Latest news with #NapoleonicWars
Daily Maverick
2 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Maverick
Ceasefires and future fires — unholy trinity of Iran, Israel and the US presages a murky future
Following a week when the ceasefire between Israel and Iran (with the US as a supporting actor) took hold, it is still unclear what happens next, how things will evolve, or if a more permanent, peaceful settlement among the protagonists is even possible. The newly negotiated — and, so far, holding at the time of this writing — ceasefire between Iran and Israel (along with the US in its supporting role as both a midwife of the ceasefire and the deployer of those bunker-buster bombs) opens the door to several possibilities. Some of them are good, some are bad; some are exciting, and, of course, some are truly terrifying. What might some of those possible futures look like? Over the past three-quarters of a century, the Middle East has been the cockpit for a catalogue of ceasefires between combatants. Some have eventually — and painfully — evolved into actual peace arrangements, such as the negotiated settlement between Egypt and Israel via the Camp David Accords. Others barely survived their announcement before fighting began anew. Still others produced cold cessations of hostilities, usually monitored by the UN but without an actual peace agreement or treaty. This could include the line-of-control arrangements that ended fighting in 1948 between Jordan and the then nascent state of Israel. That ceasefire did not, of course, lead to the establishment of state-to-state relations between the two parties. (Jordan later relinquished a claim to administer the West Bank following the Six-Day War in 1967. Only years later was a chilly peace between Jordan and Israel achieved.) Meanwhile, further to the east, the India-Pakistan dispute over Kashmir and Jammu has remained unsettled since 1947. This has been despite ceasefires following bouts of fighting that have periodically erupted across the disputed Line of Control. Or, consider the fighting between Iran and Iraq that began with Iraq's invasion of Iran over a land dispute (and with some important foreign encouragement) in 1980 and lasted until 1988. That conflict raged on until the two exhausted nations grudgingly accepted a UN Security Council resolution. Ceasefires thus do not always bring about a longer, more permanent peace unless one side is vanquished completely — thus the periodic fighting between India and Pakistan that resists a final resolution. Alternatively, consider the rivalry between Rome and Carthage over two millennia ago that lasted for more than a century, a struggle that included wars and peaceful periods, until Carthage was destroyed by a rising Rome. Or consider Europe in the 1600s with conflicts that ran for more than four destructive decades as part of a monumental struggle between the Catholic Church and rulers insistent on individual state sovereignty in matters of faith. Then, throughout the 1700s and early 1800s, the rivalry between Britain and France generated conflict around the globe, including the Napoleonic Wars. It was a rivalry that was only brought to an end when the competition was redirected into building colonial empires at the end of the nineteenth century. In the immediate aftermath of the most recent clash that pitted Israel — and the US — against Iran, one key variable, at least publicly, has been that leaders from all three nations are claiming versions of success as a result of their respective aerial actions. US triumphalism For the US, as the whole world knows by now, President Donald Trump's typically over-bombastic claim has repeatedly been that three Iranian nuclear processing plants (with their uranium isotope, gaseous separation centrifuges and stockpiles of already enriched U-235) were 'totally obliterated' by a group of B-2 stealth bombers, employing 30,000-pound (13.6-tonne) bunker-buster bombs designed to reach deep into the ground and then explode. Almost immediately after that mission was completed, the president (and his eager subordinates) engaged in public chest thumping, insisting the attacking planes had carried out an unparalleled mission. However, the glow from neutralising the three Iranian nuclear sites was soon undermined by a leaked, initial evaluation from the Defense Intelligence Agency (the US government has more than a dozen separate intelligence gathering or analysis agencies, each focusing on different aspects of intelligence) that the bombing had not come close to obliterating the sites. In fact, per the agency's leak, rather than obliteration, the bombing may have only set back potential Iranian nuclear weapons developments by some months. It is important to note that all of the other intelligence agencies and their analyses have yet to be released publicly, and they may (or may not) have different conclusions or interpretations. Nevertheless, in the days that followed, Trump continued to insist the bombing's objectives and their effects were the 'obliteration' of Iran's nuclear capabilities. In rebuttal to the leaked report, Trump cited information apparently gleaned from Israeli sources and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) — as well as arguing that other US intelligence bodies would reinforce his assessment once their analyses were in. And so, what is the course for the US's strategic framework vis-à-vis Iran? The bottom-line US objective remains a non-nuclear-capable Iran, especially after the Iranians managed a symbolic attack on a major US military base in Qatar. The effect of that, however, was performative rather than substantive. But the continuing ability of Iran to launch missiles remains a concrete threat to the US, given that 40,000 military personnel are stationed in facilities in the Persian Gulf region in several nations, along with naval berths and airfields. Reports indicate that most US aircraft and personnel had been removed from their base in Qatar before the missiles were launched, and the Iranians gave a heads-up to Qatari authorities that the missiles were coming. Further, it has been reported that the Trump administration gave quiet acquiescence to the attack and its symbolic rather than substantive impact, once there was little possibility of harm to personnel or military assets. Still, despite everything, there are comments from Trump administration officials that they would entertain negotiations with Iran over its presumed nuclear programme, effectively recapitulating in some way the agreement that had been hammered out during the last stages of the Obama administration. This is except for the fact that Iran's nuclear programme has presumably advanced since the Trump 1.0 administration's withdrawal from that agreement. Unwisely, the Trump administration rescinded its participation in the five-nation agreement, a decision effectively lowering restrictions for future Iranian nuclear developments. If the Americans have a realistic plan to address their relationship with Iran, they have failed to articulate it plainly in any public forums. In the absence of such a plan, the mutual hostility is likely to continue, absent a plausible Plan B and off-ramp from confrontation. Stark choices for Israel As far as Israel is concerned, the policy choices are more dramatic — and starker. One reason is that while most Iranian rockets launched at their nation were destroyed before they could do grievous damage and fatalities, Israel's Iron Dome air defence system was not infallible. The immediate, primary threat, therefore, is not a nuclear-armed Iran, but the possibility of a vengeful Iran eager to even the score somehow. That 'somehow', of course, is the question. Does Iran still have a significant supply of launchable rockets and the means to launch a major salvo of them? While the Israelis have made a major success in greatly blunting Hamas and Hezbollah as credible fighting forces (at enormous, continuing cost and suffering to the inhabitants of Gaza), as well as being able to applaud the change in the government and orientation of Syria, they have been unable to offer a clear plan for their withdrawal from Gaza — or who will take over the governance of the shattered territory. Moreover, Israel's policies towards the West Bank remain seriously problematic, especially as the Israeli government continues to authorise new Jewish settlements in the territory. As some observers argue, while Israel's strategic position has improved significantly vis-à-vis the region at large, the closer one looks at its immediate neighbourhood, the more troubling the lack of a coherent strategy becomes. For many Israelis, furthermore, the key issue remains gaining the release or return of the remaining 7 October hostages — or the remains of those who have died in captivity — rather than continuing the attacks in Gaza. Major complicating factors for the Netanyahu government remain its slender coalition in the country's parliament — which is dependent on some serious hardliners — and the growing likelihood of an imminent corruption trial of the incumbent prime minister. Difficult questions for Iran And what of Iran? After undergoing serious nuclear and missile infrastructural damage (albeit without real clarity of just how much), as well as the deaths of key military leaders and nuclear scientists, the country's leaders must face the question of just how they plan to address the new strategic imbalance. Do they wish to 'double down' on nuclear developments and continue to enrich uranium to near or at weapons grade and assemble sufficient amounts to begin a nuclearisation process — at great cost and sacrifice — and the possibility of additional raids against such efforts? Once they do that — if they choose to do so — do they want to create potential weapons out of that uranium? The next choice is whether they would signal that effort quietly (as with Israel) or publicly (in the manner of North Korea some years ago). If they do so with the strictest secrecy, would they choose to avoid inspections by the IAEA, and formally leave the limitations of the non-proliferation treaty — an agreement to which they remain signatories? Beyond their nuclear conundrum, do they want to — or can they — reconstitute their collection of allies and proxies surrounding Israel? This would be despite Syria now being in very different hands, Hamas and Hezbollah being shattered, and Russia having its hands full with its own war of choice in Ukraine. Would they try to prevent the flow of oil and natural gas through the Strait of Hormuz — a seaway used by around 20% of all such flows globally? Regime change Hanging over all of this, of course, is how Iranians decide to respond to the authoritarian theocracy they live under, which has brought them to this place. Will there be a push for a fundamental change of government by restive minorities around the periphery of the core of the Iranian state, as well as younger people (and especially women) tired of the restrictions on thought, travel and free expression that the supreme leader's government continues to carry out? Even as those muttered semi-threats of 'regime change' from the outside are unrealistic, the country's leadership must surely be casting a wary eye in all directions over the possibility that a change of regime could be pushed for by Iranians on their own. (It did, after all, happen in 1979-80 with the fall of the shah and the rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini as supreme arbiter of the country. This was true even if the original student proponents of the change to eliminate the shah's regime were shoved aside by religious fanatics.) What this points to is that it is impossible, now, to predict what the outcome of any change of regime would look like in Iran. Would it be a more fanatical regime eager to rebuild its influence in the region, or might it be one focused on rebuilding the fabric and economy of the nation? In sum, among the three antagonists, an aura of unpredictability remains. There are too many ways things could go sour. Given the unpredictability of Trump's foreign policy, fissures in Israeli society over the country's current strategies, and the impossibility of knowing which course of action the Iranian government will take, the best that can be hoped for may be a tense, cold ceasefire, but one that holds. Nevertheless, a more permanent settlement via the hard work of real diplomacy, rather than weapons flexing and chest beating, will almost certainly be the only way to move forward more permanently. Right now, such an outcome is unlikely. DM
Medscape
23-06-2025
- Health
- Medscape
Vitamin C Does Nothing for the Common Cold
This transcript has been edited for clarity. If you aren't a 19th century British sailor, then you need to watch this video because — spoiler alert — vitamin C won't keep you from getting sick. I'm Dr Christopher Labos for Medscape, and this is On Second Thought . If you were blockading the continent during the Napoleonic Wars, then squirting some lemon juice into your beer probably made the difference between your teeth falling out and your teeth not falling out. There were a lot of ways to die if you were a British sailor during the Napoleonic Wars and, amazingly, French guns were not in the top three! The discovery of how to prevent scurvy with vitamin C is a great medical detective story, and I highly recommend Stephen Bown's book, Scurvy: How a Surgeon, a Mariner, and a Gentleman Solved the Greatest Medical Mystery of the Age of Sail . But if your idea of sailing is taking the IKEA ferry — by the way, it's free and gives you a great view of the Statue of Liberty — then scurvy is probably not your biggest problem. You probably take vitamin C because someone told you it prevents the common cold, and that person was probably Linus Pauling. Now, Linus Pauling was a very smart guy. He won two unrelated Nobel Prizes and, as far as I know, I haven't won any. So, when he wrote a book called Vitamin C and the Common Cold , people listened. And for some reason they don't seem to listen to me… Please follow me on X or Bluesky; social media is how I measure my self-worth. In the book, he told people to take 3000 mg of vitamin C every day to live longer and healthier. He predicted vitamin C would eliminate the common cold and extend the human lifespan. In interviews, he claimed that people who took optimum amounts of vitamins and supplements would live 25-35 years longer and would be free of diseases. Now, clearly the work of Nobel laureates needs to be taken seriously. But there is a condition called "Nobel disease" where, basically, you win a Nobel Prize and you think you're an expert in everything, and then subsequently go a little bit crazy and believe all kinds of nutty stuff. For example, Charles Richet won the 1913 Nobel Prize in Medicine and he believed in ghosts and telepathy; Pierre Curie attended seances; and a surprisingly large number of Nobel laureates became eugenicists. And then there was Kary Mullis, inventor of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Well, if you didn't know about that one, Google "Kary Mullis and fluorescent talking raccoon." You heard me: fluorescent talking raccoon. I'll wait here. Now, Linus Pauling was not any of these things, although he did say people with sickle cell trait should get a tattoo on their forehead so nobody accidentally had babies with them. And he also said some stuff about aborting babies with sickle cell disease. So… eugenics light, maybe? But to be fair, a lot of people in the 1930s held similar views, and it's unclear how much the general public in the US really knew about what was going on in Germany. But... This was in 1968?! Jesus! Okay, never mind about that. So anyway, being a Nobel laureate doesn't make everything you say inherently right. Let's do some math. Does vitamin C prevent the common cold? Because we aren't doing the cancer stuff; I get too much hate mail as it is. Okay, fine: Vitamin C doesn't treat cancer. There! I said it! Alright? Everybody happy? I said it! But let's do the cold and flu stuff because there's an important lesson here. Does vitamin C prevent the common cold? To answer this question, I'm going to be using the data from the 2013 Cochrane review titled "Vitamin C for Preventing and Treating the Common Cold." It summarized 29 trials, including 11,306 participants, and is one of the most misquoted Cochrane reviews I have ever seen. Let's start with treatment. Does taking vitamin C when you get sick make you better? No . There were 10 studies that looked at this question, and these were people taking vitamin C when their symptoms started. It made no difference in symptom duration or severity. If you start taking vitamin C at the onset of symptoms, it does nothing. So, if you're somebody who starts popping vitamin C tablets when you get sick, this Cochrane review does not support that practice. The commercials and celebrity endorsements are lying to you. The only reason the marketing geniuses behind vitamin C can say anything positive is because there's another way to take vitamin C — and no, I don't mean as a suppository. You can take it as a regular supplement every day of your life, which is great for capitalism but inconvenient for you as a healthcare user. So then the question becomes, if you take vitamin C every day of your life as a regular supplementation strategy, will that prevent you from getting sick? Also no . The incidence of common colds is not reduced in the general population with regular vitamin C supplementation. It says that very clearly in the review. The only benefit observed in the 2013 review was vitamin C's effect on symptom duration. If you take vitamin C every day of your life, when you get sick — and you will still get sick the same number of times —your symptoms will go away faster. How much faster, you ask? I'm glad you did. According to this analysis, it reduces cold symptom duration by 7.7% on average. And what does that mean? Well, let's assume your cold lasts for 5 days. That is 120 hours for those of us living on planet Earth. If we take the vitamin C meta-analysis at face value, your cold will go away 9 hours faster. You're spending $30 a month (or $360 a year) for 9 hours of symptom relief. I'm not sure that's cost-effective. So, if that's the case, why do people claim that vitamin C can prevent the common cold? Well, welcome to the wonderful world of subgroup analysis — it's kind of nuts here! If you limit the Cochrane review to the five studies that tested vitamin C in periods of short-term physical stress or cold temperatures, that's where you see a benefit. Let's break that down. Three studies tested the effect of vitamin C among ultramarathon runners in South Africa, so that was the short-term physical stress part — because running a marathon is bad enough, but running an ultramarathon is incrementally worse. The cold temperatures (which made up the bulk of this subgroup) were examined in two studies. The first study observed Canadian soldiers on military maneuvers, because, as you know, Canada's a freezing wasteland and I ride my moose to work every day at my igloo medical clinic. The other study (which is where the bulk of the cold temperature patients came from) involved skiers. You might think, Okay, these were Olympic skiers enduring high-stress and cold-weather environments . But surprisingly, no. It was a study of children attending a ski school in Switzerland, which actually sounds like a pretty good vacation and I assume cocoa was involved. What's often left out of this discussion is the fact that other, longer-duration studies, like one in US Marines and another one in kids attending swim schools, didn't show a benefit . So, you really have to pick and choose to see a signal here. In the general population, there's no benefit — only in this very eclectic and specific subgroup of patients. If you know something about statistics, you know how dangerous subgroup analysis can be. Cut up the data into ever thinner salami slices and you can find some wild and ludicrous results. Remember the ISIS-2 trial? It showed that aspirin efficacy post-myocardial infarction varied by astrological sign. That's the quintessential example of how multiple-hypothesis testing can generate spurious results. Random chance is a major factor in life. Random chance is why you can use real data to show that the divorce rate in the UK correlates with the number of movies that Disney has released in any given year. Go data dredging and you can find any association if you torture the data enough. Overall, vitamin C does nothing for the common cold. Even at the most forgiving, it shortens symptoms by a few hours, which I think is just spurious given the incredible heterogeneity in the published research. But if you ignore all that, you only see a clinically meaningful difference if you're a South African ultramarathoner, a Canadian soldier, or a child attending a ski school in Switzerland. And you're probably none of those things — just like you're not a 19th century British sailor.
BBC News
18-06-2025
- General
- BBC News
Volunteers restore grave of Napoleonic war veteran in Studland
The grave of a notable soldier who fought in the Battle of Waterloo has been restored by William Lawrence's posthumously published autobiography was one of the most famous first-hand accounts of the Napoleonic died in Studland, Dorset, in 1869 and is buried in the same plot as his French wife at St Nicholas headstone has been cleaned by the Napoleonic and Revolutionary War Graves Charity (NRWGC) to mark the 210th anniversary of Napoleon's final battle. Sgt Lawrence served in South America and fought throughout the Napoleonic Waterloo, on 18 June 1815, his 40th Regiment of Foot was in the thick of the was awarded the silver medal with 10 clasps for fighting in major battles, as well as the Waterloo medal – the first issued to soldiers of all remained in France as part of the army of occupation where he met and married Clotilde couple later returned to England and became landlords of the Wellington Inn, died in 1853 and is commemorated on the opposite side of the same headstone at St Nicholas'. The restoration was carried out by NRWGC founder Dr Zack White of Portsmouth University, Prof Ed Coss of the US Army Command and General Staff College, and retired US Army Command Sergeant Major Alexander Lawrence was born in 1791 at Briantspuddle and started out as a building apprentice before joining the chair Dr Graeme Callister described him as "an ordinary lad who went to war for his country". He said: "We hope that some will be inspired to find out more about William, the conflict he was in, or his life with Clotilde."This clean really highlights the importance of the NRWGC's work in preserving the graves and monuments of soldiers from the Napoleonic Wars." You can follow BBC Dorset on Facebook, X (Twitter), or Instagram.
The Independent
12-06-2025
- General
- The Independent
World's first prisoner of war camp in Cambridgeshire to open to the public
The site of the world's first purpose-built prisoner of war camp, which dates back to the Napoleonic wars, has been saved by Historic England funding. Assembled in four months using 500 carpenters and labourers, the historic site in Yaxley, Cambridgeshire, housed around 7,000 French Prisoners and inspired the creation of the world's largest collection of prisoner craftwork. Now, the Napoleonic Norman Cross prison depot site, which contains the remains of the camp dating back to 1796, has been purchased by Nene Park Trust with £200,000 grant funding from Historic England and £50,000 from The National Lottery Heritage Fund. Currently there is no public access to the site, but the Nene Park Trust is developing plans to allow visitors to explore the area. The acquisition of the Norman Cross site fulfils the ambition of long-term resident and supporter, Derek Lopez, who died before seeing his vision completed. Duncan Wilson, Chief Executive of Historic England, said: 'The Norman Cross prisoner of war camp represents a pivotal moment in our shared European heritage that deserves to be better known. After years of work to secure this site, we're delighted that our partnership work with Nene Park Trust, The National Lottery Heritage Fund and the Lopez family has helped to save this internationally significant monument for the nation.' Functioning as a self-contained town with barracks, offices, a hospital, school, marketplace and banking system the prison measured about 250m by 270m and was designed around four quadrangles. Each one had wooden accommodation blocks for prisoners, as well as an exercise yard, a store house and cooking house. Prisoners created craftwork – including artefacts such as toys, model ships and dominos sets carved from wood or animal bone – and sold them at a regular market. Battles were being fought in Europe, the Caribbean, north Africa and the Indian Ocean with French and Dutch soldiers and sailors captured and brought to the UK. The last prisoners left the camp in 1814 and it was dismantled two years later. A memorial to the 1,770 prisoners who died there, many due to diseases such as Typhus, was erected in 1914. Paul Chamberlain, author and historian of the Napoleonic era, said: 'Norman Cross Prison Depot is unique in that it is an historic site that continues to tell its story, involving communities, both local and national. 'This acquisition will enable more of the story to be told for future generations and provide us with a better understanding of a lost town that had a significant impact on the region over two hundred years ago.'
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Site of first purpose-built prisoner of war camp saved by Historic England funding
The French Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars saw thousands of enemy prisoners incarcerated in the UK; so many that the Admiralty, with responsibility for their welfare, had to devise swift solutions to cope with rocketing numbers. One was the construction of what was reputedly the first purpose-built prisoner of war camp, sited on the Great North Road in Cambridgeshire – far from the sea so prisoners could not easily escape back to France. Assembled in four months using 500 carpenters and labourers, the camp, south-west of Peterborough near the village of Yaxley, housed 7,000 mainly French prisoners – mostly low-ranking soldiers and sailors, with some privateers – at its peak between 1797 and 1814. Now the historic Napoleonic Norman Cross prison depot site, which contains the remains of the camp, has been saved for the nation after being bought by Nene Park Trust with £200,000 grant funding from Historic England and £50,000 from The National Lottery Heritage Fund. The Norman Cross site became the prototype for the further development of military prisons. Functioning as a self-contained town – with barracks, offices, a hospital, school, marketplace and banking system – the prison element measured about 250m by 270m and was designed around four quadrangles. Each had four two-storey wooden accommodation blocks for prisoners, as well as latrines, an exercise yard, two turnkeys' lodges, a store-house and cooking house. There was also a prison hospital. Battles were being fought in Europe, the Caribbean, north Africa and the Indian Ocean. An estimated 200,000 soldiers and sailors were captured and brought to the UK, the majority French, but also Dutch and other nationalities. Their welfare was the responsibility of the Transport Board of the Admiralty, and they were held in a network of prisons, prison ships, parole depots and land prisons. Norman Cross was the first of three purpose built inland 'depots', with the others at Dartmoor and Perth. Prisoners were allowed to make products – including artefacts such as toys, model ships and dominos sets carved from wood or animal bone – to sell at a regular market. Many such items were excavated during a visit by the Time Team TV show in July 2009. The last prisoners left in 1814 and the camp was dismantled two years later. A memorial to the 1,770 prisoners who died there, mainly due to disease including Typhus, was erected in 1914. There is no public access to the site, but there are plans to enable visitors to explore the area, while ensuring that the land is farmed sympathetically to preserve the archaeological remains beneath. Paul Chamberlain, an author and historian, said: 'This acquisition will enable more of the story to be told for future generations and provide us with a better understanding of a lost town that had a significant impact on the region over 200 years ago.' The heritage minister, Baroness Twycross, said: 'The remarkable stories of those held in what was the first purpose-built prisoner of war camp should be remembered now and in the future.'
