Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Napoleon 1812
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Mistern (U2728023) on Tuesday, 9th June 2009
Recently I've been reading quite a bit about Napoleon's invasion of Russia in 1812. But I must admit that I am a bit unclear as to why he failed. Yes, I know there was lots of snow, but there must have been more to it than that. For a start, he did more or less destroy the Russian army outside Moscow. So couldn't he have just stayed in Moscow rather than retreating? Also, it does seem to have been quite a dramatic reversal. In Sept 1812 he had reached Moscow, everyone assumed that the Russians where beaten and he had the world had his feet. Yet 4 months later Napoleon's army was destroyed and his power fatally crippled.
-
Message 2
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 9th June 2009
He did take Moscow - not that there was much there for him or his army, and the fire finished that option off in any case. Then, by being forced to exit on the Smolensk road, which they themselves had effectively denuded of resources enough to sustain an army on the way in, the setback quickly escalated into catastrophe for the Grande Armee.
The onset of winter wasn't even close to being a valid reason for his failure. That had already been assured before the first flake fell. Russians rightly did not buy into that rubbish either - which seems to have originated in France itself as a propagandistic rationalisation for such a previously unthinkable defeat.
And nor was it automatically the end of Napoleon either. During the army's retreat he successfully countered a coup in France and then bounced back almost immediately with an even greater campaign which culminated in his victory at Dresden. His reputation for being invincible amongst ally and foe alike may have taken a knock but it seemingly wasn't a lesson he learnt himself from the experience! -
Message 3
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Tuesday, 9th June 2009
"...For a start, he did more or less destroy the Russian army outside Moscow...."
Well, no. He destroyed parts of the Russian army.
The Russians were using delaying tactics in a fierce fighting retreat. The weather is only part of the story as you say. The vastness of Russia, both geographically and demographically allowed the Russians to pull back more less indefinitely. The were still calling up troops as the fought, replacing their losses. France, on the other hand, had to leave troops strung out along their supply line.
Borodino might as well have been a defeat when seen against the Russian tactical withdrawal. -
Message 4
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Tuesday, 9th June 2009
TimTrack,
I agree with your sort post. Could I add that Adam Zamoyski's '1812' is a very good read. -
Message 5
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 9th June 2009
Mister. N I must admit that I am a bit unclear as to why he failed. Yes, I know there was lots of snow, but there must have been more to it than that. For a start, he did more or less destroy the Russian army outside Moscow. So couldn't he have just stayed in Moscow rather than retreating? Also, it does seem to have been quite a dramatic reversal. In Sept 1812 he had reached Moscow, everyone assumed that the Russians where beaten and he had the world had his feet. Yet 4 months later Napoleon's army was destroyed and his power fatally crippled.Β Napoleon invaded Russia with over half a million troops, which was a gigantic force at the time. The Russians had around 150 thousand troops under the command of Barclay De Tolly to counter. Barclay split the entire Russian force into three smaller armies to execute hit and run strategy, which he saw as the only way to preserve the force - quite rightly so, in my opinion. So, the Grande Armee advanced on to Moscow unsuccessfully trying to pin down the Russians on the battlefield and suffering from substantial attrition and constant harrassment by the Russians. However, under severe political pressure caused by the continuous retreat, Alexander replaced Barclay with long retired field marshal Kutuzov, who obliged to take a stand at Borodino on September 6, 1812. In retrospect, this move constituted undue risk. We had a thread on this battle a little while ago discussing how controversial it was. By the way, Borodino was the bloodiest battle of the Napoleonic wars. By the evening of the day of the battle the French pushed the Russians off their fortified positions, but the Russian army survived in tact. Kutuzov decided that he took enough chances and retreated past Moscow to the village of Tarutino, where he could rehab the army and threaten Napoleon's supply routes in and out of Moscow. While in Moscow, Napoleon lost control of the army, whereas looting and morale deterioration took its toll. Alexander flatly refused to negotiate with Napoleon, and the latter was left with no other option than to withdraw. He attempted to take the Kaluga road, which had not been devastated by hostilities, but the Grande Armee was repulsed at Maloyaroslavetz and forced on to the Old Smolensk road. The following retreat was basically lethal for the French. And I got blisters on my fingers.
-
Message 6
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Wednesday, 10th June 2009
Napoleon, of all people, would have known that taking the enemy's capital, while significant from a psychologigal point of view, doe snot mena that the enemy is defeated. The Russian withdrawal was, a shas been said, deliberate, and they sued a scorched earth poilcy to deny supplies to the French. The French army was expected to live off the land they crossed, but with nothing to eat, and with Moscow burned around them, they could not possibly stay there all winter. If they could not stay where they were, the only choices were to try to fight a winter campaign or to retreat.
-
Message 7
Posted by sevenskies (U13875542) on Wednesday, 10th June 2009
Napoleon didn't invade just Russia , his armies marched all over Europe in aggressive actions with no justification at all. The Emperor wanted to inherit the Roman Empire and build his own one over all of Europe. Napoleon's wars left more than 15 million casualties. Very close to what the Axis forces caused during WW2.
Now all see in Napoleon a great tactician and commander. A great soldier who was eventually unfortunately defeated on the battlefields of Russia. The resemblance between France of the 19th century and Germany of the 20th. is so compatible. Why then the Emperor is seen as a hero while the Fuhrer is seen as a criminal ? Is that what the politicians call "double standard" or the Fuhrer was simply defamed because of sinful actions on certain regard ?
I think Napoleon must get the same treatment no matter how much the French love him. -
Message 8
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Wednesday, 10th June 2009
Sevenskies,
I hate to think that I was actually replying to Hitler apologist but in case you were being ironic I will. For those of us who abhor warfare and all the suffering that it brings and who do not enjoy for one moment the supposed glory of slaughter, Napoleon unlike Hitler had some positives which he leaves behind him. You need to understand the Code Napoleon and what that means to the French. Hitler (and his mad henchmen) was conversely responsible for the enslavement, displacement and the deaths of millions and millions of people. He also (for a sideshow) deliberately brought ruin to his own country. Unlike Napoleon he has left nothing to posterity except utter loathing and contempt. He, Hitler, was pronounced unquestionably mad by the most eminent medical authority in Germany in 1942, a charge I don't think that was ever levelled at Napoleon. Beside, Nap' always had a much better taste in women.
In short as far as I am concerned there is nothing to admire in Hitler except his death, my only regret is that he took until 1945 to achieve his finest hour! -
Message 9
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Wednesday, 10th June 2009
Napoleon was a remarkable man at the period of time that he became prominent.
In the 18th Century we had the excesses of the nobility, not only in France but in most of Europe, this was followed by the French Revolution and the subsequent terror. Napoleon's Coup was regarded then as bringing about much needed stability. The best ideas of the French revolution were still out there, among them were ideas of equality and liberty. So Napoleon was admired not only by the French, but also by other progressive people everywhere in Europe, for example Beethoven.
The early wars were caused by the old order of Europe, being afraid of the progressive events in France being a danger to their own monarchical system. However, all the armies of Europe were soundly beaten by the French on the field of various battles. We see that in Stendhal's Le Rouge et La Noire, and even more in the Charterhouse of Parma, that the young hero, an Italian runs away from home to take part in one of Napoleon's battles.
However, as with most people who get absolute power, Napoleon got corrupted. When he became Emperor of the French from First consul, in 1804, Beethoven, who had dedicated his Third Symphony to Napoleon, tore up his dedication.
It was fortunate that he met his end in the snows of Mother Russia. After that, he never again was the same man as before going to Russia.
Tas -
Message 10
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Thursday, 11th June 2009
And nor was it automatically the end of Napoleon either. During the army's retreat he successfully countered a coup in France Β
Not exactly. The coup failed because of some crucial mistakes on the part of the conspirators. Napoleon himself knew nothing about it until after it was all over. Neither, ftm, did the Empress Regent, Marie Louise, who was supposed to be ruling France in hubby's absence. Had it succeeded, the first she'd have known was when the soldiers came to arrest her
Could I recommend Guido Artom's "Napoleon Is Dead In Russia" which seems to be the only study of the Malet Conspiracy.
By one of history's little jokes, only a few days later, Napoleon came very close to being really killed or captured by Cossacks at Malarayoslavets. One wonders how Malet's executioners would have felt to get the news that their Godfather really was dead or missing in Russia, after all. I'd have loved to see their faces in that event. -
Message 11
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Thursday, 11th June 2009
You need to understand the Code Napoleon and what that means to the French. Β
I'm sure I read somewhere that the Code Civile had already been largely drafted under the Republic, and that Napoleon's main contribution to it was his name. Can anyone confirm or refute?
Incidentally, I understand that much the same is true of the common assertion that Hitler built the autobahns. In fact, 90% of the land for them had already been acquired by the government before he took office, and building would have started about the same time whoever had been Chancellor. Hitler just took the credit. -
Message 12
Posted by Mistern (U2728023) on Monday, 15th June 2009
Thank you all for your interesting replies, Suvo, hope your fingers get better! However there are still matters I am not quite clear about. I have read that Napoleon did have Victuals in Moscow enough to have lasted the winter, so it might have been wiser to have stayed there rather than to attempt a long retreat home. Or if one was going home, make sure that he retreated before the winter or the pusing Cossacks had time to catch up.
But one problem I have is that the figures don't seem to add up very well. If one says that Napoleon had half a million men in his army at the start of his campaign, what happened to all of them? Even if we say around 50000 deserted, around 10000 killed in the various battles, that still leaves 350000. Even in the Winter, one would have thought that would have been enough to have handled the Russians, yet at the end of the campaign at Vilna, the dreges of the army where outnumbered and defeated by some Cossacks the force of whom they would have laughed at the beginning of the campaign! -
Message 13
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Monday, 15th June 2009
Mister. N Even if we say around 50000 deserted, around 10000 killed in the various battles, that still leaves 350000Β When I said that Borodino was the bloodiest battle of the entire period, I really meant it. On this battlfield alone the French lost around 30,000 men and the Russians lost well over 40,000. The attrition had taken toll even before the first shot of the campaign was fired: the French had to march and drag artillery and supplies for very long distances in the very difficult terrain. have read that Napoleon did have Victuals in Moscow enough to have lasted the winter, so it might have been wiser to have stayed there rather than to attempt a long retreat home.Β As I said, Kutuzov's greatest strategic achievment of the war - and perhaps, his greatest lifetime achievement - was the order to retreat the mauled at Borodino Russian forces to Tarutino, from where he controlled all the supply routes to Moscow. He kept Napoleon incommunicado for all practical purposes. With Alexander refusing to negotiate and the Grand Armee getting out of control, Napoleon could not afford to do nothing for duration of time, or at least, this is what he must have felt like.
hope your fingers get betterΒ Contrary to Napoleon in 1812, I need a lot of ice. -
Message 14
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Monday, 15th June 2009
Hi Mr. N,
I concur with Suv, Kutuzov was a very canny old man. He never wanted to get into a battle with Napoleon; just let him bleed do death over the huge Russian step, and then chase him on the way back. He was forced into the Battle of Borodino.
After taking Moscow, Napoleon waited for messages from Czar Alexander, begging for peace. He waited and waited and waited. When nothing came late into autumn, he started getting worried, and started his retreat. With all the desertions and the guerrilla war fare and the horrible cold, the French army not being equipped for anything like the cold that they faced, and when Napoleon decided that he must get to Paris, abandoning his army, all those poor souls were lost.
Just consider that this was the same man who less than a year ago, when he was in Poland, in one of his great Salons, with all the grandees of Poland paying homage to him, and when his paramour, Marie Walewska was at the other end of the room, people got out of the way so he could have a clear view of her.
What a fall it was for Napoleon between 1812 and 1813.
Tas -
Message 15
Posted by Mistern (U2728023) on Tuesday, 16th June 2009
Zamoyski wasn't very impressed with Kutuzov. He said that many contampories thought Kutozov didn't have any speical skills, but was just the man available for the job. In fact someone said that the defeat of Napoleon byKutozov of all people was, 'the most incredible hind-kick from a Donkey that any mortal has had to bear!' I do agree that it was a dramatic fall by Napoleon. One mistake and he had fallen from been virtually the most important man in the world to having nothing!
-
Message 16
Posted by LairigGhru (U5452625) on Tuesday, 16th June 2009
Just a couple of comments. I feel that msg 2 brushes off the winter conditions rather too lightly; surely it must have been a very significant factor to men operating thousands of miles from home. Re msg 12, sickness is known to have accounted for the deaths of many, as was evidenced in archaeological finds in a Russian town a few years ago.
-
Message 17
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Tuesday, 16th June 2009
Mister N "...Napoleon had half a million men in his army at the start of his campaign, what happened to all of them?..."
In addition to Suvo's comments on battlefield deaths, and to add to Larig's on the weather, I remember a mass grave being discovered in, I think, a Ukrainian city. My memeory fails me as to which one. Hundreds of French soldiers perished from the combined effects of the weather, bad sanitation and poor nutrition, all of which had to be tolerated on a march, in inadequate tents. Even after they arrived in the city, they died off on a large scale.
Remember also that disease was, in any case, a common reason for death, often out weighing battlefield casualties even in less arduous campaigns.
My bet is that these non-battle related deaths were the single biggest cause of losses to Napoleon's army. -
Message 18
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 16th June 2009
Mister. N
Zamoyski wasn't very impressed with Kutuzov. He said that many contampories thought Kutozov didn't have any speical skills, but was just the man available for the job.Β Kutuzov's appointment in place of Barclay De Tolly was most certainly politically motivated. De Tolly chose the right strategy from the onset, quite obviously. The pressure for Alexander to replace him was two-fold: there was a wide spread panic among the ruling elite who perceived the Russian army's continuous retreat as the prelude to humiliating defeat; in adition to that, general Bagration, who was in charge of the third of the Russian forces, continuously defied De Tolly's orders and threatened the integrity of the chain of command, discipline and what have you. Kutuzov's appointment solved this problem, since Bagration had been under his command long before De Tolly was appointed at the head of the army. The irony, of course, was that, had De Tolly been left in charge, he would probably not give the full scale battle at Borodino, and Bagration would probably not get mortally wounded there. -
Message 19
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 16th June 2009
TimTrack I remember a mass grave being discovered in, I think, a Ukrainian city.Β I believe, you talking about the mass grave dug out in Vilnus, the Lithuanian capital presently.
-
Message 20
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Tuesday, 16th June 2009
Yes. Vilnius. In Ukraine....
-
Message 21
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Tuesday, 16th June 2009
Hi TT, Hi Suv,
Is Vilnius in the Ukraine or in Lithuania today? Who owned it in 1812?
Another reason there were not half a million men at the end must have been guarding the huge line of communication of several thousand miles. That must have taken a lot of troops. No wonder at Borodino there were about 120,000 Russians opposing 100,000 French.
Tas -
Message 22
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Tuesday, 16th June 2009
Is Vilnius in the Ukraine or in Lithuania today?Β
Lithuania. To the best of my knowledge it has never been in the Ukraine.
Who owned it in 1812?Β
Russia. However, until 1795 it was part of the old Kingdom of Poland (or "Poland-Lithuania") and Polish nationalists still claimed it as part of their country. Most of the educated and landowning classes would have been Polish-speaking. -
Message 23
Posted by curiousdigger (U13776378) on Tuesday, 16th June 2009
A quick trawl of Google seems to suggest that Vilinus belonged to Lithuania in 1812, it certainly is Lithuanian now anyway!
-
Message 24
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Tuesday, 16th June 2009
It sounds like a Lithuanian kind of name anyway, not a Ukrainian kind of name. I just got confused from the discussion.
Tas -
Message 25
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 16th June 2009
until 1795 it was part of the old Kingdom of Poland (or "Poland-Lithuania") and Polish nationalists still claimed it as part of their country. Most of the educated and landowning classes would have been Polish-speaking.Β Correct. In fact, Napoleon counted on the Poles to help him during the Russian campaign. The Ponyatkovsky's corps played a major role at Borodino, for example.
-
Message 26
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 16th June 2009
The Ponyatkovsky's corps played a major role at Borodino, for example.Β I should have spelled the chap's name as Poniatowski. Sorry.
-
Message 27
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 16th June 2009
By the way No wonder at Borodino there were about 120,000 Russians opposing 100,000 French.Β The number of troops available to Napoleon at Borodino were between just over 120,000 and 132,000 due to various estimates. The Russians fielded around 120,000 regulars and 30,000 militia troops. Only about 100,000 from each side were actually engaged. Notably, Napoleon pulled back the Guard just when the decisive strike at the center of Russian fortifications was in order because of the confusion caused by the Cossak raid north of the battlefield. It must have been the cite of a horrific carnage anyway.
-
Message 28
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Wednesday, 17th June 2009
Hi N,
I read somewhere that Napoleon came with 500,000 men but the line of communication was so long that by the time he arrived at Borodino, he had about 180,000 fighting men available. In the carnage that followed, the French lost about 30,000 men and over 500 officers including over 50 generals. The Russian loses were slightly heavier except they lost fewer officers and fewer Generals. However, they lost General Bagration.
The Russians withdrew and because they were in their own hinterland quickly made up their loses. When Napoleon left Moscow, he had about 93,000 men. In the wounded many died from cold and hunger and lack of attention.
Who ever advised Napoleon to attack Russia was either secretly disloyal to him or needed to have his head examined. A really bad decision!
Tas -
Message 29
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 17th June 2009
You think there was someone "advising" Napoleon? Who was that?
-
Message 30
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Thursday, 18th June 2009
You think there was someone "advising" Napoleon? Who was that?Β
Napoleon's last adviser worth a hoot had been Talleyrand, but Nappy often didn't listen to him, and in 1807 he gave up and resigned. Bad day for Napoleon. -
Message 31
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 18th June 2009
There were at least two in his cabinet who were working assiduously plotting against him: Talleyrand his Foreign Minister and his Minster of Police, Fouche.
Talleyrand had prevented the Czar's sister from marrying Napoleon, to prevent a closer alliance between Czar Alexander and Napoleon, after Tilsit.
But Napoleon himself had become quite a tyrant by 1812.
Tas -
Message 32
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Thursday, 18th June 2009
Who ever advised Napoleon to attack Russia was either secretly disloyal to him or needed to have his head examined. A really bad decision!Β Alan Schom argues in his Napoleon Bonaparte that personal animosity between Napoleon and Alexander prevented the former from rationally tackling the problems posed for him by the latter. Now, Schom's book appears to have caused quite a controversy, but I definitely vouch for his analysis of the Russian campaign.
-
Message 33
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Thursday, 18th June 2009
Is there any particular mystery about any of it?
Napoleon had been pretty much getting his own way in Europe ever since Tilsit, to the point where he could no longer live with anyone who wouldn't take orders from him. In 1812 he met such a one, and duly came a cropper. -
Message 34
Posted by Mistern (U2728023) on Friday, 19th June 2009
Mind, the defeat of Napoleon did result in a very conservative Russian/Prussian dominated Europe. This is an 18 century version of conservative as well!
-
Message 35
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Friday, 19th June 2009
Hi N,
That is what lead to the return from Elba, the 100 days and finally the battle of Waterloo.
Tas -
Message 36
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Friday, 19th June 2009
Mind, the defeat of Napoleon did result in a very conservative Russian/Prussian dominated Europe. This is an 18 century version of conservative as well!Β
Does that matter, though?
The Congress of Vienna was not a seminar on abstract justice. It was an attempt to find a deal that all the major participants could live with, and in this it was reasonably successful. In particular France, which had been at war, on and off, with the rest of Europe for most of the last quarter century, was sufficiently content with what it got, that it would not fight again until 1854. No doubt there were imperfections, as always, but can you name a peace settlement that did better? -
Message 37
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 19th June 2009
It was not the first time that Napoleon's army suffered a plague due to lack of hygienic conditions. During his Egyptian campaign his army was decimated too at their point of entry in Palestine. Which raises some questions on the overall organisation and care of the soldiers' conditions.
In Russia Napoleon made 1 big mistake. Not state clearly his target and follow it. If his target was merely to punish Russians and force them mind their own business around the Urals rather than wanting to interfere with Europe (or Ottoman Empire - do not forget that in the background it was always there the game, the east-west trade, the suez - plans existed already about its opening etc.).... if so, then he had just to enter in beat Russians in 1-2 nice battles (which he did) and then go out in a timely manner and in complete order showing who is the boss.
If his target had to be to destroy completely the Russians then he had clearly to get the assistance of at least Prussians (his enemies) or other Germanic states and Ottomans from the south (and... if possible English too... ). Why? Not because Russians had the best army ever in those times. But simply because they indeed had a relatively modern army of some tested fighting capacity together with immense ressources, a vast landscape where you needed millions of soldiers to control and of course even if Napoleon conquered all the major Russian cities there would be always millions of Russians ready to fight him to his final drop from inner Russia - anyway they would not have anythin better to do than continue fighting Napoleon. So only with a truly international approach could Napoleon achieve some success if having the target to neutralise them completely.
Napoleon acted as if his target was something in the middle. Middle things = failure. He was lucky to have returned with some army anyway... -
Message 38
Posted by LairigGhru (U5452625) on Friday, 19th June 2009
3,000 survivors ain't many out of 500,000 though (if these figures that I have heard are correct).
-
Message 39
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Friday, 19th June 2009
In Russia Napoleon made 1 big mistake. Not state clearly his target and follow it.Β I don't believe this is true at all. Napoleon had a very clear goal in mind. He wanted to remove Alexander. It was as clear as it was achievable - at least, in his mind. I tend to agree. There are some hypothetical scenarios out there, under which he could completely eliminate the Russian army as a threat to Grand Armee at Borodino, for example. In that case, not only would he take Moscow, he could send, say, Murat on a 200+ mile march to St. Petersburg to seal the deal. Even with the Russian army still intact after Borodino, Alexander was not that popular among the Russian ruling elite, many of whom were being dispossessed as the war raged on.
-
Message 40
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 23rd June 2009
He wanted to remove Alexander.Β Speaking of whom, I wonder if he put more effort into defeating Napoleon than into dragging a humongous piece of granit all the way from Ural mountains to St. Petersburg and have Rastrelly design and build a magnificent column known Alexander's Column nowadays that stands entirely under its own weight in the center of the palace square. That was done in celebration of the victory in 1812, of course.
-
Message 41
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Wednesday, 24th June 2009
I wonder if he put more effort into defeating Napoleon than into dragging a humongous piece of granit all the way from Ural mountains to St. Petersburg and have Rastrelly design and build a magnificent column known Alexander's ColumnΒ This was my worst post ever - by far. I got almost everything wrong here. First of, it was Nikolas I who ordered to honor his big brother's victory by building this column, not Alexander himself. Secondly, Montferrand and Orlovsky build it. Thirdly, the granite was transported from Finland across the Finnish Gulf on a barge. But it is still a marvelous piece of architecture.
-
Message 42
Posted by Sixtus Beckmesser (U9635927) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
"TimTrack,
I agree with your sort post. Could I add that Adam Zamoyski's '1812' is a very good read."
I would second this recommendation.....A superb account and analysis of 1812.
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 Β to 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.