Showing posts with label Biography. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Biography. Show all posts

Saturday, August 13, 2016

‘That Devil Gribeauval’

Jean-Baptiste Vaquette de Gribeauval 1715–1789 and the Development of Artillery Systems in the Eighteenth Century

The middle of the eighteenth century saw great innovations and improvements in field artillery. Holtzman in Prussia, Liechtenstein, Rouvroy, and Feuerstein in Austria, and Gribeauval, Maritz, and their lieutenants in France designed, produced, and fielded field artillery systems that changed the face of warfare and led directly to the mass mobile warfare of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars.

The Prussians led in the 1740s with light, sturdy field pieces and the ancillary vehicles that gave them the advantage over the artillery of other European armies. The performance of the Prussian field artillery in the War of the Austrian Succession (1740–8) prompted the Austrian Wenzel Liechtenstein to reform and improve the Austrian field artillery. The next major European war, the Seven Years War, saw the Austrians spring a nasty surprise on their traditional enemies the Prussians with their new field artillery system.

Because of a shortage of qualified senior artillery and engineer officers, the French seconded qualified officers to the Austrian Army to aid its war effort. Jean-Baptiste Vaquette de Gribeauval was one of the artillery officers sent to help the Austrians and during his tenure with the Austrian army he served with distinction with the artillery arm, gaining valuable knowledge and information on the Liechtenstein system as well as distinguishing himself in combat with the Austrians against the Prussians. Gribeauval also reformed and trained the Austrian engineer arm, greatly improving its organization and efficiency, making the Prussian engineer arm a very poor second to the Austrian in the field and in sieges.

Innovative artilleryman, combat leader and commander, technical expert in artillery design and manufacture, all these describe Jean-Baptiste Vaquette de Gribeauval, the innovator and designer of one of the best artillery systems in Europe between 1740 and 1789.

Gribeauval’s scheme, which was first and foremost a field artillery system, the first official field artillery system developed in France, was designed for mobile warfare and would enable the French artillery to become the foremost artillery arm on the battlefields of Europe from 1792–1815.

Gribeauval was born in Amiens in 1715 of a family that had contributed both magistrates and soldiers to the service of the state. Fatefully, Gribeauval was born on the feast day of Saint Barbara (4 December), the patron saint of artillerymen.

Gribeauval joined the army as a volunteer in 1732, entered the artillery school at La Fère as a cadet in 1733, and was commissioned as an officierpointeur upon successful completion of the artillery course in 1735. One of his instructors at La Fère was the famous Bernard Forest de Bélidor, who had calculated that the ‘normal’ powder charges then being used for artillery pieces were too large and that they could be reduced by half without affecting range or accuracy. This important discovery would later greatly aid Gribeauval in the development of his field artillery system.

By 1743 Gribeauval had been appointed/promoted to commissaire extraordinaire in the artillery arm, and four years later became a commissaire ordinaire. Because of his developing expertise and technical knowledge Gribeauval quickly developed a reputation in all aspects of artillery, especially in the construction of ordnance.

In 1748, after combat service in the War of the Austrian Succession in both Flanders and Germany, Gribeauval designed a fortress gun carriage that was later copied throughout Europe. Gaining the notice of General Jean Florent de Vallière, hereafter referred to as Vallière père, the head of the French artillery arm who approved of his new design.

Gribeauval, however, recognized, as did other French artillerymen and many senior officers in the army in general, that the Vallière artillery system of 1732 was becoming obsolescent. The guns, gun carriages, and ancillary equipment were too heavy for rapid movement on the battlefield and could not keep up with a field army whose commander was intent on swift movement.

Most notably, the only standardization within the system was with the guns themselves, which were beautifully designed pieces with excellent range and acceptable accuracy. The design and construction criteria were not uniform throughout the arsenals and foundries. For example, wheels from Douai might not fit a gun carriage from another arsenal. And too many times the gun carriages and ancillary vehicles were constructed to suit the roads near that particular arsenal or foundry and might or might not work well on other roads. In short, uniformity did not exist nor did the interchangeability of parts. And the gun tubes were not yet uniform nor were they bored out from a solid cast gun tube, but from one cast around a core. Maritz’s new casting and boring methods were not yet adopted by the French Army, though they were by the French Navy, which had its own artillery organization.

Gribeauval was promoted in 1752 to captain and was given command of a company of miners. As the miners at this time were part of the artillery arm, artillery officers were at times given command of miner companies. That same year Gribeauval was ordered on an inspection trip to study the Prussian light artillery that had performed so well in the War of the Austrian Succession, and had given the Austrians so much trouble in the field.

The outstanding Prussian artillery officer Lieutenant Colonel Ernst Friedrich von Holtzman had developed a very mobile field artillery arm which Gribeauval was able to observe at first hand during manoeuvres and personally inspect the field pieces and ancillary vehicles. Gribeauval obtained plans for some of the Prussian field pieces and had one constructed for field tests when he returned to France.

In 1757 Gribeauval was promoted to lieutenant colonel of infantry and that same year was seconded to the Austrian Army, as war had come again to Europe and France and Austria were now allies against Frederick the Great. The Austrian Empress Maria Theresa had requested personnel support from France because of a shortage of senior artillery and engineer officers in the Austrian service. This was despite the significant artillery reforms done in Austria by Liechtenstein which completely revamped the Austrian artillery arm in an attempt to make it at least the equal of the Prussians they had faced in the previous war.

Gribeauval’s service in Austria was exemplary and distinguished. He served at the Battle of Hastenbeck and at the capture of Minden. He earned promotion to Oberstleutnant in the Austrian army in 1759. Distinguished service at the siege of Neiss the same year resulted in his being created an Austrian general officer, General-Feldwachtmeister, the equivalent of a French lieutenant general and he was noted as a ‘général de bataille … commandant de l’artillerie, du génie, et des mineurs’. Gribeauval was awarded the Grand Cross of the Order of Maria Theresa by a grateful Empress. Gribeauval’s sovereign, Louis XV, agreed with the honours and gave his consent to the promotion.

Under the overall command of Marshal Loudon, Gribeauval directed the siege of Glatz and took the city by a daring, well-planned and well-executed coup de main. Gribeauval’s most distinguished service with the Austrians, however, was his defence of Schweidnitz, as the commander of the Austrian artillery and engineers in the garrison. Frederick himself was present and was impressed by Gribeauval’s technical skill. While the garrison of Schweidnitz was finally forced to capitulate, they had inflicted 7,000 Prussian casualties at a loss of only 1,000 Austrians. After the siege Frederick attempted to entice Gribeauval into his service, but he refused and when the war was over he returned to his duties in the French Army.

It is noteworthy and a great compliment to Gribeauval that he was considered an equal to his Austrian comrades in the artillery arm and was considered as a ‘collaborateur’ (equal colleague) of Prince Liechtenstein. Gribeauval had contributed to the improvement of the Austrian artillery arm and his work with the Austrian engineers gave them a firm technological footing as well as a definite organization and place in the Austrian Army that they had not previously enjoyed.

Even before his return to France, Gribeauval was chosen by the French Minister of War, the Duc de Choiseul, to work at revamping and reorganizing the French artillery arm and developing and implementing a field artillery system. Gribeauval probably began work on his new artillery system before he left Austria for France. What he wanted was a simple system of light, accurate field pieces that would emphasize mobility, hitting power, interchangeability of parts, and be of a modern design. Gribeauval wanted a field artillery system designed to fight the next war, not the last. Gribeauval was ordered to prepare a report on the Austrian artillery arm and submitted it to Choiseul, who was satisfied with the content and told Gribeauval to proceed with his planning and development.

Choiseul was not only Gribeauval’s patron in this endeavour, he was also his partner, as would be the innovative Swiss gunfounder Jean Maritz. Gribeauval was undoubtedly chosen for the task of revamping the French artillery arm because he had served with the Austrian artillery in combat and had closely observed the Prussian field artillery before the war. He was the only French artilleryman who had knowledge of both systems, which allowed him to develop a better field artillery system than either of those two powers.

Gribeauval, with Choiseul’s sponsorship, began the reform of the French artillery arm. His new designs – the gun tubes themselves, a new field artillery carriage design, and new ancillary vehicles – made the French artillery up to date and eventually the best in Europe by the outbreak of the French Revolution.

Gribeauval and Choiseul were confronted with one very large problem in the person of Joseph Florent de Vallière fils, the son of the originator of the Vallière artillery system and the Ordonnance of 1732. Vallière fils was the current Director-General of the French artillery and opposed Gribeauval’s new system vehemently, and the argument was long and bitter. Gribeauval officially tested his new field guns at Strasbourg in 1764, and their overall performance was just as good as that of the older, longer, and heavier Vallière pieces. The argument, however, divided the French artillery into the pro-Vallière faction-known as the rouges because of the traditional colour of the French artillery uniform (the waistcoats and breeches were red, the coats blue) and the pro-Gribeauval faction-known as the bleus because of the new uniform introduced by Gribeauval which was all blue, not just the coat. Initially, with the support of various general officers who not only wanted the artillery reformed but the entire army, and the Minister of War, Gribeauval’s new system was adopted by the French Army on 13 August 1765.

Still the long argument was not over. Vallière and his supporters pressed their case and once Choiseul was manoeuvred out of the War Ministry, the Gribeauval System was proscribed and Gribeauval and many of his supporters were either silenced or dismissed. However, over the next few years, the arguments resurfaced and Vallière fils died. Support for the older artillery system faded, and Gribeauval’s designs were finally reinstated. Gribeauval was awarded the Grand Cross of the Order of St Louis in 1776 and was made First Inspector-General of Artillery on 1 January 1777. Gribeauval and his subordinates were able to continue their work and both the field artillery and siege pieces first saw employment and combat with General Comte de Rochambeau’s expeditionary force that deployed to North America in 1780 and were decisively employed in the York-town campaign in the autumn of 1781 which forced the capitulation of Lord Cornwallis’s army to the French and Americans effectively ending the War of the Revolution and guaranteeing the independence of the new United States.

The reforms instituted and carried out by Gribeauval affected every aspect of the French artillery arm. The first complete field artillery system in France was created with new gun tubes, gun carriages, and ancillary vehicles, along with equipment and innovations that improved gunnery, ballistics, production of guns and vehicles, and made changes in organization, uniforms, training, education, and artillery doctrine. In short, with two exceptions, Gribeauval covered field artillery ‘from muzzle to butt plate’ and created the system that would carry the French through the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars.

The two exceptions Gribeauval did not address were, first, the introduction of horse artillery, which he apparently intended to add to the new field artillery system once it was finally approved and any official or semi-official opposition was ended. Horse artillery was eventually introduced into the French Army in 1792 following the recommendations of Minister of War Louis Duportail. Second, the artillery train was not militarized and the dubious employment of civilian artillery drivers was retained. This would finally be remedied by Napoleon in 1800 as First Consul of France. The new artillery train was an efficient military organization that would be constantly expanded as the artillery arm grew larger over the Consulate and Empire.

The material and technical changes instituted by Gribeauval were impressive. Windage was reduced to a standardized minimum; screw-in gun vents were introduced; the prolonge and bricole became standard pieces of equipment for each gun crew. A new, simple hausse sight was developed that could be used with little training and could be kept mounted on the piece when firing. Brass wheel housings were manufactured to reduce friction when the piece was being moved, especially by manpower, and gave each piece a mechanical advantage, even though the new gun carriages were heavier than their foreign counterparts as all were equipped with an iron, instead of the usual wooden, axle. That was a major technological step forward.

Organizational, educational, and artillery uniform changes were also instituted. Gribeauval not only improved the technical education of French artillery officers, but also now had the non-commissioned officers school-trained as well. The French artillery was organized into permanent companies and regiments with new dark (or royal, and later imperial) blue uniforms. French artillery officers were educated not only in the traditional subjects of mathematics and technical drawing, but were also taught tactics, infantry as well as their own, and infantry/artillery cooperation was emphasized to them.

Gribeauval was an outstanding artillery officer who designed one of the most innovative and complete artillery systems in the history and development of artillery. He insisted on rigid production standards so that the gun tubes and all the vehicles from gun carriages to limbers to caissons were all built to the same standard. The parts were interchangeable within the ‘three calibres’ and the technical drawings that were distributed to all of the production facilities, the famous ‘Tables of Construction’, were finally published together in 1792, three years after Gribeauval’s death. While they were published posthumously, they were the product of Gribeauval’s work, which is why his name is on the publication.

As noted previously both the field and siege pieces of the Gribeauval System were taken to North America by Rochambeau and the French Expeditionary Corps and were used in combat at the siege of Yorktown. The system proved itself before the beginning of the Wars of the French Revolution and though Napoleon wanted the system replaced in 1802–3 by the new Système An XI, circumstances dictated that only two field pieces of that system, the 6-pounder and the 5.5-inch (24-pounder) howitzer, were produced in any numbers. What these new field pieces did in actuality was to supplement the Gribeauval System and not replace it.

Thursday, July 16, 2015

WILLIAM ALEXANDER (1726–1783).




Continental officer and claimant to the title of Lord Stirling. William was the son of James Alexander (1691–1756), a prominent New York lawyer, and Mary Sprat Provoost, a merchant. Growing up in privileged circumstances, he received a good education from his father and private tutors and became a proficient mathematician and astronomer. He was associated with his mother in her mercantile business. In 1748, he married Sarah Livingston, daughter of Philip Livingston, thus securing a close connection with the wealthy and powerful Livingston family of New Jersey. At the start of the Seven Years’ War, he joined the military staff of Governor William Shirley of Massachusetts as his secretary. In addition, he and some business partners were hired as army contractors during the Niagara campaign of 1755 and 1756. His connections with Shirley proved to be a liability when the governor failed as a military leader, for Alexander and his partners were accused of profiteering. In 1756 he accompanied Shirley to London, where he defended his mentor’s reputation and fought successfully to clear his own name.

Alexander lived in Britain from 1757 to 1761, hobnobbing with land-owning gentlemen and spending money in pursuit of the lapsed Scots earldom of Stirling. He got the Scots lords to accept his claim to the title, but not their English counterparts. Undeterred by this rebuff, he assumed the title, and his American contemporaries thereafter called him lord Stirling. Upon his return to America, he gave up his previous occupation of merchant. Building an elegant country house near Basking Ridge, New Jersey, he lived there with his family in emulation of the English landed gentry. He dabbled in science, invested in iron mining, speculated in land, drank to excess, and squandered a fortune of more than £100,000. He served on the councils of New York and New Jersey and the Board of Proprietors of East Jersey. He also held the post of governor of King’s College (later Columbia University). As tensions grew between America and Britain in the 1760s and 1770s, Alexander expressed pro-parliamentary views. On one occasion he even urged the Board of Trade to tighten its enforcement of navigation and tax laws in the colonies.

When the war with Britain began in 1775, however, Lord Stirling quickly declared for America and never wavered thereafter. The royal governors of New York (William Tryon) and New Jersey (William Franklin) removed him from their councils. He was appointed a member of the extralegal Council of Safety in New Jersey, and on 1 November 1775 was commissioned as a colonel of the First New Jersey Regiment. He assisted in the seizure of an armed British transport, the Blue Mountain Valley, on 25 January 1776, and was rewarded with promotion to brigadier general on 1 March. Assuming command at New York City, he directed the construction of defensive works in preparation for a threatened British invasion. In April he welcomed General George Washington to the city, and soon developed a congenial association with the commander in chief. He confronted his first big test as a military leader on 27 August 1776, when Washington gave him command of the American right wing in the battle of Long Island. Through no fault of his own, his brigade was overwhelmed and he was captured.

Stirling was included in a prisoner exchange on 6 October 1776. Rejoining Washington’s army on Manhattan, he was given command of another brigade. He operated in a semi-independent command over the next two weeks, retreating with the rest of the American army to White Plains, New York. There, on 28 October, he participated in a pitched battle before joining in a fighting withdrawal across New Jersey in November and December. At Trenton on 26 December he played a major role in the defeat of a Hessian garrison commanded by Colonel Johann Räll. On 19 February 1777 he was one of five American officers promoted to major general. He took up his post with his division near Metuchen, New Jersey, on 24 June. Two days later he was assaulted by a superior enemy force commanded by Lord Charles Cornwallis and was given a severe mauling before he extricated himself from his dangerously exposed position. Retaining Washington’s confidence, he served in the Hudson Highlands for a short time before rejoining the main army and marching into Pennsylvania. He commanded well in the battle of Brandywine on 11 September, rushing his division to the support of John Sullivan when Sullivan was attacked near the Birmingham Meeting House. In the battle of Germantown on 4 October, Stirling’s division was in the thick of the fight.

After spending the winter of 1777 and 1778 at Valley Forge, Stirling accompanied the American army in mid-June 1778 as it followed the British forces withdrawing from Philadelphia across New Jersey. In the battle of Monmouth on 28 June he played a key role in the American victory by deploying cannon to good effect in the third and final line of defense. For almost two hours, he cannonaded the enemy, with the British reciprocating in kind. Breaking up a British infantry advance, he then ordered his own men to assault the enemy’s right flank. As the redcoats broke into flight, he wisely ordered his soldiers not to press the pursuit. From 4 July to 12 August he presided over the court martial of Charles Lee, who was subsequently suspended from the army for one year. In the summer of 1779 he assisted Major Henry Lee in the latter’s brilliant assault on Paulus Hook, New Jersey. On January 14 and 15, 1780, he led a mismanaged, abortive raid on Staten Island during a period of cruelly cold weather. Later that year he served on a board of general officers that inquired into the activities of John Andre´.

Given an independent command at Albany in 1781, Stirling prepared to defend Fort Ticonderoga from a possible British attack. No attack materialized, and his duties were easy. He died of a virulent and painful attack of gout on 15 January 1783. Although not a brilliant soldier, he was loyal, trustworthy, reliable, and brave. His loss was mourned by Washington, his fellow officers, and his family.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Duer, William Alexander. The Life of William Alexander, Earl of Stirling: Major General in the Army of the United States, during the Revolution. New York: Wiley and Putnam, 1847. Nelson, Paul David. William Alexander, Lord Stirling. University, Ala.: University of Alabama Press, 1987. Schumacher, Ludwig. Major-General the Earl of Stirling: An Essay in Biography. New York: New Amsterdam, 1897. Valentine, Alan. Lord Stirling. New York: Oxford University Press, 1969.

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

Archduke Charles of Austria




Archduke Charles of Austria, Duke of Teschen (Karl Ludwig Johann Josef Lorenz of Austria; 5 September 1771 – 30 April 1847) was an Austrian field-marshal, the third son of emperor Leopold II and his wife Infanta Maria Luisa of Spain. He was also the younger brother of Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor. Despite being epileptic, Charles achieved respect both as a commander and as a reformer of the Austrian army. He was considered one of Napoleon's most formidable opponents.

He began his career fighting the revolutionary armies of France. Early in the wars of the First Coalition, he saw victory at Neerwinden in 1793, before tasting defeat at Wattignies 1793 and Fleurus 1794. In 1796, as chief of all Austrian forces on the Rhine, Charles out-generaled Jean-Baptiste Jourdan at Amberg and Würzburg, and forced Jean Victor Marie Moreau to withdraw across the Rhine, and followed these victories with others at Zürich, Ostrach, Stockach, and Messkirch in 1799. He reformed Austria's armies to adopt the nation at arms principle; in 1809, he went into the War of the Fifth Coalition with confidence and inflicted Napoleon's first major setback at Aspern-Essling, before suffering a defeat at the bloody Battle of Wagram. Following Wagram, Charles saw no more significant action in the Napoleonic Wars.

As a military strategist, historians compare him to Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, conservative, cautious, and competent. Charles was a study in contrasts. As a practitioner, he was flawless in executing complex and risky maneuvers of troops in the heat of battle, achieving brilliant victories in the face of almost certain defeat. Yet, as a theoretician, his devotion to ground and caution led his contemporary, Carl von Clausewitz, to criticize his rigidity and adherence to geographic strategy. Regardless, he remains among Austria's pantheon of heroes of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars.

Sunday, May 10, 2015

Frederick the Great




Frederick the Great was King of Prussia from 1740 to 1786 and was known as an enlightened despot. Born on January 24, 1712, in Berlin, he was the son of Frederick William I (1688–1740) and Sophia Dorothea (1687–1757), daughter of the future King George I of Hanover and Britain. Frederick William treated his artistically and linguistically gifted son abominably and quashed his emerging liberal tendencies; he had the boy trained in military matters from the age of six.

While attempting a flight to his mother’s family in England to escape his father’s omnipresent control, Frederick was caught, arrested, and forced to watch the execution of his friend and accomplice Hans Hermann von Katte on November 6, 1730. Frederick was court-martialed, temporarily imprisoned, and banned from court. As a result, Frederick suffered a nervous breakdown but thereafter obeyed all his father’s commands. By this time the focus on military affairs had become an overpowering obsession that would eventually stand him in good stead.

Frederick’s politically arranged marriage to Elizabeth of Brunswick-Bevern in 1733 failed. Although the couple remained married, they did not have a conventional marriage. Frederick refrained from having any other relationships with women. His father gave him Château Rheinsberg, near Berlin. There, Frederick was happy for the first time in his life and pursued the study of the arts and became enthralled with Enlightenment ideals. He wrote Anti-Machiave in 1739 and began corresponding with Voltaire, whom he greatly admired. He also studied the biographies and strategies of military leaders.

Frederick succeeded to the throne upon Frederick William’s death on May 31, 1740. Prussia only had a population of about two million people, but the abundant treasury allowed Frederick the luxury to make significant changes. He never believed in the divine right of kings, but he could be a despot at times. He quickly realized that his far-flung territories—scattered across northern Germany, and often not contiguous—required modernization, and he implemented major reforms to benefit his people. 

Frederick made major improvements in the army, the infrastructure, the judicial system, finance, and the education system. He abolished torture and tolerated religious differences, which earned him the gratitude of his people. He had Sans-Souci palace built in the rococo style and lived there for six months every year. Under Frederick’s enlightened guidance, Berlin became the leading center for art, culture, and research. He wrote poetry and over 30 books and became the symbol of Prussian patriotism.

Frederick’s outstanding military training provided him with excellent leadership skills that would be respected by friend and foe alike, though many reigning houses initially considered him insignificant. This assumption was to be permanently shattered by the beginning of the Seven Years’ War (1756–1763). Frederick’s primary goals were to expand Prussian influence through territorial expansion; his brilliant campaign strategies in various battles achieved this goal. During the War of the Austrian Succession (1740–1748), he annexed parts of Austrian Upper and Lower Silesia. At the same time he instituted more reforms at home: land was reclaimed from swamps for agricultural purposes, and he introduced the turnip and the potato into Prussian agriculture and encouraged German immigration. He placed only minor restrictions on domestic trade and used high protective tariffs to protect Prussia’s nascent industry. Canals were built, and the existing system of indirect taxation was reorganized.

On the diplomatic front, Frederick made peace with Tsar Peter III of Russia in an alliance that made possible the three eventual partitions of Poland. The end result of his maneuverings was that by the conclusion of the Seven Years’ War, Prussia had become Europe’s leading power and retained all its conquests. As a result of his impressive battlefield record, Frederick was by this time recognized across Europe as a military genius. Astute diplomacy followed this period of fighting; Frederick instigated the Peace of Hubertusburg on February 15, 1763, and the War of the Bavarian Succession from 1778 to 1779, primarily to prevent Austria from annexing Bavaria. On June 23, 1785, he established the Fürstenbund, a league of rulers, to restrain the designs of Austrian emperor Joseph II. Frederick financially supported Russia in the Russo-Turkish War of 1768–1767.

Frederick died on August 17, 1786, at Sans-Souci in Potsdam. Remembered as Frederick the Great, this imposing ruler genuinely cared for his subjects, who were themselves devoted to their country. He succeeded in making Prussia the most powerful country in The Holy Roman Empire: by the time he died, Frederick had six million subjects and Prussia’s size had increased by 75,000 square kilometers.

FURTHER READING: Asprey, Robert B. Frederick the Great. New York: Ticknor & Fields, 1986; Duffy, Christopher. Frederick the Great: A Military Life. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985; Gaxotte, Pierre. Frederick II the Great. Translated by R. A. Bell. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1975; Gooch, George P. Frederick II: King of Prussia, 1712–1786. Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1962; Mitford, Nancy. Frederick the Great. London: Hamish Hamilton, 1970; Palmer, Alan W. Frederick the Great. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1974; Ritter, G. Frederick the Great: A Historical Profile. Translated by Peter Paret. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1968.