conundrum here that the British are not pilloried for losing many campaigns throughout the era, even though they won battles. In 1812 in Russia, the French won the overwhelmingly preponderance of the battles. In 1813, the French won the spring campaign and advanced to the Oder. In 1814 the overwhelmingly number of battles were won by the French. In 1815 Ligny was one of Napoleon's best-fought battles and Waterloo was very, very close. |
42flanker | 06 Nov 2019 7:39 a.m. PST |
|
von Winterfeldt | 06 Nov 2019 8:54 a.m. PST |
In 1812 in Russia, the French won the overwhelmingly preponderance of the battles.In 1813, the French won the spring campaign and advanced to the Oder. In 1814 the overwhelmingly number of battles were won by the French. In 1815 Ligny was one of Napoleon's best-fought battles and Waterloo was very, very close.
In summary Boney lost all of those campaigns – catastrophic and poor performance compared to his early days. |
Basha Felika | 06 Nov 2019 9:01 a.m. PST |
Seeing that list of successes in 1812-15 reminds me of that quote attributed to the big man: "I'd rather have lucky generals than good ones" So, having established that N wasn't technically a psychopath, (several pages ago) maybe it would be much more fun to discuss whether he was actually just ‘lucky' rather than any good at waging wars and that his luck just ran out in the latter years. |
Brechtel198 | 06 Nov 2019 9:34 a.m. PST |
Napoleon's definition of lucky has been defined as 'the ability to exploit accidents.' |
Basha Felika | 06 Nov 2019 9:55 a.m. PST |
I'd not read that – who defined the definition in that way and, if it wasn't N himself, how is it anything more than an opinion? Otherwise, it does sound a bit like the post-event rationalisation and justification of a politician's throwaway line spoken in haste. As we sort of say in the U.K. these days, "Lucky means Lucky" and that's not the OED definition you've quoted there. |
Au pas de Charge | 06 Nov 2019 10:15 a.m. PST |
@Brechtel Thanks; you were missed as well. |
Au pas de Charge | 06 Nov 2019 10:38 a.m. PST |
@ von Winterfeldt
Brechtel said: In 1812 in Russia, the French won the overwhelmingly preponderance of the battles.In 1813, the French won the spring campaign and advanced to the Oder. In 1814 the overwhelmingly number of battles were won by the French. In 1815 Ligny was one of Napoleon's best-fought battles and Waterloo was very, very close.
von Winterfeldt said: In summary Boney lost all of those campaigns – catastrophic and poor performance compared to his early days. Those campaigns weren't catastrophes because he lost them. Theyre all masterful military campaigns. The best generals don't always win and we study them because they outdid the expectations with the resources and time pressures they had. Continually suggesting that Napoleon wasn't so good because he lost is a sort of "bottom line" logic that would be more associated with someone who isnt familiar with the period. Frankly, that isnt the case with you; you give me the impression that you know a great deal about the period. The 1814 campaign alone is a masterpiece of strategic maneuvering. It just so happened that Napoleon didnt have enough soldiers. The faact that he lost and abdicated doesnt mean he wasnt the better general. In any case, I think Napoleon might be the most written about person next to Jesus and we all study his moves and not usually those of Blucher or Kutuzov or Archduke Charles. The only exception is Wellington, and frankly, though he was talented, he benefited from Napoleonic recalls of troops from Spain before he could really make strategic inroads against the French. |
Whirlwind | 06 Nov 2019 12:07 p.m. PST |
So, having established that N wasn't technically a psychopath, (several pages ago)… Was it? I think I missed that (not many posters wrote about the subject). I |
42flanker | 06 Nov 2019 12:22 p.m. PST |
"The best generals don't always win" Out of curiosity, what is the point of a general who doesn't win? |
von Winterfeldt | 06 Nov 2019 1:04 p.m. PST |
well what is with unlucky psychopath ? At least from 1812 to 1815, but I don't think he was a psychopath but suffering from personal disorder. Better a bad general who wins then a good general who is a chronic looser. |
ConnaughtRanger | 06 Nov 2019 1:19 p.m. PST |
"it's the potential for the french to somehow pull it off that makes rereading about the battle remain fresh and fascinating." Sums up much of the content of the Napoleonic Discussion (sic) and Media Message Boards. We're supposed to be discussing history not fantasy – they lost and no amount of cut and pasting is going to change that – ever. |
Whirlwind | 06 Nov 2019 1:35 p.m. PST |
In 1814 the overwhelmingly number of battles were won by the French. I don't know who wrote this, someone I stifled obviously, but this is just wrong. In 1814 the Allies won more battles than the French. I did a quick count in the Napoleonic Wars Databook and it is something like 19 French – 38 Allies. Not including the battles against Wellington of course, which would skew it even more. |
Au pas de Charge | 06 Nov 2019 1:44 p.m. PST |
@42flanker
Out of curiosity, what is the point of a general who doesn't win? But Napoleon almost always won, except for those couple of times he didnt. Which illustrates a point that it was him vs the universe and that no matter how many times he beat the allies, they would always cobble together a coalition to defeat him…and he only had to lose once to be ruined. In retrospect, that makes him a military commander of singular genius. From many viewpoints, I suppose Napoleon's defeat can be seen to make him a pointless endeavor but consider two things: 1. As wargamers, I would think we are interested solely in the military mechanics and trappings and not the tunnel vision-like focus of the final defeat which amounts to little more than the playground taunt of "Nyeah, nyeah, nyeah" :) After all, all commanders are defeated in one way or another eventually, whether they are killed by their own troops, are banished by their sovereign or underestimate the mood of their people. 2. Outside of this thread, more books get written about Napoleon than just about anyone else. Thus, we have to admit that Napoleon can make even losing cool. @ConnaughtRanger We're supposed to be discussing history not fantasy – they lost and no amount of cut and pasting is going to change that – ever. This is very interesting. When you say "They" lost, who are you referring to and in what sense? Anyway, maybe I wargame with a very different crowd but counterfactual situations are what makes wargaming fun. To game what happened gets done but it's the "what ifs" or the idea that you get the resources the commanders got but use your own wits to see how you do that makes the hobby interesting. I understand that the facts matter but for an enthusiast, "What might have been" is the very manna from heaven that makes the endless painting, basing, terraining and other hobbyistic efforts all worthwhile. |
von Winterfeldt | 06 Nov 2019 2:32 p.m. PST |
yes, usually the myopic eye is just focused on Boney, forgetting that there were a plethora of battles without him – in Holland, Italy, to name some others theatres of War, it is also problematic in my view, to say Boney equals French, which it doesn't |
42flanker | 06 Nov 2019 2:51 p.m. PST |
'Out of curiosity, what is the point of a general who doesn't win?' But Napoleon almost always won, except for those couple of times he didnt…
Mini pigs- interesting that you assumed I was referring to Napoleon. My point was general. 'Almost always won…' Isn't that like being a little bit pregnant? |
4th Cuirassier | 06 Nov 2019 3:37 p.m. PST |
@Minipigs The 1814 campaign alone is a masterpiece of strategic maneuvering. It just so happened that Napoleon didnt have enough soldiers. Well, yes, he didn't have enough soldiers because he had catastrophically lost the 1812, 1813, and Peninsular campaigns (and north of a million men) at that point, because his rule and wars were so unpopular that there was draft dodging on an epic scale, and because his "allies" had all peeled away the instant it was clear that the force he had used to keep them onside had dissipated for good. It was entirely his own fault he didn't have enough soldiers. More generally, Napoleon was defeated because he was an absolutely appalling statesman, who tasked Napoleon the general with impossible missions. I genuinely struggle to think of many national heads of government who have been comparably inept. Godoy, maybe, not that he was formally head of government; Charles I, I guess, who lost his throne and his head. There aren't many whose diplomatic choices ensured personal and dynastic oblivion as fast as Napoleon's. Napoleon's unmatched ability to mobilise and keep motivated an invincible coalition against himself is IMO the only valid point of comparison between him and Hitler. All of Napoleon's fatal problems originated with his own decisions from 1807 onwards. Humiliating Prussia, installing puppet regimes run by his cronies all over Europe but especially in Spain, looting allied and defeated countries alike, initiating the Continental System in the belief that countries like Russia would cripple themselves economically to suit his agenda, marching to Moscow while being bled to death at the other end of Europe…all his own decisions of state. |
Brechtel198 | 07 Nov 2019 5:08 a.m. PST |
There is no such thing as an 'invincible' army, military system or coalition. |
foxweasel | 07 Nov 2019 5:16 a.m. PST |
There is no such thing as an 'invincible' army, military system or coalition. Do you have any references for that comment? |
Basha Felika | 07 Nov 2019 9:05 a.m. PST |
That's not a comment, it's an opinion – or maybe an assertion? But Brechtel is right on the point he makes. |
foxweasel | 07 Nov 2019 9:35 a.m. PST |
I know, I was being ironic. If you look through these threads, any opinion or assertion is generally answered with "can you reference that" or words to that effect. |
Au pas de Charge | 07 Nov 2019 12:06 p.m. PST |
@42flanker Mini pigs- interesting that you assumed I was referring to Napoleon. My point was general.'Almost always won…' Isn't that like being a little bit pregnant? I was keeping it relevant to Napoleon but I dont know why we need to even ask the question about "winners" or "losers". As a wargamer, and I am only really interested in the part of this and other similar threads where a certain mindset wants to continually maintain that the French army, its generals and Napoleon were all something like 2nd rate because they ultimately lost. The argument comes across callowly; like not wanting to paint up Napoleonic Neapolitans because they had a bad battle record in spite of their brilliant uniforms. Frankly, the more mature approach is to paint them up and give them a chance just like any other nation's troops It's not even remotely like the being a little bit pregnant analogy because we're not just wargaming who ultimately won but who inspires us and who had a hand in the development of a military period. Lee didnt ultimately win but it doesnt stop us from studying his campaigns and techniques and wargaming the ACW over and over again. I dont know that anyone can do anything but cast their own aspersions on Lee's military ability except with 20/20 hindsight. So really, rather than the pregnant analogy, your approach is more like proving that a woman was never beautiful because you can demonstrate that she is ugly now. Additionally, someone spoke of fantasies associated with Waterloo "what ifs" but there are more apparent Dante-esque rings of fantasy in place here than initially meets the eye. Of all the many books I've read about Napoleon and the wars of the period, none have them have ever suggested that the French army wasnt a magnificent fighting machine or that Napoleon (And many of his marshals) wasn't the man to beat. Thus, really, the radical departure are the handful I see on this forum suggesting Napoleon was mediocre. Good luck with that. |
42flanker | 07 Nov 2019 12:23 p.m. PST |
"It's not even remotely like the being a little bit pregnant analogy…" Damn. I thought I'd get away with that |
Au pas de Charge | 07 Nov 2019 12:44 p.m. PST |
@4thCuirassier Minipigs said:The 1814 campaign alone is a masterpiece of strategic maneuvering. It just so happened that Napoleon didnt have enough soldiers.
4thCuirassier said: Well, yes, he didn't have enough soldiers because he had catastrophically lost the 1812, 1813, and Peninsular campaigns (and north of a million men) at that point, because his rule and wars were so unpopular that there was draft dodging on an epic scale, and because his "allies" had all peeled away the instant it was clear that the force he had used to keep them onside had dissipated for good. It was entirely his own fault he didn't have enough soldiers.More generally, Napoleon was defeated because he was an absolutely appalling statesman, who tasked Napoleon the general with impossible missions. I genuinely struggle to think of many national heads of government who have been comparably inept. Godoy, maybe, not that he was formally head of government; Charles I, I guess, who lost his throne and his head. There aren't many whose diplomatic choices ensured personal and dynastic oblivion as fast as Napoleon's. Napoleon's unmatched ability to mobilise and keep motivated an invincible coalition against himself is IMO the only valid point of comparison between him and Hitler. All of Napoleon's fatal problems originated with his own decisions from 1807 onwards. Humiliating Prussia, installing puppet regimes run by his cronies all over Europe but especially in Spain, looting allied and defeated countries alike, initiating the Continental System in the belief that countries like Russia would cripple themselves economically to suit his agenda, marching to Moscow while being bled to death at the other end of Europe…all his own decisions of state. These are mostly political and moral judgments and in no way undermine Napoleon's ability to exceed military expectations with the resources at hand. Prussia? Pfft, they got what they deserved. Why would anyone in a western democracy care about humiliating a monarchy? I actually think he was too lenient with Prussia and should have divided it into inner and outer Prussia. Or maybe Pink and Blue (Powder Blue) Prussia; making the inhabitants paint everything that respective color from lawns to household pets and dinner-ware. What was the line in the movie Waterloo? "I made one mistake in my life, I should've burned Berlin". A million men? A mere bag of shells compared to the 100 million dead from two World Wars which werent, unless you have protests to the contrary, Napoleon's fault. Spain? Spain was a mess when Napoleon found it, frankly, it is still something of a mess. The Continental System, a system to destroy the British Empire? It's true Britain did a better job of that itself than any outsider could accomplish. |
4th Cuirassier | 07 Nov 2019 1:14 p.m. PST |
These are mostly political and moral judgments and in no way undermine Napoleon's ability to exceed military expectations with the resources at hand. Not sure about moral, but yes, these are comments on the man's political competence (nil), not his generalship (off the scale). Why would anyone in a western democracy care about humiliating a monarchy? France wasn't a democracy, of course, but the more pertinent point is that the reason a dictatorship should care is that if it doesn't, there's a risk it will impose insulting peace terms guaranteed to instil a thirst for revenge and a resumption of hostilities. A million men? A mere bag of shells compared to the 100 million dead from two World Wars I don't see the relevance. I was pointing out that the reason Napoleon was short of men was that he'd lost a million of them. And those are just the casualties, not the troops tied down. He lost them in failed campaigns that he either directly initiated to fix his political mistakes (Spain, Russia) or that were inevitable (1813) given other previous political mistakes. Because he was a desperately inept statesman who continually created problems even his military genius couldn't fix. Spain was a mess when Napoleon found it So do we agree it was incredibly stupid of him to invade Spain? The Continental System, a system to destroy the British Empire? It's true Britain did a better job of that itself than any outsider could accomplish. I have no idea what this means. The Berlin Decree was intended to attack Britain economically as he had no means post-Trafalgar to do so any other way. With typical idiocy, he tried to tell neutrals who they could and could not trade with. The decrees of Berlin (November 21, 1806) and Milan (December 17, 1807) proclaimed a blockade: neutrals and French allies were not to trade with the British. link |