THE BATTLES OF THE WARS OF THE ROSES IN LONDON

The kingdom was mostly ungoverned while the two factions gathered adherents and prepared for major warfare. Riots took place in the streets of London and trade--especially the valuable trade in wool with Holland--came to a virtual standstill because of French fleets ravaging the Channel shipping and plundering English towns on the coast. In late summer of 1459, above avalon hill blog maybe the best aroundQueen Margaret finally moved her army North and the Yorkists, finding sudden treachery in their ranks, were forced to flee overseas. The citizens of London, favouring the Yorkists, refused to contribute soldiers or money to the cause of defending against an invasion.The Middle Ages encompass one of the most exciting periods in English History. One of the most important historical events of the Medieval era is the Wars of the Roses.  What were the key dates of this famous historical event? What were the names of the Medieval people who were involved in this historical occasion?The Wars of the Roses were intermittent civil wars fought by members of the House of Lancaster and the House of York. Both houses were branches of the Plantagenet royal house, tracing their descent from King Edward III.

What was the cause of the Wars of the Roses?

The rivalry between the house of York and the House of Lancaster started when King Richard II was overthrown by his cousin, Henry Bolingbroke, Duke of Lancaster, in 1399. But the Wars of the Roses actually began on May 22, 1455 with First Battle of St Albans when Richard, Duke of York and his ally, Richard, Earl of Warwick defeated the Lancastrians under Edmund Beaufort who was killed. York captured Henry VI.The Lancastrian army of 2,000 troops arrived at St Albans first, and proceeded to defend it by placing troops along the Tonman Ditch and at the bars in Sopwell Lane
 and Shropshire Lane
. The 3,000-strong Yorkist army arrived and camped in Keyfield to the east. Lengthy negotiations ensued with heralds moving back and forth between the rival commanders
. After several hours, Richard, despairing of a peaceful solution, decided to attack. The bulk of Henry's forces were surprised by the speed of Richard's attack; most of the army was expecting a peaceful resolution similar to the one at Blackheath in 1452. However, two frontal assaults down the narrow streets against the barricades made no headway and resulted in heavy casualties for the Yorkists.below goat inn in sopwell lane as above

Warwick took his reserve troops through an unguarded part of the town's defences, through back lanes and gardens. Suddenly the Earl appeared in the Market Square where the main body of Henry's troops were talking and resting. There is evidence they were not yet expecting to be involved in the fighting, as many were not even wearing their helmets. Warwick charged instantly with his force, routing the Lancastrians and killing the Duke of Somerset.

On the Earl's orders, his archers then shot at the men around the King, killing several and injuring the King and the Duke of Buckingham. The Lancastrians manning the barricades realised the Yorkists had ouflanked them, and fearing an attack from behind abandoned their positions and fled the town.

The First Battle of St Albans was relatively minor in military terms, but politically was a complete victory for York and Warwick: York had captured the King and restored himself to complete power, while his rival Somerset and Warwick's arch-enemies Henry Percy, 2nd Earl of Northumberland, and Lord de Clifford both fell during the rout.

Shakespeare's history play Henry VI, Part 2 ends with the result of this battle

Why were they called the Wars of the Roses?

The White Rose was the symbol of Yorkist supporters who opposed the rival House of Lancaster, whose symbol was the Red Rose of Lancaster. The opposition of the two parties, symbolised by the red and white roses gave the wars their name - the Wars of the Roses. The Wars of the Roses ended with King Henry VII who started the Tudor dynasty and symbolically united the White and Red Roses to create the Tudor Rose.

Wars of the Roses - The House of LancasterHouse of Lancaster
Henry IV ("Bolingbroke," son of the Duke of Lancaster), 1399-1413.   
Henry V (son of Henry IV), 1413-1422.
Henry VI (son of Henry V, deposed), 1422-1471.

Wars of the Roses - The House of LancasterHouse of York:
Edward IV (son of duke of York), 1461-1483.
Edward V (son of Edward IV), 1483.
Richard III ("Crookback," brother of Edward IV) 1483-1485

Important Facts about the Wars of the Roses
Interesting information and important facts:

• Key Dates relating to the event: The Wars of the Roses raged from 1455 - 1485
• Key People relating to the event: the Kings of England who were from the House of York and the House of Lancaster
• The Lancastrians were:
  • Henry IV ("Bolingbroke," son of the Duke of Lancaster), 1399-1413
  • Henry V (son of Henry IV), 1413-1422
  • Henry VI (son of Henry V, deposed), 1422-1471
• The Yorkists were:
  • Edward IV (son of duke of York), 1461-1483
  • Edward V (son of Edward IV), 1483
  • Richard III ("Crookback," brother of Edward IV) 1483-1485

Battles fought during the Wars of the Roses
The battles which were fought during the Wars of the Roses were:

1455: 
1460: Ba ttle of Northampton

1460:  battle of wakefield

1471: Battle of Barnet

1471: Battle of Tewkesbury

1485: Battle of Bosworth Fiel

battle for burma

The hermit

Peter the Hermit, a priest of Amiens, who may, as Anna Comnena says, have attempted to go on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem before 1096, and have been prevented by the Turks from reaching his destination. It is uncertain whether he was present at Pope Urban II's great sermon at Clermont in 1095; but it is certain that he was one of the preachers of the crusade in France after that sermon, and his own experience may have helped to give fire to his eloquence. He soon leapt into fame as an emotional revivalist preacher: his very ass became an object of popular adoration; and thousands of peasants eagerly took the cross at his bidding. The crusade of the pauperes, which forms the first act in the first crusade, was his work; and he himself led one of the five sections of the pauperes to Constantinople, starting from Cologne in April, and arriving at Constantinople at the end of July 1096. Here he joined the only other section which had succeeded in reaching Constantinople -- that of Walter the Penniless; and with the joint forces, which had made themselves a nuisance by pilfering, he crossed to the Asiatic shore in the beginning of August. In spite of his warnings, the pauperes began hostilities against the Turks; and Peter returned to Constantinople, either in despair at their recklessness, or in the hope of procuring supplies. In his absence the army was cut to pieces by the Turks; and he was left in Constantinople without any followers, during the winter of 1096-97, to wait for the coming of the princes. He joined himself to their ranks in May 1097, with a little following which he seems to have collected, and marched with them through Asia Minor to Jerusalem. But he played a very subordinate part in the history of the first crusade. He appears, in the beginning of 1098, as attempting to escape from the privations of the siege of Antioch -- showing himself, as Guibert of Nogent says, a "fallen star." In the middle of the year he was sent by the princes to invite Kerbogha to settle all differences by a duel; and in 1099 he appears as treasurer of the alms at the siege of Arca (March), and as leader of the supplicatory processions in Jerusalem which preceded the battle of Ascalon (August). At the end of the year he went to Laodicea, and sailed from there for the West. From this time he disappears; but Albert of Aix records that he died in 1115, as prior of a church of the Holy Sepulchre which he had founded in France.
Legend has made Peter the Hermit the author and originator of the first crusade. It has told how, in an early visit to Jerusalem, before 1096, Jesus Christ appeared to him in the Church of the Sepulchre, and bade him preach the crusade. The legend is without any basis in fact, though it appears in the pages of William of Tyre. Its origin is, however, a matter of some interest. Von Sybel, in his Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzuges, suggests that in the camp of the pauperes (which existed side by side with that of the knights, and grew increasingly large as the crusade told more and more heavily in its progress on the purses of the crusaders) some idolization of Peter the Hermit had already begun, during the first crusade, parallel to the similar glorification of Godfrey by the Lorrainers. In this idolization Peter naturally became the instigator of the crusade, just as Godfrey became the founder of the kingdom of Jerusalem and the legislator of the assizes. This version of Peter's career seems as old as the Chanson des chétifs, a poem which Raymond of Antioch caused to be composed in honor of the Hermit and his followers soon after 1130. It also appears in the pages of Albert of Aix, who wrote somewhere about 1130; and from Albert it was borrowed by William of Tyre. The whole legend of Peter is an excellent instance of the legendary amplification of the first crusade -- an amplification which, beginning during the crusade itself, in the "idolizations" of the different camps (idola castrorum, if one may pervert Bacon), soon developed into a regular saga. This saga found its most piquant beginning in the Hermit's vision at Jerusalem, and there it accordingly began -- alike in Albert, followed by William of Tyre and in the Chanson des chétifs, followed by the later Chanson d'Antioche.
On reaching Asia, the apostle of the crusade found himself in command of a hundred thousand men; for at Constantinople, besides being joined by Walter, he had been reinforced by large bodies of Germans and Italians. All these were as enthusiastic and refractory as the crusaders from France, and never had men to perform a more difficult duty than had devolved upon the Hermit and the Knight. Their united cfibrts failed to preserve anything like discipline; and while on the plains bordering the gulf of Nicomedia, their camp became the scene of discord and disorder.

At length the crusaders of the Germany and Italian States came to daggers' drawn with those from France about plunder. Not relishing the superiority assumed by the boastful Frenchmen, the Germans and Italians elected a leader, and, leaving the camp, advanced towards Nice. Arriving before a fort, they commenced an assault; and, entering, sword in hand, slaughtered the garrison. Though without means of subsistence or defence, they boldly took possession, and displayed their standard. Their audacity was not, of course, long left unpunished. A Turkish army soon appeared; and the Germans and Italians, unprepared for resistance, fell victims to their temerity.

When news of this disaster reached the camp of the crusaders, the French, forgetting their feud, vowed to be the avengers of the Germans and Italians, and gave way to extraordinary excitement. Peter had repaired in disgust to Constantinople; but Walter did all he could to prevent fatal consequences.

"The Germans and Italians are unworthy of the sacrifice you would make," said the penniless Knight to those who had constituted themselves ringleaders of the mob. "These men have fallen victims to their own imprudence; and it is our duty to avoid their example."

"That,'' cried the ringleaders in chorus," is the language of a man who lacks courage."

"I tell you," answered Walter, with a gesture of indignation, "that the enterprise you propose promises nothing but ruin. But have your own way. I cannot sanction your folly, but I will share your fate."

"God wills it," cried the ringleaders, as they rushed from the tent and roused the mob to arms.

The man who at this period figured as Sultan of Nice was not one whom the crusaders, if they had been discreet would have rashly defied. Reared in the midst of civil strife, and accustomed in his youth to adversity, he was dauntless in defeat and calm in victory. His foes named him with respect; and his friends, with pride, surnamed him "The Lion." On this occasion, he was under no serious apprehension; for he was aware of the imprudence of the pilgrims, and quite prepared to avail himself of its result.

Little dreaming of the reception with which they were to meet, the crusaders placed themselves in marching order; and Walter the Penniless, groaning in spirit, and leaving the women and children, and old men in the camp, led the van towards Nice. For a time he pursued his way without interruption. Suddenly, however, horns and drums heralded an attack; Saracens, with white turbans, green caftans, and long spears came in sight; and, on reaching a plain at the base of a mountain, the peasant-pilgrims found themselves face to face with countless foes. Walter halted, formed his men, and did all that a brave and sagacious leader could do under such circumstances; but his skill was exerted in vain. Surrounded on all sides by superior numbers, and shrinking from the peril they had defied, the crusaders lost heart and energy. At first, indeed, the conflict was fierce, and the carnage fearful. But ere long every hope expired \ and, with

Christian blood flowing around him like water, Walter fell in the midst of his foes, transfixed with arrows and covered with wounds.

Nor did the camp where the women and children had been left long escape. While the priests were performing mass, the victorious Turks suddenly appeared; and the unfortunate women and children were either put to death or carried into captivity. No one, however, escaped to tell the tale of horror.

It was only by accident that Christendom learned the catastrophe that had befallen the wreck of the first army of the cross. A soldier escaping to Constantinople carried to Peter the Hermit tidings of the fate of his comrades; and on the plain where the Sultan of Nice fought with Walter the Penniless, a quantity of human bones heaped confusedly together, remained a melancholy monument of the carnage of the peasant-pilgrims.

american invasion of mexico

leningrad by crescent

 The capture of Leningrad was one of three strategic goals in the German Operation Barbarossa and the main target of Army Group North. The strategy was motivated by Leningrad's political status as the former capital of Russia and the symbolic capital of the Russian Revolution, its military importance as a main base of the Soviet Baltic Fleet and its industrial strength, housing numerous arms factories. By 1939 the city was responsible for 11% of all Soviet industrial output.
 It has been reported that Adolf Hitler was so confident of capturing Leningrad that he had the invitations to the victory celebrations to be held in the city's Hotel Astoria already printed.The ultimate fate of the city was uncertain in German plans, which ranged from renaming the city to Adolfsburg and making it the capital of the new Ingermanland province of the Reich in Generalplan Ost, to razing it to the ground and giving areas north of the River Neva to the FinnsFor everyone who lives in St. Petersburg the the Siege of Leningrad is a painful memory -Less than two and a half months after the Soviet Union was attacked by Nazi Germany, German troops were already approaching Leningrad. The Red Army was outflanked and on September 8 1941 the Germans had fully encircled Leningrad and the siege began. The siege lasted for a total of 900 days, from September 8 1941 until January 27 1944. The city's almost 3 million civilians (including about 400,000 children) refused to surrender and endured rapidly increasing hardships in the encircled city. Food and fuel stocks were limited to a mere 1-2 month supply, public transport was not operational and by the winter of 1941-42 there was no heating, no water supply, almost no electricity and very little food. In January 1942 in the depths of an unusually cold winter, the city's food rations reached an all time low of only 125 grams (about 1/4 of a pound) of bread per person per day. In just two months, January and February of 1942, 200,000 people died in Leningrad of cold and starvation. Despite these tragic losses and the inhuman conditions the city's war industries still continued to work and the city did not surrender

Indian raids on towns in the west

The American frontier moved steadily westward from the 1630s to the 1880s (with occasional movements north into Maine and Vermont, and east from California into Nevada). The "West" was always the area beyond that boundary.Most often, however, the "American West," is used for the area west of the Mississippi River during the 19th century.

Anglo Texans greeted the end of the U.S-Mexican War in 1848 with the hope that federal troops would at last put an end to violent encounters with Indians and Mexicans along the state's western and southern borders and open the vast frontier to settlement. All too quickly the lure of nearly free and unbroken land attracted a multitude of pioneers. So rapidly, in fact, that it thrust some white settlers far beyond the protection of the eight new military installations established at war's end, running from Fort Worth in North Texas to Fort Duncan on the Rio Grande.

In response, the U.S. Army in 1851 began establishing a new line of forts a hundred miles beyond the original vanguard. Others were located in the Big Bend country along the Rio Grande and in extreme South Texas.

The Great Raid of 1840 was the largest raid ever mounted by Native Americans on white cities in what is now the United States.It followed the Council House Fight, in which Republic of Texas officials attempted to capture and take prisoner 33 Comanche chiefs who had come to negotiate a peace treaty, killing them together with two dozen of their family and followers. The Texas Officials were determined to force the Comanche to release all white captives among them. To avenge what the Comanche viewed as a bitter betrayal by the Texans, the Comanche war chief Buffalo Hump raised a huge war party of many of the bands of the Comanche, and raided deep into white-settled areas of Southeast Texas.

maori war

the wilson edwars soldiers here are eeasily convertible to plastic using them as an example, acw will suffice for the conversion.To some extent conflict was inevitable. When the Treaty of Waitangi was signed on February 6 1840 between the British Crown and the Maori tribes, both parties; and indeed most of the signatories; had different understandings of its meaning. The Maori believed that it guaranteed them the continued possession of their land and the preservation of their customs. Many of the British thought that it had opened up the country to mass immigration and settlement. On May 21 1840 New Zealand was formally annexed by the British Crown and the capital moved to Auckland, some 200 km south of Waitangi.
Meanwhile the New Zealand Company was aggressively purchasing land and bringing settlers to New Zealand. It maintained that the Treaty was not legally binding upon them and continued their activities in defiance of the new government.
In June 1843 the company attempted to survey some land that was still subject to dispute about its ownership. In the ensuing melee 23 Englishmen and four Maoris were killed. This became known as the Wairau Massacre.
In the Bay of Islands, Hone Heke, one of the original signatories to the Treaty, was becoming increasingly unhappy with the outcome. Among other things, the relocation of the capital had resulted in a decline of the European population of the bay, a reduction in the number of visiting ships and a serious loss of revenue. Furthermore he was told by American and French traders that the British flag flying over the town of Kororareka signified slavery for the Maori. What made this intolerable was that the flag pole had itself been a gift from Hone Heke to the first British Resident.
Then in June 1844 a girl from his tribe went to live with an English butcher in Kororareka and defied his orders to return to the tribe. Heke and his men went into the town, looted the butcher's shop and recovered the girl. Almost as an afterthought they cut down the flag pole. This is depicted in a painting by Arthur David McCormick, Hone Heke fells the flag pole at Kororareka
In August 1844 Governor FitzRoy arrived in the bay backed by the navy and 170 men of the 96th Regiment. He summoned the Maori chiefs to a conference which apparently defused the situation. Hone Heke did not himself attend but sent a conciliatory letter and offered to replace the flag pole.
The new accord did not last. Rumours that their land was going to be confiscated were given credence by the large number of European settlers pouring into the country. More to the point, there had not been a trial of strength between the Maori and the British. Kawiti, one of the leaders of local tribe, the Ngapuhi, had spent his whole life in inter-tribal warfare in which Ngapuhi were usually the winners. Encouraged by Heke's defiance he decided to test his strength against the white tribe. Meanwhile Hone Heke cut down the flag pole a second time.
Once again troops of the 96th Regiment were sent to replace it, and almost immediately it was cut down again.
Reinforcements were called in. A new and stronger pole sheathed in iron was erected and a guard post built around it. Meanwhile 

russian revolution by atlantic

atlantic paras and germans in 54mmv

italuian paras at tobruk by atlantic

Last Apache

OF WHOM was it said, "Crueller features were never cut"? Yet, who was known for his outstanding courage and determination? He was the last Apache leader to surrender to the U.S. Army. He lived to be about 80 years of age and died in 1909 in Oklahoma, supposedly a Dutch Reformed Christian. He was Goyathlay (pronounced Goyahkla), better known as Geronimo, the last great Apache leader is said that he came to be called Geronimo after Mexican soldiers cried out in fear to "Saint" Jerome (Jerónimo) when Goyathlay attacked them. About the year 1850, Mexican troops killed 25 Apache women and children who were camped on the outskirts of Janos, Mexico. Among them were Geronimo.'s mother, his young wife, and his three children. It is said that "for the rest of his life Geronimo hated all Mexicans." Spurred by a desire for revenge, he became one of the most feared Apache chiefs.

But what do we know about the Apache Indians, featured so often as the villains in Hollywood stereotypes? Do they still exist? If so, how do they live and what future do they face?The Apache(their name apparently comes from the Zuni word apachu, which means "enemy") were known as fearless and resourceful warriors. Famous 19th-century Indian fighter General George Crook called them "the tigers of the human species." Yet, one authority says that "at no time after 1500 did all the Apache tribes together exceed six thousand people." But a few dozen warriors could tie up a whole enemy army in guerrilla warfare!

However, an Apache source states: "In contrast to the popular conceptions created by the Spanish, Mexicans, and Americans, Apaches were not war-like bloodthirsty savages. We raided for food only during times of shortage. Wars were waged not as random acts, but were generally well planned campaigns for revenge against injustices against us." And of those injustices, there were plenty!

An exhibit at the San Carlos Apache Cultural Center, in Peridot, Arizona, explains Apache history from their viewpoint: "The arrival of outsiders into the region brought hostilities and change. The newcomers had little regard for our aboriginal ties to the land. In an effort to protect our traditions and culture, our ancestors fought and won many battles against the soldiers and citizens of Spain, Mexico, and the United States. But overwhelmed by superior numbers and modern technology, our grandfathers and great-grandfathers were forced to finally accept the demands of the U.S. Government. We were forced to give up our life of the wind and live on reservations." The phrase 'forced to live on reservations' evokes deep feeling for about half a million reservation dwellers (out of over two million Native Americans) in the 554 tribes in the United States and the 633 bands across Canada. The Apache number about 50,00

Most experts on early Native American history accept the theory that the original tribes came from Asia by way of the Bering Strait and then slowly spread southward and eastward. Linguists relate the Apache language to that of the Athapaskan-speaking peoples of Alaska and Canada. Thomas Mails writes: "Their time of arrival in the American Southwest is placed by current estimates at between A.D. 1000 and 1500. The exact route they followed and the pace of their migration has not yet been agreed upon by anthropologists."—The People Called Apache. In earlier centuries the Apache often survived by organizing raiding parties against their Spanish-Mexican neighbors. Thomas Mails writes: "Such raids continued for almost two hundred years, beginning about 1690 and lasting until about 1870. The raids are not surprising, for Mexico proved to be a veritable cornucopia of needed supplies." As a result of the constant conflicts between Mexico and the Apache nation, the Mexican Sonoran government "returned to the old Spanish method" of offering scalp bounties. This was not an exclusively Spanish innovation—the British and the French had followed this custom in earlier times. The Mexicans scalped in order to claim a cash bounty, and it sometimes did not matter whether the scalp was Apache or not. In 1835 a scalp bounty law was passed in Mexico that offered 100 pesos for each warrior's scalp. Two years later the price included 50 pesos for a woman's scalp and 25 for that of a child! In his book The Conquest of Apacheria, Dan Thrapp writes: "The policy frankly sought extermination, evidence that genocide has widespread roots and was not a modern invention of a single nation." He continues: "The Apaches themselves did no scalping." However, Mails says that the Chiricahua did at times take scalps—but not often, "because of their fear of death and ghosts." He adds: "Scalping was done only in retaliation after the Mexicans inaugurated the tactic." Thrapp says that miners "often banded together . . . and went a-hunting Indians. When they could trap them, they killed them to the last man and, sometimes, to the last woman and child. The Indians, naturally, did the same to the whites and to other tribes." War with the Apache reached a point where it was profitable to the state of Arizona, says Charles Lummis, since "the continuance of the Apache wars [meant] that more than $2 million annually [was] disbursed within Arizona's borders by the War Department." Thrapp states: "There were powerful and unscrupulous interests wanting no peace with the Apaches, for when peace came, the streams of funds spent by the military would dry up."

Thiais . Against the Boche

September 4th 1870. Only two month of war were enough for Prussia and its Germanic allies to induce Napoleon III to abdicate in Sedan. The Republicans refuse the defeat, proclaim the 3rd Republic, form the government of the national Defence and call the French population to rise up in arms. The objective: to burn in enthusiasm, like it happened in 1792. They are determined to push back the coalition of the German States. The fight continues. Too disorganised, the French Army, made up of the mobile national Guard and the infantry cannot prevent the German progression. September 19th, Paris is besieged. In the capital more than two millions of people need to be feed, among them 500 000 soldiers.above from blog i like the things i like, check it out. The government, which found refuge in Tours, charge General Trochu of the defence of Paris. He chooses Decrot to command the troupes de ligne and asks him to work out a plan in order to eliminate the German presence. The day of the offensive is fixed on the 28th of November. The breakthrough has to take place in the south-east of Paris. The objective is to allow the Parisian troops to get Fontainbleau where a new army should soon arrive on the Loire river .

November 28th the troops are ready. The Marne must be crossed from Joinville and the contact with the enemy must be carried out in Champigny, Bry and Villiers. A first bridge is built but an unexpected flood from the Marne destroys it. General Ducrot decides to postpone the offensive. But the enemy is not naive. Well positioned on the hillsides of Chennevières and Champigny, he had the chance to observe the troop's movements towards Joinville, as well as the first attempt to get over the river which separates them .Immediately a Saxon division receives the order to reinforce the Würtemberger who occupies Champigny and its surroundings. In Thiais, Hay and Choisy-le-Roi, the in charged Generals the operations of the diversionary move, are not warned of the postponement of the offensive. November 29th they literally run into the enemy's arm for a huge lost.

FRENCH INTERVENTION

1964, Gabon: French forces intervene to restore president after coup.

- 1968-1972, Chad: French troops intervene to put down northern rebellion.


- 1978-80, Chad: French forces defend government against rebels.


- 1978, Zaire: French and Belgian paratroops drop into the mineral-rich Katanga region of Zaire (today known as the Democratic Republic of Congo), where rebels are holding Europeans.


- 1979, Central African Republic: French forces depose the eccentric Central African "emperor" Jean-Bedel Bokassa.


- 1983-84, Chad: New French intervention in Chad, where the government is threatened by rebels backed by Colonel Moamer Kadhafi's Libya.


- 1986, Chad: Further operation against Chadian rebels; mainly using aviation.


- 1986, Togo: French reinforcements sent after coup attempt, which fails.


- 1989, Comoros: French forces go in when president is assassinated and mercenaries headed by Bob Denard, also French, take power.


- 1990, Gabon: French troops support the regime of president Omar Bongo; evacuate foreign nationals from cities hit by rioting.


- 1990-1993, Rwanda: French soldiers help evacuate French and other Europeans after rebels invade the country.


- 1991, Zaire: French troops deploy capital Kinshasa during riots against the regime of Mobutu Sese Seko.


- 1992-94, Somalia: France intervenes alongside the US-led "Restore Hope" operation in Somalia.


- 1994: Rwanda: Two separate French interventions follow the death in a plane crash of Rwandan president Juvenal Habyarimana, which sparks genocidal killings that leave some 800,000 people dead.


France's "Operation Turquoise", which also involves troops in neighbouring Zaire, is later considered a disaster, and the Rwandan authorities accuse it of not only failing to stop the massacres but also of facilitating them.


- 1995: Comoros: New French intervention to halt a coup, again led by the French mercenary Bob Denard.


- 1996-7: Central African Republic: Two French interventions to maintain order after munities among the local military.


- 1997: Republic of Congo: French troops intervene during civil war; help evacuate foreigners.


- 1996: Cameroon: France provides military assistance to Cameroon, which is involved in a dispute with Nigeria over an oil-rich border area.


- 1998: Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire): Intervention to evacuate foreigners from Kinshasa during unrest following the overthrow of the Mobutu regime by Laurent-Desire

[1] [2] 

read

GARDE A VOIE