Wars and ConflictsΜύ permalink
The Battle of Culloden
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Saturday, 8th November 2008
I have long been interested in the battle of Culloden. In the strength of the two armies there seems to have been not much difference: The British army had 8,000 to the Jacobite army having little over 7,000 troops.
At the end of the battle the causalities on the British side were just 50 killed and 25 wounded; on the other side there 1,250 killed and 1,000 wounded.
Why this one sidedness in the battle? The battle seems to have lasted just over an hour.
What really happened at this battle. I believe the highland clansmen had not eaten anything the day before the battle and there had been a pointless night march. What went so wrong for the Jacobite's?
Tas -
Message 2
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Saturday, 8th November 2008
hi tas
lots of good accounts of culloden on the web
but what always makes me amused is that in the lead up to culloden in the battles of prestonpans and falkirk, the english troops broke and RAN at the sight of the highland charge (i say amused - i would have been amongst the runners and not smiling)
yet this is the same infantry that imposed itself on battlefields all over the world - impressive in their steadfastness and indomitable courage under fire
what changed ?? - was culloden the turning point ??
st -
Message 3
Posted by LairigGhru (U5452625) on Saturday, 8th November 2008
The reason for the retreat from Derby by the Jacobite Army has always fascinated and intigued me for it was one of those cases where a likely victory was replaced by defeat.
As the leaders deliberated together in an upstairs room of a hostelry in Derby, a man was admitted to them who was bearing important news. In reality he was a spy working for the English, and his aim was to frighten them with false news and panic them into retreating back north. In this he succeeded brilliantly. He informed his shocked listeners that a huge English army was hot-footing it up the road from London and it was now not very far away.
The former relative unanimity of approach was ruined in an instant and it soon became clear to all that retreat was the only option, but of course this ultimately led to disaster at Culloden. -
Message 4
Posted by George1507 (U2607963) on Saturday, 8th November 2008
English...
There is no English and Scottish in the 1745 rebellion.
There's the government, or British side, which comprised many (typically) lowland Scots, as well as English, Welsh and Irish. The Jacobites, or rebels, were mostly highlanders, but with other nationalities present too.
The tragedy of the 1745 rebellion was that it was really a civil war. Classifying the sides as England and Scotland ignores this, and makes the putcome of Culloden - the oppression of the clans - incomprehensible.
The government side claimed that only 50 or so were killed at Culloden, but I think modern research indicates that many more killed than was admitted. Certainly, there is a significant sized grave for only 50 government troops.
The battle took place (from the Highlanders' perspective) in the wrong place, and in adverse weather conditions (the Highlanders were facing a strong north easterly wind, and scudding snow showers). Some were exhausted after an abortive night ambush on the British forces, and most were malnourished after a winter of wandering round the highlands.
Butcher Cumberland's troops were well prepared and well trained, and motivated, but may not have fared so well if the night attack had been successful, or if the battle site was better chosen by the Jacobites.
A sad day. -
Message 5
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Sunday, 9th November 2008
Who chose the ground for Culloden?
I understand the ground was badly chosen and did not allow the Highlanders to mount their fearful charge properly. It was boggy ground and there was rain and sleet in the faces of the Highlanders.
Also not all the highlanders seem to have been satisfied; One clan refused to charge because they were not in their traditional position of first on the Right wing.
Was this battle lost due to the ill considered strategy and tactics of Prince Charles, who took on himself to lead his army during the battle?
I understand there was one of his premier generals who did not like the idea of giving battle there.
Tas -
Message 6
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Sunday, 9th November 2008
Tas.
All your questions about ground, tactics, weather and internal rivalry are answered in Dan and Peter Snow's 'Battle of Culloden 1746', available on DVD as part of their recent "Battlefield Britain", TV series.
(It was not the best of the series but has been awarded 3.5/5 by about a hundred customers who have rated it.) -
Message 7
Posted by Nielsen (U3014399) on Sunday, 9th November 2008
Tas,
Some of the questions you raise may find answers in as well as in and very probable in the many references they give, as well in the sources given by (numbers).
BUT, imho, it would be too much of an over-simplification to talk of "highlanders" vs. "British".
And as to "who's right and who's wrong", that's very much a political question which goes back in English and Scottish governmental traditions and constitutional laws, be they written or not.
If Anglo-Norman could be drafted into this discussion, I suppose he'd be able to give much more of the chapter and verse of this campaign - and it's results.
Nielsen -
Message 8
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Sunday, 9th November 2008
English...
There is no English and Scottish in the 1745 rebellion.
There's the government, or British side, which comprised many (typically) lowland Scots, as well as English, Welsh and Irish. The Jacobites, or rebels, were mostly highlanders, but with other nationalities present too.
The tragedy of the 1745 rebellion was that it was really a civil war. Classifying the sides as England and Scotland ignores this, and makes the putcome of Culloden - the oppression of the clans - incomprehensible.Μύ
Good point 1507George.
I would go even further and say that both armies at Culloden were British.
To be consistent we ought to talk in terms of 'Jacobite' v 'Hanoverian' or else 'rebel' v 'government'.
The problem with the word 'rebel', however, is that it is loaded with political overtones which are often unhelpful. For example the Jacobites certainly did not see themselves as 'rebels'. As far as they were concerned they were legitimists.
Another convention, therefore, which is often used by historians is a fusion of the 2 possibilities and (as you say) to talk in terms of 'Jacobite' v 'Government'. -
Message 9
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Sunday, 9th November 2008
Hi Neilsen,
I have already been on both those websites and learnt a lot. I just thought sometimes on this board people provide a better insight, a better feel if you will about events; just look at how much we have learnt on medieval Britain and its lords and families from Minette, Ross , Andrew and others. I was hoping some of you might be able to shed additional light on this very interesting battle; purportedly the last battle fought on British soils.
Tas -
Message 10
Posted by MB (U177470) on Sunday, 9th November 2008
Tony Pollard has done a lot of work on the site of Culloden and shown that many of the previous versions of the battle were wrong.
I went to a talk by him recently and it is thought that the figures for government losses are probably much lower than the real figure.
He is writing a book on the battle so it is worth watching out for that.
MB -
Message 11
Posted by MB (U177470) on Sunday, 9th November 2008
There is quite a good account of the Jacobite invasion available.
The Invasion of 1745: The Drama in Lancashire and Cheshire
by Peter J.C. Smith (Author)
MB -
Message 12
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Sunday, 9th November 2008
Hi JMB,
Thanks for the link on archeology. I learnt a lot from it.
Tas -
Message 13
Posted by MB (U177470) on Sunday, 9th November 2008
As you probably read, the Glasgow team found that the two armies were further apart than previously thought.
Also some accounts talk of the Jacobites attacking the government soldiers armed only with the broadsword (the famous Highland Charge) but there was no shortage of guns on the Jacobite side as is shown by the pattern of the distribution of musket balls.
Most of the maps of the battle were drawn many years later but a small number have been identified as being drawn by people who were either there at the time of the battle or shortly afterwards.
There are a lot of myths about the battle, some still believe that he clan burial mounds only contain the bodies of each particular clan. In practice the bodies were just thrown in pits with no attempt to separate. The labels were added much later.
The archaeologists would like to get permission for a careful dig on the site of probable burial place of the government troops. They did a metal detector survey around there, all they found was a Hanoverian(?) coin from some years after the battle. One theory is that perhaps a soldier from Fort George visited the burial place of one of his friends or just his colleagues. There has been a tradition of placing a coin on the site of a grave though it could have just been dropped!
MB -
Message 14
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Sunday, 9th November 2008
Hi JMB,
I read about all that from the archaeological website. It was indeed very illuminating! How great is history when it poignantly illuminates battles and brings them to life.
I feel for those poor clansmen who marched all night on a sort of wild goose chase, having eaten nothing but a biscuit the entire previous day and next day had to fight the Battle.
I do not feel very sorry for Bonnie Prince Charles, who lead them into this mess.
Tas -
Message 15
Posted by MB (U177470) on Sunday, 9th November 2008
Perhaps the WWI phrase of "Lions led by Donkeys" might be apt. Or should it be a single donkey?
MB -
Message 16
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Monday, 10th November 2008
Hi JMB,
I think there were more donkeys than just one, although the one was the principle one.
Let me relate a story that I heard when I lived in England about the Battle of Culloden: Your PM in those days was Lord Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ, later Sir Alec Douglas Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ. His name is pronounced 'Hume' as you probably know.
It seems one of his ancestors was Lord Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ, the head of a Scottish Clan. When Lord Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ saw that the Clansmen were getting unsteady on the battlefield and a rumor had spread that he had been killed, He got on his horse and started saying loudly to his men "Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ, Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ!" meaning "Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is alive, I am Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ."
Unfortunately his clansmen took this to mean that their leader is saying "Go Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ fellas, the fight is done" so they scooted from the battlefield. I understand that is why the family's name came to be pronounced from 'Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ' to 'Hume' although it was still written in the old fashioned manner.
Tas. -
Message 17
Posted by LairigGhru (U5452625) on Monday, 10th November 2008
I think I would want that confirming before I blindly started to believe it!
-
Message 18
Posted by Mark (U2073932) on Monday, 10th November 2008
Has anyone any theories about the new tactic the government forces used against the highland charge i.e. thrusting to the right instead of straight ahead. To strike at the Jacobite's unprotected flank. A lot of trust must have been placed on your buddies.
-
Message 19
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Monday, 10th November 2008
I understand that is why the family's name came to be pronounced from 'Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ' to 'Hume' although it was still written in the old fashioned manner.Μύ
This would explain why the LDV north of the border were often called the 'Hume Guard' -
Message 20
Posted by Trooper Tom Canning - WW2 Site Helper (U519668) on Monday, 10th November 2008
I have had the misfortune to have been on many a battlefield but Culloden ranks as one of the worst - as one approaches there is an aura of impending doom - which only magnifies the longer one stays around - terrible place of God forsaken loneliness and death. Horrible feeling !
-
Message 21
Posted by George1507 (U2607963) on Tuesday, 11th November 2008
Tas - message 16 - the Earls of Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ were lowland Scots, their estates being in Berwickshire and surrounding areas. The 8th Earl fought for the government side at Prestonpans in 1745, and in subsequent battles against the Jacobites, including Culloden.
Nice story, but like so many historical anecdotes, total rubbish. -
Message 22
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Tuesday, 11th November 2008
Hi George,
I am just repeating what I heard in those days. You guys obviously know more about your own country. However, this story was repeated, in humor, in various reliable places in those days.
Tas -
Message 23
Posted by George1507 (U2607963) on Tuesday, 11th November 2008
Hi Tas,
For some reason that I've never understood, we generate loads of strange and unlikely stories in Britain that start with (almost) no basis in fact, and then somehow become regarded as unimpeachable.
Berwick on Tweed being at war with Russia since the Crimea is another one.
I was brought up near the Hume estates, and they are (and have been for centuries) very Protestant, pro government and dyed in the wool. Being lowlanders, there's no way they would have joined the rebellion. -
Message 24
Posted by Fureys (U7828610) on Wednesday, 12th November 2008
Hi all,
I think one thing has been overlooked in this interesting thread about the battle and that was the part played by the artillery. While the Highland artillery was a makeshift collection of different calibres and was very poorly directed, the Hanoverian artillery (with the wind at their backs to clear the smoke) was able to pour in steady fire for quite some time before the Clans broke and charged. Even a small 4 pound ball can do terrible damage to a crowd of unprotected men standing still for the order to charge, and I seem to remember reading that most of the Highland casualties were actually suffered before the charge even began. This would of course also have stiffened the resolve of the Hanoverian infantry to stand and meet the Highlanders when they came to the onset. The practice of lunging with the bayonet to the enemy on your right has also been discussed here, but I am pretty sure that Prince Charles lost the battle by delaying the charge so long.
All the best
Fureys -
Message 25
Posted by LairigGhru (U5452625) on Wednesday, 12th November 2008
There was also withering 'side-fire' from troops standing behind a wall on the Highlanders' right flank.
-
Message 26
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Wednesday, 12th November 2008
Hi George,
You are probably right. I googled all the Clans that did join the Rebellion; there were many familiar names, such as Fraser, Kennedy, Lovet apart from the McGregors and Camerans, all with their particular tartan colors illustarted as well. There were many, many clans indeed. And they gave the Leader of each clan at that period. However, there never was a 'Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ' or a 'Hume' among them.
Tas -
Message 27
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Wednesday, 12th November 2008
but what always makes me amused is that in the lead up to culloden in the battles of prestonpans and falkirk, the english troops broke and RAN at the sight of the highland charge (i say amused - i would have been amongst the runners and not smiling)
yet this is the same infantry that imposed itself on battlefields all over the world - impressive in their steadfastness and indomitable courage under fire
what changed ?? - was culloden the turning point ?? Μύ
They were not "the same infantry". The troops defeated at Prestonpans and Falkirk were Lowland Scots Militia.
The first encounter between the Highlanders and the British regular army was Culloden itself. -
Message 28
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Wednesday, 12th November 2008
A lesson re-learned on battlefields all over the world - if you have guns against swords (or spears), all you need is steady infantry, and plenty of ammunition. . . .
-
Message 29
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Wednesday, 12th November 2008
They were not "the same infantry". The troops defeated at Prestonpans and Falkirk were Lowland Scots Militia.Μύ
Actually some of the regiments at Prestonpans and Falkirk did fight at Culloden.
Falkirk, although an undoubted loss for the government wasn't a complete disater - several regiments did perform well and fought off the opposing jacobites (many of whom fled the field in much the same panic as some government troops did). They actually prevented the Jacobites from pursuing the government army and turning it into a general rout.
The successful regiments from Falkirk were relied on at Culloden, being specifically placed to support troops with little experience of the "highland charge".
Whilst the Jacobites at Culloden were wet tired and hungry with a leadership deeply divided and several clan chiefs on the point of desertion, the government soldiers were well fed, rested, drawn up in a good defensive position and had a great deal of confidence in their leader. Cumberland, though loathed by the Jacobites was well respected by his own men. The government cavalry was also properly handled for once. Both at Prestonpans and Falkirk, the dragoons had become isolated and been easy pickings for the Jacobites. At Culloden, they were used in close harmony with the infantry and were far more effective. -
Message 30
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Wednesday, 12th November 2008
You are probably right. I googled all the Clans that did join the Rebellion; there were many familiar names, such as Fraser, Kennedy, Lovet apart from the McGregors and Camerans, all with their particular tartan colors illustarted as well. There were many, many clans indeed. And they gave the Leader of each clan at that period. However, there never was a 'Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ' or a 'Hume' among them.Μύ
Hi Tas, just to say that the idea of clan tartans wasn't around in 1746. Oddly the first specific tartan was government plaid issued to the newly raised "highland" regiments in 1742. The concept of specific tartans for specific clans was invented during the C19th romanticization of Scotland. Sir Walter Scott being exceptionally fond of inventing new patterns, which is why, as a Scott (but not Scot) I have more choice of kilt than any other clan.
Which also prompts the question as to why border familes aren't talked of as "clans" except in the context of tartan? -
Message 31
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Wednesday, 12th November 2008
The concept of specific tartans for specific clans was invented during the C19th romanticization of Scotland. Sir Walter Scott being exceptionally fond of inventing new patterns, which is why, as a Scott (but not Scot) I have more choice of kilt than any other clan.Μύ
Well said. As an Irish/English mongrel crossbreed, I was delighted, on a recent trip to Edinburgh, to be told that my surname meant that there was a kilt and bits, already for me to buy (at a pretty fancy price, I should add).
When O'Bama reaches Scotland, there is little doubt that he will be hailed as a 'long-lost' clan chief.
Half of 'Scottish Tradition' is a Victorian invention coupled with a canny marketing exercise.
If we ever get to know the truth about Culloden it will probably emerge that the Highlanders consisted of 2,000 men with the squits and six thousand on long-term sickness benefit who sent chits from their GP's. -
Message 32
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Wednesday, 12th November 2008
When O'Bama reaches Scotland, there is little doubt that he will be hailed as a 'long-lost' clan chief.Μύ
They've already found his Irish heritage:
-
Message 33
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Wednesday, 12th November 2008
U number,
You my be interested to know that here in US and more especially Canada, it is a tradition of members of the rotary club, of Scottish origin, to wear their particular tartan on their jacket lapel.
I had not realised that even many names without the prefix Mc' are of Scottish origin; like Fraser, Kennedy, Lovett, etc.; these names very familiar in North America. One lives and learns.
Tas -
Message 34
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Wednesday, 12th November 2008
I had not realised that even many names without the prefix Mc' are of Scottish origin; like Fraser, Kennedy, Lovett, etc.; these names very familiar in North America. One lives and learns.Μύ
I grant that is true. I've sipped many a fine glass of single malt with my wife's Scots relatives in BC, watching the sun sink slowly into an indigo Pacific ocean from a deck in Tofino (on Vancouver Island). But the English bit of my DNA comes from Cumbria and we have been raided by, and have raided back against, the border Scots for at least 400 years. That is why it was rather funny to be offered a Scots Tartan in an Edinburgh shop. -
Message 35
Posted by George1507 (U2607963) on Wednesday, 12th November 2008
I used to work in the Tartan shop on Princes St in Edinburgh, and even in the 1970s they had tartans for names like Kowalski, Blenkinsopp and Uhura.
I don't know about Obama, I'm sure there will be one soon though! -
Message 36
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Wednesday, 12th November 2008
That was almost certainly the one I visited.
Just up the hill is a wonderful shop called "Bag Pipes R Us" (honestly).
They sell a spray for preventing fungus forming in the moist dark interior of the bag. (Apparently pipers go down with some very nasty lung infections...) -
Message 37
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Wednesday, 12th November 2008
I had not realised that even many names without the prefix Mc' are of Scottish origin; like Fraser, Kennedy, Lovett, etc.; these names very familiar in North America. One lives and learns.Μύ
Hello Tas
a rule of thumb (although not 100%) is that names begining 'Mac' - e.g. MacDonald, MacKenzie, MacMillan and MacPherson etc - tend to be Scottish, while names begining with 'Mc' - e.g McCarthy, McGuigan, McGuinness and McNamara etc - tend to be Irish.
regards
Vizzer -
Message 38
Posted by George1507 (U2607963) on Wednesday, 12th November 2008
That's not true.
It's another one of those things that has long been held to be true, but isn't. some Mac prefixes are more common in the Highlands, but Mc and Mac are just the result of people centuries ago writing things phonetically. -
Message 39
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Wednesday, 12th November 2008
But it is true.
No-one is disputing the origins of the prefix or the fact that they are theoretically interchangeable. The fact remains however, that (for whatever historical reason) today 'Mac' tends to be Scottish while 'Mc' tends to be Irish. -
Message 40
Posted by George1507 (U2607963) on Wednesday, 12th November 2008
Sorry but you are wrong.
-
Message 41
Posted by MB (U177470) on Wednesday, 12th November 2008
I used to work in the Tartan shop on Princes St in Edinburgh, and even in the 1970s they had tartans for names like Kowalski, Blenkinsopp and Uhura.
Μύ
A friend in the Highlands went on holiday to the US and heard about a Highland gathering taking place near where he was staying so went along (in his kilt). He was made very welcome and was amused by the way that each clan stall would be able to find a tartan for the most unlikely surnames. I am sure they would find one for OBL if given the chance!
MB -
Message 42
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Thursday, 13th November 2008
Vizzer and George.
Having read your links with interest, and taking the evidence together (about ancient common Gaelic roots and a long tradition of inter-marriage)
...it seems that a fair percentage of the Scots are Irish and that many Irish are Scots. -
Message 43
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 13th November 2008
One thing that has never been clarified for me about Culloden and the whole Jacobite Rebellion is why the highlanders rose up in the first place? I think the rebellion was mainly of the highlanders, following Bonnie Prince Charles. The lowland Scots remained with the government.
Why did the highland Scots rise up and made the cause of the Bonnie Prince a cause celebre. Were there festering grievances among the Highlanders previous to the arrival of the Bonnie prince or was it just the romance of the thing with songs like "My Bonnie lies over the Ocean......Bring back my Bonnie to me."
It may be that the Highlanders romanticised Prince Charles too much, to their serious loss in the aftermath of the rebellion.
They did take it (the rebellion) a lot higher than they had expected and in the end it seems to have been a close thing; not the battle itself but the rebellion as a whole. Any comments?
Tas -
Message 44
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Thursday, 13th November 2008
Sorry but you are wrong.Μύ
Why apologise?
There isn't anything in that link that says that 'today' if you open a telephone directory in Ireland you won't find a preponderance of family names beginning with 'Mc' (many more so than names beginning with 'Mac') while if you're looking for family names begining with 'Mac' then you're much more likely to find a very large number of them in a Scottish telephone book. -
Message 45
Posted by WarsawPact (U1831709) on Thursday, 13th November 2008
They sell a spray for preventing fungus** forming in the moist dark interior of the bag. (Apparently pipers go down with some very nasty lung infectionsΜύ
** Fungus specially developed by those invidious English apothecaries at the Porton Down School of Alchemy in 1532.
Rumours of a similar fungus developed to attack traditional Scottish garments - 'kilt-rot', remain unproven.
-
Message 46
Posted by Fureys (U7828610) on Thursday, 13th November 2008
One reason why the Highland clans rose in rebellion was quite simply that their society was still more or less fuedally run and what the Chief of the clan decided the other members had no choice but to obey. Certainly the majority of the Highland Lords were catholics and this meant that their allegiance was to Charles rather than George in London (who was a German anyway). But many of the desertions that afflicted the Highland army were because the men felt no genuine allegiance to Charles, only to their Chief who had sided with him, but the worse the situation got, the more they decided to vote with their feet.
All the best
Fureys -
Message 47
Posted by LairigGhru (U5452625) on Thursday, 13th November 2008
Tas,
I recall hearing that the highland people liked the old-fashioned ways that were followed by the Stuart kings and thought that those days could be brought back if they helped James's grandson to ascend the throne. When one considers the changes brought in by the Hanoverians, this notion was not just mere romance.
Remember, too, that the rebellion might have succeeded had it reached London. -
Message 48
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 13th November 2008
Hi LairigGhru,
<>
That is why I said in my message above that the rebellion was a lot closer thing than the Battle of Culloden. The Highlanders achieved a lot more than even they had expected.
Tas -
Message 49
Posted by LairigGhru (U5452625) on Thursday, 13th November 2008
Like me you probably enjoy reading about the encounter with MacDonald of Boisdale when Bonnie Prince Charlie first landed on Scottish soil - the island of Eriskay - in July 1745. Boisdale implored him to return home, at which he replied "I AM come home, sir!"
-
Message 50
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Thursday, 13th November 2008
** Fungus specially developed by those invidious English apothecaries at the Porton Down School of Alchemy in 1532.Μύ
Fear of the Sassernach fungus probably explains why Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond kept away from the Remembrance Service at the Cenotaph, last Sunday.
I was surprised to see his wreath carried by the leader of the Welsh Nats.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Μύto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.