document_title: East India Company

question_text: when did the east india company begin to trade with india

question_tokens: when did the east india company begin to trade with india

text: East India Company

text: Founding[edit]

text: Soon after the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588, London merchants presented a petition to Queen Elizabeth I for permission to sail to the Indian Ocean.[7] Permission was granted, and on 10 April 1591 three ships sailed from Torbay around the Cape of Good Hope to the Arabian Sea on one of the earliest English overseas Indian expeditions. One of them, Edward Bonaventure, then sailed around Cape Comorin to the Malay Peninsula and returned to England in 1594.[7]

text: In 1596, three more ships sailed east but were all lost at sea.[7] Three years later, on 22 September 1599,[8] another group of merchants met and stated their intention "to venture in the pretended voyage to the East Indies (the which it may please the Lord to prosper), and the sums that they will adventure", committing £30,133.[9] Two days later, on 24 September, "the Adventurers" reconvened and resolved to apply to the Queen for support of the project.[9] Although their first attempt had not been completely successful, they nonetheless sought the Queen's unofficial approval to continue, bought ships for their venture and increased their capital to £68,373.

text: The Adventurers convened again a year later.[7] This time they succeeded, and on 31 December 1600, the Queen granted a Royal Charter to "George, Earl of Cumberland, and 215 Knights, Aldermen, and Burgesses" under the name, Governor and Company of Merchants of London trading with the East Indies.[10] For a period of fifteen years the charter awarded the newly formed company a monopoly on trade with all countries east of the Cape of Good Hope and west of the Straits of Magellan.[10] Any traders in breach of the charter without a licence from the company were liable to forfeiture of their ships and cargo (half of which went to the Crown and the other half to the company), as well as imprisonment at the "royal pleasure".[11]

text: The governance of the company was in the hands of one governor and 24 directors or "committees", who made up the Court of Directors. They, in turn, reported to the Court of Proprietors, which appointed them. Ten committees reported to the Court of Directors. According to tradition, business was initially transacted at the Nags Head Inn, opposite St Botolph's church in Bishopsgate, before moving to India House in Leadenhall Street.[12]

text: Early voyages to the East Indies[edit]

text: Sir James Lancaster commanded the first East India Company voyage in 1601[13] and returned in 1603.[14] In March 1604 Sir Henry Middleton commanded the second voyage. General William Keeling, a captain during the second voyage, led the third voyage aboard the Red Dragon from 1607 to 1610 along with the Hector under Captain William Hawkins and the Consent under Captain David Middleton.[15]

text: Early in 1608 Alexander Sharpeigh was appointed captain of the company's Ascension, and general or commander of the fourth voyage. Thereafter two ships, Ascension and Union (captained by Richard Rowles) sailed from Woolwich on 14 March 1607–08.[15]

text: Initially, the company struggled in the spice trade because of the competition from the already well-established Dutch East India Company. The company opened a factory in Bantam on the first voyage, and imports of pepper from Java were an important part of the company's trade for twenty years. The factory in Bantam was closed in 1683. During this time ships belonging to the company arriving in India docked at Surat, which was established as a trade transit point in 1608.

text: In the next two years, the company established its first factory in south India in the town of Machilipatnam on the Coromandel Coast of the Bay of Bengal. The high profits reported by the company after landing in India initially prompted King James I to grant subsidiary licences to other trading companies in England. But in 1609 he renewed the charter given to the company for an indefinite period, including a clause that specified that the charter would cease to be in force if the trade turned unprofitable for three consecutive years.

text: Foothold in India[edit]

text: English traders frequently engaged in hostilities with their Dutch and Portuguese counterparts in the Indian Ocean. The company achieved a major victory over the Portuguese in the Battle of Swally in 1612, at Suvali in Surat. The company decided to explore the feasibility of gaining a territorial foothold in mainland India, with official sanction from both Britain and the Mughal Empire, and requested that the Crown launch a diplomatic mission.[16]

text: In 1612, James I instructed Sir Thomas Roe to visit the Mughal Emperor Nuruddin Salim Jahangir (r. 1605–1627) to arrange for a commercial treaty that would give the company exclusive rights to reside and establish factories in Surat and other areas. In return, the company offered to provide the Emperor with goods and rarities from the European market. This mission was highly successful, and Jahangir sent a letter to James through Sir Thomas Roe:[16]

text: Upon which assurance of your royal love I have given my general command to all the kingdoms and ports of my dominions to receive all the merchants of the English nation as the subjects of my friend; that in what place soever they choose to live, they may have free liberty without any restraint; and at what port soever they shall arrive, that neither Portugal nor any other shall dare to molest their quiet; and in what city soever they shall have residence, I have commanded all my governors and captains to give them freedom answerable to their own desires; to sell, buy, and to transport into their country at their pleasure. For confirmation of our love and friendship, I desire your Majesty to command your merchants to bring in their ships of all sorts of rarities and rich goods fit for my palace; and that you be pleased to send me your royal letters by every opportunity, that I may rejoice in your health and prosperous affairs; that our friendship may be interchanged and eternal.

text: Eventually, the East India Company seized control of Bengal and slowly the whole Indian subcontinent with its private armies, composed primarily of Indian sepoys. As historian William Dalrymple observes,

text: We still talk about the British conquering India, but that phrase disguises a more sinister reality. It was not the British government that seized India at the end of the 18th century, but a dangerously unregulated private company headquartered in one small office, five windows wide, in London, and managed in India by an unstable sociopath – [Robert] Clive.[5]

text: Expansion[edit]

text: The company, which benefited from the imperial patronage, soon expanded its commercial trading operations. It eclipsed the Portuguese Estado da Índia, which had established bases in Goa, Chittagong, and Bombay, which Portugal later ceded to England as part of the dowry of Catherine of Braganza. The East India Company also launched a joint attack with the Dutch United East India Company (VOC) on Portuguese and Spanish ships off the coast of China, which helped secure EIC ports in China.[17] The company established trading posts in Surat (1619), Madras (1639), Bombay (1668), and Calcutta (1690). By 1647, the company had 23 factories, each under the command of a factor or master merchant and governor, and 90 employees[clarification needed] in India. The major factories became the walled forts of Fort William in Bengal, Fort St George in Madras, and Bombay Castle.

text: In 1634, the Mughal emperor extended his hospitality to the English traders to the region of Bengal, and in 1717 completely waived customs duties for their trade. The company's mainstay businesses were by then cotton, silk, indigo dye, saltpetre, and tea. The Dutch were aggressive competitors and had meanwhile expanded their monopoly of the spice trade in the Straits of Malacca by ousting the Portuguese in 1640–41. With reduced Portuguese and Spanish influence in the region, the EIC and VOC entered a period of intense competition, resulting in the Anglo-Dutch Wars of the 17th and 18th centuries.

text: In 1657, Oliver Cromwell renewed the charter of 1609, and brought about minor changes in the holding of the company. The restoration of monarchy in England further enhanced the EIC's status.

text: In an act aimed at strengthening the power of the EIC, King Charles II granted the EIC (in a series of five acts around 1670) the rights to autonomous territorial acquisitions, to mint money, to command fortresses and troops and form alliances, to make war and peace, and to exercise both civil and criminal jurisdiction over the acquired areas.[18]

text: William Hedges was sent in 1682 to Shaista Khan, the Mughal governor of Bengal, to obtain a firman, an imperial directive that would grant England regular trading privileges throughout the Mughal Empire. However, the company's governor in London, Sir Josiah Child, interfered with Hedges's mission, causing Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb to break off the negotiations.

text: In 1689 a Mughal fleet commanded by Sidi Yaqub attacked Bombay. After a year of resistance the EIC surrendered in 1690, and the company sent envoys to Aurangzeb's camp to plead for a pardon. The company's envoys had to prostrate themselves before the emperor, pay a large indemnity, and promise better behaviour in the future. The emperor withdrew his troops and the company subsequently re-established itself in Bombay and set up a new base in Calcutta.[19]

text: The company eventually came to rule large areas of the Indian subcontinent with its private armies, primarily composed of Indian sepoys, exercising military power and assuming administrative functions.

text: Japan[edit]

text: In 1613, during the rule of Tokugawa Hidetada of the Tokugawa shogunate, the British ship Clove, under the command of Captain John Saris, was the first British ship to call on Japan. Saris was the chief factor of the EIC's trading post in Java, and with the assistance of William Adams, a British sailor who had arrived in Japan in 1600, was able to gain permission from the ruler to establish a commercial house in Hirado on the Japanese island of Kyushu:

text: We give free license to the subjects of the King of Great Britaine, Sir Thomas Smythe, Governor and Company of the East Indian Merchants and Adventurers forever safely come into any of our ports of our Empire of Japan with their shippes and merchandise, without any hindrance to them or their goods, and to abide, buy, sell and barter according to their own manner with all nations, to tarry here as long as they think good, and to depart at their pleasure.[20]

text: However, unable to obtain Japanese raw silk for import to China and with their trading area reduced to Hirado and Nagasaki from 1616 onwards, in 1623 the company closed their factory.[21]

text: Mughal convoy piracy incident of 1695[edit]

text: In September 1695, Captain Henry Every, an English pirate on board the Fancy, reached the Straits of Bab-el-Mandeb, where he teamed up with five other pirate captains to make an attack on the Indian fleet making the annual voyage to Mocha. The Mughal convoy included the treasure-laden Ganj-i-Sawai, reported to be the greatest in the Mughal fleet and the largest ship operational in the Indian Ocean, and its escort, the Fateh Muhammed. They were spotted passing the straits en route to Surat. The pirates gave chase and caught up with Fateh Muhammed some days later, and meeting little resistance, took some £50,000 to £60,000 worth of treasure.[22]

text: Every continued in pursuit and managed to overhaul Ganj-i-Sawai, which resisted strongly before eventually striking. Ganj-i-Sawai carried enormous wealth and, according to contemporary East India Company sources, was carrying a relative of the Grand Mughal, though there is no evidence to suggest that it was his daughter and her retinue. The loot from the Ganj-i-Sawai had a total value between £325,000 and £600,000, including 500,000 gold and silver pieces, and has become known as the richest ship ever taken by pirates.

text: In a letter sent to the Privy Council by Sir John Gayer, then governor of Bombay and head of the East India Company, Gayer claims that "it is certain the Pirates ... did do very barbarously by the People of the Ganj-i-Sawai and Abdul Ghaffar's ship, to make them confess where their money was." The pirates set free the survivors who were left aboard their emptied ships, to continue their voyage back to India.

text: When the news arrived in England it caused an outcry. In response, a combined bounty of £1,000 was offered for Every's capture by the Privy Council and East India Company, leading to the first worldwide manhunt in recorded history. The plunder of Aurangzeb's treasure ship had serious consequences for the English East India Company. The furious Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb ordered Sidi Yaqub and Nawab Daud Khan to attack and close four of the company's factories in India and imprison their officers, who were almost lynched by a mob of angry Mughals, blaming them for their countryman's depredations, and threatened to put an end to all English trading in India. To appease Emperor Aurangzeb and particularly his Grand Vizier Asad Khan, Parliament exempted Every from all of the Acts of Grace (pardons) and amnesties it would subsequently issue to other pirates.[23]

text:
An 18th-century depiction of Henry Every, with the Fancy shown engaging its prey in the background

British pirates that fought during the Child's War engaging the Ganj-i-Sawai

Depiction of Captain Every's encounter with the Mughal Emperor's granddaughter after his September 1695 capture of the Mughal trader Ganj-i-Sawai

text: Forming a complete monopoly[edit]

text: Trade monopoly[edit]

text: The prosperity that the officers of the company enjoyed allowed them to return to Britain and establish sprawling estates and businesses, and to obtain political power. The company developed a lobby in the English parliament. Under pressure from ambitious tradesmen and former associates of the company (pejoratively termed Interlopers by the company), who wanted to establish private trading firms in India, a deregulating act was passed in 1694.[24]

text: This allowed any English firm to trade with India, unless specifically prohibited by act of parliament, thereby annulling the charter that had been in force for almost 100 years. By an act that was passed in 1698, a new "parallel" East India Company (officially titled the English Company Trading to the East Indies) was floated under a state-backed indemnity of £2 million. The powerful stockholders of the old company quickly subscribed a sum of £315,000 in the new concern, and dominated the new body. The two companies wrestled with each other for some time, both in England and in India, for a dominant share of the trade.[24]

text: It quickly became evident that, in practice, the original company faced scarcely any measurable competition. The companies merged in 1708, by a tripartite indenture involving both companies and the state. Under this arrangement, the merged company lent to the Treasury a sum of £3,200,000, in return for exclusive privileges for the next three years, after which the situation was to be reviewed. The amalgamated company became the United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies.[24]

text: In the following decades there was a constant battle between the company lobby and the Parliament. The company sought a permanent establishment, while the Parliament would not willingly allow it greater autonomy and so relinquish the opportunity to exploit the company's profits. In 1712, another act renewed the status of the company, though the debts were repaid. By 1720, 15% of British imports were from India, almost all passing through the company, which reasserted the influence of the company lobby. The licence was prolonged until 1766 by yet another act in 1730.

text: At this time, Britain and France became bitter rivals. Frequent skirmishes between them took place for control of colonial possessions. In 1742, fearing the monetary consequences of a war, the British government agreed to extend the deadline for the licensed exclusive trade by the company in India until 1783, in return for a further loan of £1 million. Between 1756 and 1763, the Seven Years' War diverted the state's attention towards consolidation and defence of its territorial possessions in Europe and its colonies in North America.[25]

text: The war took place on Indian soil, between the company troops and the French forces. In 1757, the Law Officers of the Crown delivered the Pratt-Yorke opinion distinguishing overseas territories acquired by right of conquest from those acquired by private treaty. The opinion asserted that, while the Crown of Great Britain enjoyed sovereignty over both, only the property of the former was vested in the Crown.[25]

text: With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, Britain surged ahead of its European rivals. Demand for Indian commodities was boosted by the need to sustain the troops and the economy during the war, and by the increased availability of raw materials and efficient methods of production. As home to the revolution, Britain experienced higher standards of living. Its spiralling cycle of prosperity, demand and production had a profound influence on overseas trade. The company became the single largest player in the British global market. William Henry Pyne notes in his book The Microcosm of London (1808) that:

text: On the 1 March 1801, the debts of the East India Company to £5,393,989 their effects to £15,404,736 and their sales increased since February 1793, from £4,988,300 to £7,602,041.

text: Saltpetre trade[edit]

text: Sir John Banks, a businessman from Kent who negotiated an agreement between the king and the company, began his career in a syndicate arranging contracts for victualling the navy, an interest he kept up for most of his life. He knew that Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn had amassed a substantial fortune from the Levant and Indian trades.

text: He became a Director and later, as Governor of the East India Company in 1672, he arranged a contract which included a loan of £20,000 and £30,000 worth of saltpetre—also known as potassium nitrate, a primary ingredient in gunpowder—for the King "at the price it shall sell by the candle"—that is by auction—where bidding could continue as long as an inch-long candle remained alight.[26]

text: Outstanding debts were also agreed and the company permitted to export 250 tons of saltpetre. Again in 1673, Banks successfully negotiated another contract for 700 tons of saltpetre at £37,000 between the king and the company. So urgent was the need to supply the armed forces in the United Kingdom, America and elsewhere that the authorities sometimes turned a blind eye on the untaxed sales. One governor of the company was even reported as saying in 1864 that he would rather have the saltpetre made than the tax on salt.[27]

text: Basis for the monopoly[edit]

text: Colonial monopoly[edit]

text: The Seven Years' War (1756–63) resulted in the defeat of the French forces, limited French imperial ambitions, and stunted the influence of the Industrial Revolution in French territories. Robert Clive, the Governor General, led the company to a victory against Joseph François Dupleix, the commander of the French forces in India, and recaptured Fort St George from the French. The company took this respite to seize Manila in 1762.[28][better source needed]

text: By the Treaty of Paris, France regained the five establishments captured by the British during the war (Pondichéry, Mahe, Karikal, Yanam and Chandernagar) but was prevented from erecting fortifications and keeping troops in Bengal (art. XI). Elsewhere in India, the French were to remain a military threat, particularly during the War of American Independence, and up to the capture of Pondichéry in 1793 at the outset of the French Revolutionary Wars without any military presence. Although these small outposts remained French possessions for the next two hundred years, French ambitions on Indian territories were effectively laid to rest, thus eliminating a major source of economic competition for the company.

text: East India Company Army and Navy[edit]

text: In its first century and half, the EIC used a few hundred soldiers as guards. The great expansion came after 1750, when it had 3000 regular troops. By 1763, it had 26,000; by 1778, it had 67,000. It recruited largely Indian troops, and trained them along European lines.[29] The military arm of the East India Company quickly developed to become a private corporate armed force, and was used as an instrument of geo-political power and expansion, rather than its original purpose as a guard force, and became the most powerful military force in the Indian sub-continent. As it increased in size the army was broken into the Presidency Armies of Bengal, Madras and Bombay each recruiting their own integral infantry, cavalry, artillery and horse artillery units. The navy also grew significantly, vastly expanding its fleet and although made up predominantly of heavily armed merchant vessels, called East Indiamen, it also included warships.

text: Expansion and Conquest[edit]

text: The company, fresh from a colossal victory, and with the backing of its own private well-disciplined and experienced army, was able to assert its interests in the Carnatic region from its base at Madras and in Bengal from Calcutta, without facing any further obstacles from other colonial powers.[30]

text: It continued to experience resistance from local rulers during its expansion. Robert Clive led company forces against Siraj Ud Daulah, the last independent Nawab of Bengal, Bihar, and Midnapore district in Odisha to victory at the Battle of Plassey in 1757, resulting in the conquest of Bengal. This victory estranged the British and the Mughals, since Siraj Ud Daulah was a Mughal feudatory ally.

text: With the gradual weakening of the Marathas in the aftermath of the three Anglo-Maratha wars, the British also secured the Ganges-Jumna Doab, the Delhi-Agra region, parts of Bundelkhand, Broach, some districts of Gujarat, the fort of Ahmmadnagar, province of Cuttack (which included Mughalbandi/the coastal part of Odisha, Garjat/the princely states of Odisha, Balasore Port, parts of Midnapore district of West Bengal), Bombay (Mumbai) and the surrounding areas, leading to a formal end of the Maratha empire and firm establishment of the British East India Company in India.

text: Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan, the rulers of the Kingdom of Mysore, offered much resistance to the British forces. Having sided with the French during the Revolutionary War, the rulers of Mysore continued their struggle against the company with the four Anglo-Mysore Wars. Mysore finally fell to the company forces in 1799, in the fourth Anglo-Mysore war during which Tipu Sultan was killed.

text: The last vestiges of local administration were restricted to the northern regions of Delhi, Oudh, Rajputana, and Punjab, where the company's presence was ever increasing amidst infighting and offers of protection among the remaining princes. The hundred years from the Battle of Plassey in 1757 to the Indian Rebellion of 1857 were a period of consolidation for the company, during which it seized control of the entire Indian subcontinent and functioned more as an administrator and less as a trading concern.

text: A cholera pandemic began in Bengal, then spread across India by 1820. 10,000 British troops and countless Indians died during this pandemic.[32] Between 1760 and 1834 only some 10% of the East India Company's officers survived to take the final voyage home.[33]

text: In the early 19th century the Indian question of geopolitical dominance and empire holding remained with the East India Company.[34] The three independent armies of the company's Presidencies, with some locally raised irregular forces, expanded to a total of 280,000 men by 1857.[35] First recruited from mercenaries and low-caste volunteers, the Bengal Army especially eventually became composed largely of high-caste Hindus and landowning Muslims.

text: Within the Army, British officers who initially trained at the company's own academy at the Addiscombe Military Seminary, always outranked Indians, no matter how long their service. The highest rank to which an Indian soldier could aspire was Subadar-Major (or Rissaldar-Major in cavalry units), effectively a senior subaltern equivalent. Promotion for both British and Indian soldiers was strictly by seniority, so Indian soldiers rarely reached the commissioned ranks of Jamadar or Subadar before they were middle aged at best. They received no training in administration or leadership to make them independent of their British officers.

text: During the wars against the French and their allies in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the East India Company's armies were used to seize the colonial possessions of other European nations, including the islands of Réunion and Mauritius.

text: There was a systemic disrespect in the company for the spreading of Protestantism although it fostered respect for Hindu and Muslim, castes and ethnic groups. The growth of tensions between the EIC and the local religious and cultural groups grew in the 19th century as the Protestant revival grew in Great Britain. These tensions erupted at the Indian Rebellion of 1857 and the company ceased to exist when the company dissolved through the East India Stock Dividend Redemption Act 1873.[36]

text: Opium trade[edit]

text: In the 18th century, Britain had a huge trade deficit with Qing dynasty China and so, in 1773, the company created a British monopoly on opium buying in Bengal, India by prohibiting the licensing of opium farmers and private cultivation. The monopoly system established in 1799 continued with minimal changes until 1947.[37] As the opium trade was illegal in China, Company ships could not carry opium to China. So the opium produced in Bengal was sold in Calcutta on condition that it be sent to China.[38]

text: Despite the Chinese ban on opium imports, reaffirmed in 1799 by the Jiaqing Emperor, the drug was smuggled into China from Bengal by traffickers and agency houses such as Jardine, Matheson & Co and Dent & Co. in amounts averaging 900 tons a year. The proceeds of the drug-smugglers landing their cargoes at Lintin Island were paid into the company's factory at Canton and by 1825, most of the money needed to buy tea in China was raised by the illegal opium trade.

text: The company established a group of trading settlements centred on the Straits of Malacca called the Straits Settlements in 1826 to protect its trade route to China and to combat local piracy. The settlements were also used as penal settlements for Indian civilian and military prisoners.

text: In 1838 with the amount of smuggled opium entering China approaching 1,400 tons a year, the Chinese imposed a death penalty for opium smuggling and sent a Special Imperial Commissioner, Lin Zexu, to curb smuggling. This resulted in the First Opium War (1839–42). After the war Hong Kong island was ceded to Britain under the Treaty of Nanking and the Chinese market opened to the opium traders of Britain and other nations.[37] The Jardines and Apcar and Company dominated the trade, although P&O also tried to take a share.[39] A Second Opium War fought by Britain and France against China lasted from 1856 until 1860 and led to the Treaty of Tientsin, which legalised the importation of opium. Legalisation stimulated domestic Chinese opium production and increased the importation of opium from Turkey and Persia. This increased competition for the Chinese market led to India's reducing its opium output and diversifying its exports.[37]

text: Regulation of the company's affairs[edit]

text: This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: Writers[edit]

text: The company employed many junior clerks, known as "writers", to record the details of accounting, managerial decisions, and activities related to the company, such as minutes of meetings, copies of Company orders and contracts, and filings of reports and copies of ship's logs. Several well-known British scholars and literary men had Company writerships, such as Henry Thomas Colebrooke in India and Charles Lamb in England.

text: Financial troubles[edit]

text: Though the company was becoming increasingly bold and ambitious in putting down resisting states, it was becoming clearer that the company was incapable of governing the vast expanse of the captured territories. The Bengal famine of 1770, in which one-third of the local population died, caused distress in Britain. Military and administrative costs mounted beyond control in British-administered regions in Bengal because of the ensuing drop in labour productivity.

text: At the same time, there was commercial stagnation and trade depression throughout Europe. The directors of the company attempted to avert bankruptcy by appealing to Parliament for financial help. This led to the passing of the Tea Act in 1773, which gave the company greater autonomy in running its trade in the American colonies, and allowed it an exemption from tea import duties which its colonial competitors were required to pay.

text: When the American colonists and tea merchants were told of this Act, they boycotted the company tea. Although the price of tea had dropped because of the Act, it also validated the Townshend Acts, setting the precedent for the king to impose additional taxes in the future. The arrival of tax-exempt Company tea, undercutting the local merchants, triggered the Boston Tea Party in the Province of Massachusetts Bay, one of the major events leading up to the American Revolution.

text: Regulating Acts of Parliament[edit]

text: East India Company Act 1773[edit]

text: By the Regulating Act of 1773 (later known as the East India Company Act 1773), the Parliament of Great Britain imposed a series of administrative and economic reforms; this clearly established Parliament's sovereignty and ultimate control over the company. The Act recognised the company's political functions and clearly established that the "acquisition of sovereignty by the subjects of the Crown is on behalf of the Crown and not in its own right".

text: Despite stiff resistance from the East India lobby in parliament and from the company's shareholders, the Act passed. It introduced substantial governmental control and allowed British India to be formally under the control of the Crown, but leased back to the company at £40,000 for two years. Under the Act's most important provision, a governing Council composed of five members was created in Calcutta. The three members nominated by Parliament and representing the Government's interest could, and invariably would, outvote the two Company members. The Council was headed by Warren Hastings, the incumbent Governor, who became the first Governor-General of Bengal, with an ill-defined authority over the Bombay and Madras Presidencies.[40] His nomination, made by the Court of Directors, would in future be subject to the approval of a Council of Four appointed by the Crown. Initially, the Council consisted of Lt. General Sir John Clavering, The Honourable Sir George Monson, Sir Richard Barwell, and Sir Philip Francis.[41]

text: Hastings was entrusted with the power of peace and war. British judges and magistrates would also be sent to India to administer the legal system. The Governor General and the council would have complete legislative powers. The company was allowed to maintain its virtual monopoly over trade in exchange for the biennial sum and was obligated to export a minimum quantity of goods yearly to Britain. The costs of administration were to be met by the company. The company initially welcomed these provisions, but the annual burden of the payment contributed to the steady decline of its finances.[41]

text: East India Company Act 1784 (Pitt's India Act)[edit]

text: The East India Company Act 1784 (Pitt's India Act) had two key aspects:

text:
Relationship to the British government: the bill differentiated the East India Company's political functions from its commercial activities. In political matters the East India Company was subordinated to the British government directly. To accomplish this, the Act created a Board of Commissioners for the Affairs of India, usually referred to as the Board of Control. The members of the Board were the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State, and four Privy Councillors, nominated by the King. The act specified that the Secretary of State "shall preside at, and be President of the said Board".
Internal Administration of British India: the bill laid the foundation for the centralised and bureaucratic British administration of India which would reach its peak at the beginning of the 20th century during the governor-generalship of George Nathaniel Curzon, 1st Baron Curzon.

text: Pitt's Act was deemed a failure because it quickly became apparent that the boundaries between government control and the company's powers were nebulous and highly subjective. The government felt obliged to respond to humanitarian calls for better treatment of local peoples in British-occupied territories. Edmund Burke, a former East India Company shareholder and diplomat, was moved to address the situation and introduced a new Regulating Bill in 1783. The bill was defeated amid lobbying by company loyalists and accusations of nepotism in the bill's recommendations for the appointment of councillors.

text: Act of 1786[edit]

text: The Act of 1786 (26 Geo. 3 c. 16) enacted the demand of Earl Cornwallis that the powers of the Governor-General be enlarged to empower him, in special cases, to override the majority of his Council and act on his own special responsibility. The Act enabled the offices of the Governor-General and the Commander-in-Chief to be jointly held by the same official.

text: This Act clearly demarcated borders between the Crown and the company. After this point, the company functioned as a regularised subsidiary of the Crown, with greater accountability for its actions and reached a stable stage of expansion and consolidation. Having temporarily achieved a state of truce with the Crown, the company continued to expand its influence to nearby territories through threats and coercive actions. By the middle of the 19th century, the company's rule extended across most of India, Burma, Malaya, Singapore, and British Hong Kong, and a fifth of the world's population was under its trading influence. In addition, Penang, one of the states in Malaya, became the fourth most important settlement, a presidency, of the company's Indian territories.[42]

text: East India Company Act 1793 (Charter Act)[edit]

text: The company's charter was renewed for a further 20 years by the Charter Act of 1793. In contrast with the legislative proposals of the previous two decades, the 1793 Act was not a particularly controversial measure, and made only minimal changes to the system of government in India and to British oversight of the company's activities.

text: East India Company Act 1813 (Charter Act)[edit]

text: The aggressive policies of Lord Wellesley and the Marquess of Hastings led to the company's gaining control of all India (except for the Punjab and Sindh), and some part of the then kingdom of Nepal under the Sugauli Treaty. The Indian Princes had become vassals of the company. But the expense of wars leading to the total control of India strained the company's finances. The company was forced to petition Parliament for assistance. This was the background to the Charter Act of 1813 which, among other things:

text:
asserted the sovereignty of the British Crown over the Indian territories held by the company;
renewed the charter of the company for a further twenty years, but

deprived the company of its Indian trade monopoly except for trade in tea and the trade with China
required the company to maintain separate and distinct its commercial and territorial accounts

opened India to missionaries

text: Government of India Act 1833[edit]

text: The Industrial Revolution in Britain, the consequent search for markets, and the rise of laissez-faire economic ideology form the background to the Government of India Act 1833 (3 & 4 Will. 4 c. 85). The Act:

text:
removed the company's remaining trade monopolies and divested it of all its commercial functions
renewed for another twenty years the company's political and administrative authority
invested the Board of Control with full power and authority over the company. As stated by Professor Sri Ram Sharma,[43] "The President of the Board of Control now became Minister for Indian Affairs."
carried further the ongoing process of administrative centralisation through investing the Governor-General in Council with, full power and authority to superintend and, control the Presidency Governments in all civil and military matters
initiated a machinery for the codification of laws
provided that no Indian subject of the company would be debarred from holding any office under the company by reason of his religion, place of birth, descent or colour
vested the Island of St Helena in the Crown[44]

text: British influence continued to expand; in 1845, Great Britain purchased the Danish colony of Tranquebar. The company had at various stages extended its influence to China, the Philippines, and Java. It had solved its critical lack of cash needed to buy tea by exporting Indian-grown opium to China. China's efforts to end the trade led to the First Opium War (1839–1842).

text: English Education Act 1835[edit]

text: The English Education Act by the Council of India in 1835 reallocated funds from the East India Company to spend on education and literature in India.

text: Government of India Act 1853[edit]

text: This Act (16 & 17 Vict. c. 95) provided that British India would remain under the administration of the company in trust for the Crown until Parliament should decide otherwise. It also introduced a system of open competition as the basis of recruitment for civil servants of the company and thus deprived the Directors of their patronage system.[45]

text: Under the act, for the first time the legislative and executive powers of the governor general's council were separated. It also added six additional members to the governor general's executive committee.[46]

text: Indian Rebellion and disestablishment[edit]

text: The Indian Rebellion of 1857 (also known as the Indian Mutiny) resulted in widespread devastation in India: many condemned the East India Company for permitting the events to occur.[47] In the aftermath of the Rebellion, under the provisions of the Government of India Act 1858, the British Government nationalised the company. The Crown took over its Indian possessions, its administrative powers and machinery, and its armed forces.

text: The company remained in existence in vestigial form, continuing to manage the tea trade on behalf of the British Government (and the supply of Saint Helena) until the East India Stock Dividend Redemption Act 1873 came into effect, on 1 January 1874. This Act provided for the formal dissolution of the company on 1 June 1874, after a final dividend payment and the commutation or redemption of its stock.[48] The Times commented on 8 April 1873:[49]

text: It accomplished a work such as in the whole history of the human race no other trading Company ever attempted, and such as none, surely, is likely to attempt in the years to come.

text: Establishments in Britain[edit]

text: The company's headquarters in London, from which much of India was governed, was East India House in Leadenhall Street. After occupying premises in Philpot Lane from 1600 to 1621; in Crosby House, Bishopsgate, from 1621 to 1638; and in Leadenhall Street from 1638 to 1648, the company moved into Craven House, an Elizabethan mansion in Leadenhall Street. The building had become known as East India House by 1661. It was completely rebuilt and enlarged in 1726–9; and further significantly remodelled and expanded in 1796–1800. It was finally vacated in 1860 and demolished in 1861–62. The site is now occupied by the Lloyd's building.

text: In 1607, the company decided to build its own ships and leased a yard on the River Thames at Deptford. By 1614, the yard having become too small, an alternative site was acquired at Blackwall: the new yard was fully operational by 1617. It was sold in 1656, although for some years East India Company ships continued to be built and repaired there under the new owners.

text: In 1803, an Act of Parliament, promoted by the East India Company, established the East India Dock Company, with the aim of establishing a new set of docks (the East India Docks) primarily for the use of ships trading with India. The existing Brunswick Dock, part of the Blackwall Yard site, became the Export Dock; while a new Import Dock was built to the north. In 1838 the East India Dock Company merged with the West India Dock Company. The docks were taken over by the Port of London Authority in 1909, and closed in 1967.

text: The East India College was founded in 1806 as a training establishment for "writers" (i.e. clerks) in the company's service. It was initially located in Hertford Castle, but moved in 1809 to purpose-built premises at Hertford Heath, Hertfordshire. In 1858 the college closed; but in 1862 the buildings reopened as a public school, now Haileybury and Imperial Service College.

text: The East India Company Military Seminary was founded in 1809 at Addiscombe, near Croydon, Surrey, to train young officers for service in the company's armies in India. It was based in Addiscombe Place, an early 18th-century mansion. The government took it over in 1858, and renamed it the Royal Indian Military College. In 1861 it was closed, and the site was subsequently redeveloped.

text: In 1818, the company entered into an agreement by which those of its servants who were certified insane in India might be cared for at Pembroke House, Hackney, London, a private lunatic asylum run by Dr George Rees until 1838, and thereafter by Dr William Williams. The arrangement outlasted the company itself, continuing until 1870, when the India Office opened its own asylum, the Royal India Asylum, at Hanwell, Middlesex.[50]

text: The East India Club in London was formed in 1849 for officers of the company. The Club still exists today as a private gentlemen's club with its club house situated at 16 St. James's Square, London.[51]

text: Legacy and criticisms[edit]

text: This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (March 2015)

text: The East India Company had a long lasting impact on the Indian Subcontinent, with both positive and harmful effects. Although dissolved following the rebellion of 1857, it stimulated the growth of the British Empire. Its armies were to become the armies of British India after 1857, and it played a key role in introducing English as an official language in India.

text: The East India Company was the first company to record the Chinese usage of orange-flavoured tea, which led to the development of Earl Grey tea.[52]

text: The East India Company introduced a system of merit-based appointments that provided a model for the British and Indian civil service.[53]

text: Widespread corruption and looting of Bengal resources and treasures during its rule resulted in poverty.[5] Famines, such as the Great Bengal famine of 1770 and subsequent famines during the 18th and 19th centuries, became more widespread, chiefly because of exploitative agriculture promulgated by the policies of the East India company and the forced cultivation of opium in place of grain.[54][55]

text: Macaulayism and the British education system have been blamed for producing a generation of Indians not proud of their distinct heritage.[56]

text: Symbols[edit]

text: Flags[edit]

text:
Historical depictions

Downman (1685)

Lens (1700)

National Geographic (1917)

Rees (1820)

Laurie (1842)

text:
Modern depictions

1600–1707

1707–1801

1801–1874

text: The English East India Company flag changed with history, with a canton based on the current flag of the Kingdom, and a field of 9 to 13 alternating red and white stripes.

text: From the period of 1600, the canton consisted of a St George's Cross representing the Kingdom of England. With the Acts of Union 1707, the canton was updated to be the new Union Flag—consisting of an English St George's Cross combined with a Scottish St Andrew's cross—representing the Kingdom of Great Britain. After the Acts of Union 1800 that joined Ireland with Great Britain to form the United Kingdom, the canton of the East India Company flag was altered accordingly to include a Saint Patrick's Saltire replicating the updated Union Flag representing the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

text: Regarding the field of the flag, there has been much debate and discussion regarding the number and order of the stripes. Historical documents and paintings show many variations from 9 to 13 stripes, with some images showing the top stripe's being red and others showing the top stripe being white.

text: At the time of the American Revolution the East India Company flag was nearly identical to the Grand Union Flag. Historian Charles Fawcett argued that the East India Company Flag inspired the Stars and Stripes.[57]

text: Coat of arms[edit]

text: The East India Company's original coat of arms was granted in 1600. The arms was as follows:

text: "Azure, three ships with three masts, rigged and under full sail, the sails, pennants and ensigns Argent, each charged with a cross Gules; on a chief of the second a pale quarterly Azure and Gules, on the 1st and 4th a fleur-de-lis or, on the 2nd and 3rd a leopard or, between two roses Gules seeded Or barbed Vert." The shield had as a crest: "A sphere without a frame, bounded with the Zodiac in bend Or, between two pennants flottant Argent, each charged with a cross Gules, over the sphere the words DEUS INDICAT" (Latin: God Indicates). The supporters were two sea lions (lions with fishes' tails) and the motto was DEO DUCENTE NIL NOCET (Latin: Where God Leads, Nothing Harms).[58]

text: The East India Company's arms, granted in 1698, were: "Argent a cross Gules; in the dexter chief quarter an escutcheon of the arms of France and England quarterly, the shield ornamentally and regally crowned Or." The crest was: "A lion rampant guardant Or holding between the forepaws a regal crown proper." The supporters were: "Two lions rampant guardant Or, each supporting a banner erect Argent, charged with a cross Gules." The motto was AUSPICIO REGIS ET SENATUS ANGLIÆ (Latin: Under the auspices of the King and the Senate of England).[58]

text: Merchant mark[edit]

text:
HEIC Merchant's mark on East India Company Coin: 1791 Half Pice

HEIC Merchant's mark on a Blue Scinde Dawk postage stamp (1852)

text: When the East India Company was chartered in 1600, it was still customary for individual merchants or members of Companies such as the Company of Merchant Adventurers to have a distinguishing merchant's mark which often included the mystical "Sign of Four" and served as a trademark. The East India Company's merchant mark consisted of a "Sign of Four" atop a heart within which was a saltire between the lower arms of which were the initials "EIC". This mark was a central motif of the East India Company's coinage[59] and forms the central emblem displayed on the Scinde Dawk postage stamps.[60]

text: Ships[edit]

text: Ships of the East India Company were called East Indiamen or simply "Indiamen".[61]

text: During the period of the Napoleonic Wars, the East India Company arranged for letters of marque for its vessels such as the Lord Nelson. This was not so that they could carry cannon to fend off warships, privateers and pirates on their voyages to India and China (that they could do without permission) but so that, should they have the opportunity to take a prize, they could do so without being guilty of piracy. Similarly, the Earl of Mornington, an East India Company packet ship of only six guns, also sailed under a letter of marque.

text: In addition, the company had its own navy, the Bombay Marine, equipped with warships such as Grappler. These vessels often accompanied vessels of the Royal Navy on expeditions, such as the Invasion of Java.

text: At the Battle of Pulo Aura, which was probably the company's most notable naval victory, Nathaniel Dance, Commodore of a convoy of Indiamen and sailing aboard the Warley, led several Indiamen in a skirmish with a French squadron, driving them off. Some six years earlier, on 28 January 1797, five Indiamen, the Woodford, under Captain Charles Lennox, the Taunton-Castle, Captain Edward Studd, Canton, Captain Abel Vyvyan, Boddam, Captain George Palmer, and ((ship|Ocean|1788 EIC ship|2}}, Captain John Christian Lochner, had encountered Admiral de Sercey and his squadron of frigates. On this occasion the Indiamen also succeeded in bluffing their way to safety, and without any shots even being fired. Lastly, on 15 June 1795, the General Goddard played a large role in the capture of seven Dutch East Indiamen off St Helena.

text: East India Company (EIC)'s ships were well built, with the result that the Royal Navy bought several Company ships to convert to warships and transports. The Earl of Mornington became HMS Drake. Other examples include:

text:
HMS Calcutta (1795)
HMS Glatton (1795)
HMS Hindostan (1795)
HMS Hindostan (1804)
HMS Malabar (1804)
HMS Buffalo (1813)

text: Records[edit]

text: Unlike all other British Government records, the records from the East India Company (and its successor the India Office) are not in The National Archives at Kew, London, but are held by the British Library in London as part of the Asia, Pacific and Africa Collections. The catalogue is searchable online in the Access to Archives catalogues.[62] Many of the East India Company records are freely available online under an agreement that the Families in British India Society has with the British Library. Published catalogues exist of East India Company ships' journals and logs, 1600–1834;[63] and of some of the company's daughter institutions, including the East India Company College, Haileybury, and Addiscombe Military Seminary.[64]


document_title: Lateralization of brain function

question_text: what is the right side of the brain associated with

root

text: Lateralization of brain function

text: Interaction and role[edit]

text: Theme[edit]

text: To get a basic understanding of this complex issue it is easiest to first consider the left (LHS) and right (RHS) hemispheres as distinct but interacting entities. These interactions come in the form of both excitatory and inhibitory signals crossing the corpus callosum and other hemispheric bridges.[5][6] As LHS and RHS each have unique interpretations of situations these signals allow for discussion and an ultimate decision to be made.[7] This interaction is called hemispheric rivalry.[8] This term is apt as both hemispheres are in conflict yet on the same team. It has been theorized that in humans the reliance on both hemispheres is the basis of a number of functions including consciousness.[9] Despite this theory, however, there have been fully conscious, otherwise healthy individuals who have had half their brain removed due to Rasmussen's Syndrome, with particularly good outcomes if their other hemisphere was removed during childhood.[citation needed]

tag: p

text: The RHS can be simplified to better understand its role in this rivalry. The RHS is centered around action and is often the driving force behind risky behaviors. This hemisphere heavily relies upon emotional input leading it to make brash and uncalculated decisions. These decisions should not be thought of as ill-conceived, rather illogical and raw.[10]

text: Similarly the LHS can be brought into understanding by discussing a simple model of its role in the hemispheric interactions. The LHS can be thought of as the opposite of RHS as it relies primarily on critical thinking and calculations to reach its decisions.[11] As such the conclusions reached by the RHS often result in avoidance of risk taking behaviors and overall inaction.[12][irrelevant citation]

text: When viewed as action (LHS) and inaction (RHS) the anthropological development of these structures becomes elementary and logical. In environments of scarcity, like those faced by non-human animals, taking risks is the foundational approach to survival. In scarcity it is far more likely to die of starvation than to damaging stimuli from hostile animals or situations. However, in environments of abundance, as humans have observed, it is far more likely to die to damaging stimuli than of starvation. As such the anthropological development of first LHS then much later RHS is understandable.[13]

text: This also brings clarity to differences observed in modern human brains between environments. In areas of prosperity, where warmth, food, and basic needs for survival are abundant RHS domination is prevalent. Unsurprisingly, in areas of scarcity where cold and limited food are concerns LHS domination is prevalent. This phenomenon has been recorded numerous times when examining LHS dominant cultures, such as those of the Arctic, to RHS dominant cultures, like Africa.[14][irrelevant citation] Similarly, studies of animals such as the Chickadee have shown similar results. Yukon born chickadees have LHS dominance as compared to Texas born chickadees with RHS dominance. In exchanging Yukon borns for Texas borns it was shown that the action reliant Yukon birds consistently became the alpha of their new environment whereas inaction reliant Texan birds died shortly after their arrival in the Yukon.[citation needed]

text: When speaking of dominance it is important to recognize that each hemisphere continues to function semi-independently but their interactions become dominated by one side. That is, each hemisphere always provides its input to the decision making process but one is drowned out by the other. This occurs as individual decisions are made that biologically alter the state of the brain, changing the weight each hemisphere carries in their rivalry. As a choice of activity or inactivity is made it influences how effectively one hemisphere can inhibit the other and simultaneously teaches the now less effective inhibiting hemisphere to provide more excitatory signals with more frequency. For example: if a child eats a cookie their LHS has successfully inhibited their RHS changing the power dynamic as to make LHS ever so slightly more dominant and RHS more submissive in their rivalry. The reverse is also true should the child not eat the cookie.[15][16]

text: A lifetime of these anatomically changing decisions, paired with environmental circumstances as discussed above, dictate the structure and plasticity of the human brain. In cases such as common suburban living the LHS has less distinct neural networks and appears significantly blander than the RHS. The opposite asymmetry is observed in individuals such as violent offenders whose LHS is more distinct and pronounced than the RHS. The highest degree of symmetry between the hemispheres has been studied in veteran gang members. These individuals display an amazing propensity to act in extremely risky ways, yet inhibit themselves in the face of provocation to survive.[17][18][19]

text: Specifics[edit]

text: In gaining a fuller understanding of the interaction and function of cerebral hemispheres one must trace neural networks. The basis of the correlation of LHS with action and emotion is its connectivity with specialized parts throughout both hemispheres that play a role in those behaviors. Most notably LHS has been shown to have integral connections to insular cortex and amygdala. Similarly, the association of RHS with inaction and calculation is tied to its extensive networks connecting to the anterior cingulate cortex, orbitofrontal cortex and prefrontal cortices.[20] These specialized areas are implicated in the calculative and inhibitory processes of inaction and those related to delayed gratification.[21][22] In studies looking at individuals with damaged LHS invariably the temporal lobe, insula and amygdala also sustained connectivity damage.[23] Limiting the connectivity of such areas seriously limits the effectiveness by which they operate. This means that although logistically the LHS is not the ‘emotional’ hemisphere its connectivity with emotion related areas is crucial to their functioning.[24] This same process implicates the RHS as the ‘calculative’ hemisphere, though logistically it is not.[25][26]

text: The role of hemispheric rivalry has become a major talking point for those studying the generation of consciousness within the brain. Some believe the brain’s state of conflict is integrally linked to intelligence and genuine free will.[27]

text: Failures of lateralization[edit]

text: Lateralization as a concept fails because the brain consistently updates, consolidates, shifts information between the hemispheres.[28] In patients with damage to the LHS, functions traditionally associated with LHS were found predominantly in the RHS, most notably semantic choice.[29] These results hold for those with RHS damage who show a similar amount of functionality in specific motor skills via new neural connections developed in the LHS after RHS damage.[30] Amazingly these shifts continue to maximize brain potential even after extensive damage.[31] In studies where patients incur LHS damage and functionality is shifted to RHS, damage of the same magnitude to the RHS causes RHS functionality to become split once more. This effect has been shown on a neuronal level as the stimulation of specific neurons in the RHS causes similar responses in both hemispheres as neuron clusters on each side enlarge to compensate for the initial stimulation.[32] This points to a sort of equilibrium observed by the hemispheres.[33]

text: The shift of info and neuron functionality between hemispheres should not be surprising, however, as it has been observed in individuals who have lost a sense. In these individuals, neurons, even those that are specialized, are semi-repurposed to compensate for the loss. For example: those who become blind after years of vision are able to repurpose specialized sections of their brain to have increased visualization and nonspecialization to aid in the efficiency of their other senses.

text: History of research on lateralization[edit]

text: Broca[edit]

text: One of the first indications of brain function lateralization resulted from the research of French physician Pierre Paul Broca, in 1861. His research involved the male patient nicknamed "Tan", who suffered a speech deficit (aphasia); "tan" was one of the few words he could articulate, hence his nickname. In Tan's autopsy, Broca determined he had a syphilitic lesion in the left cerebral hemisphere. This left frontal lobe brain area (Broca's area) is an important speech production region. The motor aspects of speech production deficits caused by damage to Broca’s area are known as expressive aphasia. In clinical assessment of this aphasia, it is noted that the patient cannot clearly articulate the language being employed.

text: Wernicke[edit]

text: German physician Karl Wernicke continued in the vein of Broca's research by studying language deficits unlike expressive aphasia. Wernicke noted that not every deficit was in speech production; some were linguistic. He found that damage to the left posterior, superior temporal gyrus (Wernicke's area) caused language comprehension deficits rather than speech production deficits, a syndrome known as receptive aphasia.

text: Advance in imaging technique[edit]

text: These seminal works on hemispheric specialization were done on patients or postmortem brains, raising questions about the potential impact of pathology on the research findings. New methods permit the in vivo comparison of the hemispheres in healthy subjects. Particularly, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) are important because of their high spatial resolution and ability to image subcortical brain structures.

text: Movement and sensation[edit]

text: In the 1940s, neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield and his neurologist colleague Herbert Jasper developed a technique of brain mapping to help reduce side effects caused by surgery to treat epilepsy. They stimulated motor and somatosensory cortices of the brain with small electrical currents to activate discrete brain regions. They found that stimulation of one hemisphere's motor cortex produces muscle contraction on the opposite side of the body. Furthermore, the functional map of the motor and sensory cortices is fairly consistent from person to person; Penfield and Jasper's famous pictures of the motor and sensory homunculi were the result.

text: Split-brain patients[edit]

text: Research by Michael Gazzaniga and Roger Wolcott Sperry in the 1960s on split-brain patients led to an even greater understanding of functional laterality. Split-brain patients are patients who have undergone corpus callosotomy (usually as a treatment for severe epilepsy), a severing of a large part of the corpus callosum. The corpus callosum connects the two hemispheres of the brain and allows them to communicate. When these connections are cut, the two halves of the brain have a reduced capacity to communicate with each other. This led to many interesting behavioral phenomena that allowed Gazzaniga and Sperry to study the contributions of each hemisphere to various cognitive and perceptual processes. One of their main findings was that the right hemisphere was capable of rudimentary language processing, but often has no lexical or grammatical abilities.[34] Eran Zaidel also studied such patients and found some evidence for the right hemisphere having at least some syntactic ability.

text: Language is primarily localized in the left hemisphere. One of the experiments carried out by Gazzaniga involved a split-brain patient sitting in front of a computer screen while having words and images presented on either side of the screen and the visual stimuli would go to either the right or left visual field, and thus the left or right brain, respectively. It was observed that if a patient was presented with an image to his left visual field (right brain), he would report not seeing anything. If he was able to feel around for certain objects, he could accurately pick out the correct object, despite not having the ability to verbalize what he saw. This led to confirmation that the left brain is localized for language while the right brain does not have this capability, and when the corpus callosum is cut and the two hemispheres cannot communicate for the speech to be produced.

text: Pop psychology[edit]

text: Some popularizations oversimplify the science about lateralization, by presenting the functional differences between hemispheres as being more absolute than is actually the case.[35][36][37]

text: Sex differences[edit]

text: In the 19th century and to a lesser extent the 20th, it was thought that each side of the brain was associated with a specific gender: the left corresponding with masculinity and the right with femininity and each half could function independently.[38] The right side of the brain was seen as the inferior and thought to be prominent in women, savages, children, criminals, and the insane. A prime example of this in fictional literature can be seen in Robert Louis Stevenson’s Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.[39]

text: Significant differences between male and female hemispheric rivalry and dominance have been established. Male brains have significantly better global and rivalry efficiency between the hemispheres, whereas female brains possess considerably better local efficiency within the RHS.[40][41]

text: Handedness[edit]

text: Handedness has been implicated in determining which hemisphere is naturally dominant. Due to decussation the dominant hemisphere is opposite to the main hand/foot. Left-handed and ambidextrous individuals have been shown to have more efficient hemispheric interactions.[42][43]

text: Self-harm[edit]

text: Damage to the RHS has been shown to drastically increase the likelihood of self-inflicted harm and suicide as calculative ideas such as the prospect of future are lost. RHS damage has also been shown to drastically decrease social performance and appropriateness as these behaviors stem from inhibition of boisterous activities which is no longer possible in these patients.[44]

text: Lateralized cognitive processes[edit]

text: For example, structurally, the lateral sulcus generally is longer in the left hemisphere than in the right hemisphere, and functionally, Broca's area and Wernicke's area are located in the left cerebral hemisphere for about 95% of right-handers, but about 70% of left-handers.[45]

text: Language functions such as grammar, vocabulary and literal meaning[46][47] are typically lateralized to the left hemisphere, especially in right handed individuals.[47] While language production is left-lateralized in up to 90% of right-handed subjects, it is more bilateral, or even right lateralized in approximately 50% of left-handers.[48] In contrast, prosodic language functions, such as intonation and accentuation, often are lateralized to the right hemisphere of the brain.[49][50]

text: The processing of visual and auditory stimuli, spatial manipulation, facial perception, and artistic ability are represented bilaterally.[48] Numerical estimation, comparison and online calculation depend on bilateral parietal regions[51][52] while exact calculation and fact retrieval are associated with left parietal regions, perhaps due to their ties to linguistic processing.[51][52] Dyscalculia is a neurological syndrome associated with damage to the left temporo-parietal junction.[53] This syndrome is associated with poor numeric manipulation, poor mental arithmetic skill, and the inability to either understand or apply mathematical concepts.[54]

text: Depression is linked with a hyperactive right hemisphere, with evidence of selective involvement in "processing negative emotions, pessimistic thoughts and unconstructive thinking styles", as well as vigilance, arousal and self-reflection, and a relatively hypoactive left hemisphere, "specifically involved in processing pleasurable experiences" and "relatively more involved in decision-making processes".[55] Additionally, "left hemisphere lesions result in an omissive response bias or error pattern whereas right hemisphere lesions result in a commissive response bias or error pattern."[56] The delusional misidentification syndromes, reduplicative paramnesia and Capgras delusion are also often the result of right hemisphere lesions.[57][58]

text: Lateralization of language processes[edit]

text: Hemispheric lateralization[59] refers to the distinction of functions of the right and left hemispheres of the brain. If one hemisphere is more heavily involved in a specific function, it is often referred to as being dominant (Bear et al., 2007). Language and speech understanding and function is commonly accepted by linguists and neuroscientists to be a heavily lateralized function.[59] Many specific aspects of language are found to be localized in the left hemisphere, while less so in the right hemisphere as the left hemisphere is most often dominant. This was proposed first through early work in patients with aphasia and language deficits found to have specific areas with lesions and damage.

text: When looking at patients that have unilateral hemisphere damage, in either the right or left hemisphere their language deficits can be studied. For example; when the left hemisphere has been damaged or lesioned, the right hemisphere is used to take over some functions via brain plasticity, and this damage of the one hemisphere and compensation by the opposite hemisphere creates language understanding and production changes and deficits that can be studied to examine and determine the basis and interaction of brain areas in language processes.

text: The production of language and language comprehension require the coordination of different subprocesses in time.[59] Though there is debate on how these subprocesses work together and how thinking and comprehending can change, the anatomical basis and role of a loop involving Wernicke’s and Broca’s area is usually agreed upon.

text: Neuroscientists generally agree that around the lateral sulcus[60] (or Sylvian Fissure) in the left hemisphere of the brain, there is a neural loop involved both in understanding and producing spoken language. At the front end or beginning of this loop lies Broca's area, which is usually associated with the production of language, or language outputs. At the other end, or specifically in the superior posterior temporal lobe, lies Wernicke's area, which is associated with the processing of words that we hear being spoken, or language inputs. Broca's area and Wernicke's area are connected by a large bundle of nerve fibres called the arcuate fasciculus.[60]

text: Handedness and language[edit]

text: Broca's area and Wernicke's area are linked by a white matter fiber tract, the arcuate fasciculus. This axonal tract allows the neurons in the two areas to work together in creating vocal language. In more than 95% of right-handed men, and more than 90% of right-handed women, the left hemisphere is dominant in certain aspects of language and speech processing. In left-handed people, the incidence of left-hemisphere language dominance has been reported as 73%[61] and 61%,[62] suggesting left handed people tend to be less lateralized than right-handed people in language function. In general neuroimaging methods, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging and magnetoencephalography, involvement of both hemispheres in many aspects of language processing has been shown. The "dominance" discussed in many of these studies simply refers to more brain activation relative to the other hemisphere (or better performance by that hemisphere on psycholinguistic tasks such as dichotic listening); it is not the case that language is "localized" in any one hemisphere laterally.

text: Brain function lateralization is evident in the phenomena of right- or left-handedness[63] and of right or left ear preference,[64] but a person's preferred hand is not a clear indication of the location of brain function. Although 95% of right-handed people have left-hemisphere dominance for language, 18.8% of left-handed people have right-hemisphere dominance for language function. Additionally, 19.8% of the left-handed have bilateral language functions.[62] Even within various language functions (e.g., semantics, syntax, prosody), degree (and even hemisphere) of dominance may differ.[65]

text: Methods of study[edit]

text: There are ways of determining whether particular cognitive functions tend to be lateralized to one cerebral hemisphere. The Wada Test introduces an anesthetic to one hemisphere of the brain via one of the two carotid arteries. Once the hemisphere is anesthetized, a neuropsychological examination is effected to determine whether cognitive functions such as language production, language comprehension, verbal memory, or visual memory are retained. Another common way to study neural deficits is to identify the deficits a person exhibits in relation to lesions in different areas of the brain.[66]

text: Less invasive techniques, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging and transcranial magnetic stimulation may also be used to investigate the role of a particular cerebral hemisphere in a particular task, although these methods may be costly. The divided visual field paradigm is another technique that has contributed to the study of hemispheric specialization. CAT scans, PET scans and EEG are also used to study the brain. CAT scans use tomography to create a 3D image of the brain, which provides insights about neural anatomy, but it is unable to show the brain functioning in real time. PET scans image areas of high metabolic activity and neural activity by scanning for an active substance that has been tagged with positron emitting isotopes, that has been ingested by the patient. Finally, EEGs collect data from the electric fields that are produced by the brain.[67]

text: Pathology[edit]

text: Hemisphere damage[edit]

text: Damage to either the right or left hemisphere, and its resulting deficits provide insight into the function of the damaged area. Right hemisphere damage has many effects on language production and perception. Damage or lesions to the right hemisphere can result in a lack of emotional prosody or intonation when speaking. Right hemisphere damage also has monumental effects on understanding discourse. People with damage to the right hemisphere have a reduced ability to generate inferences, comprehend and produce main concepts and a reduced ability to manage alternative meanings. Furthermore, when engaging in discourse people with right hemisphere damage, their discourse is often abrupt and perfunctory or verbose and excessive. They can also have pragmatic deficits in situations of turn taking, topic maintenance and shared knowledge.[68]

text: Lateral brain damage can also have effects on spatial frequency. People with left hemisphere damage are only able to see low frequency, or big picture, parts of an image. Right hemisphere damage causes damage to low spatial frequency, so people with right hemisphere damage can only see the details of an image, or the high frequency parts of an image.[69]

text: Plasticity[edit]

text: If a specific region of the brain, or even an entire hemisphere, is injured or destroyed, its functions can sometimes be assumed by a neighboring region in the same hemisphere or the corresponding region in the other hemisphere, depending upon the area damaged and the patient's age.[70] When injury interferes with pathways from one area to another, alternative (indirect) connections may develop to communicate information with detached areas, despite the inefficiencies.

text: Broca's aphasia[edit]

text: Broca’s aphasia is a specific type of expressive aphasia and is so named due to the aphasia that results from damage or lesions to the Broca’s area of the brain, that exists most commonly in the left inferior frontal hemisphere. Thus, the aphasia that develops from the lack of functioning of the Broca’s area is an expressives and non-fluent aphasia. It is called ‘non-fluent’ due the issues that arise because Broca’s area is critical for language pronunciation and production. The area controls some motor aspects of speech production and articulation of thoughts to words and as such lesions to the area result in the specific non-fluent aphasia.[71]

text: Wernicke's aphasia[edit]

text: Wernicke’s aphasia is the result of damage to the area of the brain that is commonly in the left hemisphere above the sylvian fissure. Damage to this area causes many deficits in language production and cognition. Although the speech produced by a person with Wernicke’s aphasia sounds like regular speech, it is riddled with mistakes. They include mild impairments in word selection, grammar, and segmental phonology. Wernicke's aphasia is characterized by phonemic paraphasias, neologism or jargon. Comprehension of spoken language is also mildly impaired in people with Wernicke's aphasia. Another characteristic of a person with Wernicke’s aphasia is that they are unconcerned by the mistakes that they are making.[72][73]

text: Misapplication of concept[edit]

text: Terence Hines states that the research on brain lateralization is valid as a research program, though commercial promoters have applied it to promote subjects and products far outside the implications of the research.[74] For example, the implications of the research have no bearing on psychological interventions such as EMDR and neurolinguistic programming,[75] brain-training equipment, or management training.[76]

text: Advantages of brain lateralization[edit]

text: The widespread lateralization of many vertebrate animals indicates an evolutionary advantage associated with the specialization of each hemisphere.[77] In one experiment, baby chicks were lateralized before hatching by exposing their eggs to light.[78] These chicks were set to a task of picking out food from a bed of pebbles. Neither the lateralized, nor the non-lateralized chicks had a problem with this task, but the lateralized chicks only used the eye on the side of which they were lateralized to pick up the pebbles. When presented with a second task of watching for a cutout of a predatory hawk, the discrepancy between lateralized and non-lateralized chicks became evident. Lateralized chicks could pick food out of the pebbles with one eye and one half of the brain[79] while using the other eye and other half of their brain to monitor the skies for predators.[80] Not only could non-lateralized chicks not complete the two tasks simultaneously, but their performance of the single task deteriorated. This suggests that the evolutionary advantage of lateralization comes from the capacity to perform separate parallel tasks in each hemisphere of the brain.[77] It was found in a 2011 study published in the journal of Brain Behavioral Research that lateralization of few specific functions as opposed to overall brain lateralization is correlated with parallel tasks efficiency.[81]

text: Additional images[edit]

text:
Ventricles of brain and basal ganglia. Superior view. Horizontal section. Deep dissection

Ventricles of brain and basal ganglia. Superior view. Horizontal section. Deep dissection

tag: ul


document_title: Formula One drivers from Italy

question_text: last italian driver to win a grand prix

question_tokens: last italian driver to win a grand prix

text: Formula One drivers from Italy

text: World champions and race winners[edit]

text: The drivers' title has been won three times for Italy by two drivers both in Italian cars. Giuseppe "Nino" Farina won the inaugural championship in 1950 and Alberto Ascari won back-to-back titles in 1952 and 1953.[2] Mario Andretti won the 1978 title driving for the United States though he was born and raised in Italy.[2][3]

text: A total of 15 different Italian drivers have won a race in Formula One, the most recent being Giancarlo Fisichella with Renault at the 2006 Malaysian Grand Prix. Only six drivers from Italy have won more than a single race, Ascari being the most successful with 13 victories.[4]

text: Current drivers[edit]

text: Antonio Giovinazzi drove for Sauber at the 2017 Australian and Chinese Grands Prix.

text:
Antonio Giovinazzi
2017 season position: 21st

text: Former drivers[edit]

text: Notable former drivers[edit]

text: Giuseppe "Nino" Farina won the very first World Championship race and title in 1950 in an Alfa Romeo.[3] He won half of the six races that year, more than he would win in the remainder of his career in Formula One. Team mate Juan Manuel Fangio took the title in 1951 with Farina only managing to finish fourth in the championship, but he came much closer with Ferrari the following year. However, he was again beaten by a team mate as Alberto Ascari took the 1952 title. His final race victory came in 1953 and he finished third in the title race but would later suffer a career-threatening crash. In 1954 Farina was driving in a sports car race alongside his F1 career. At the start of a race in Monza his car was engulfed in flames and he suffered serious burns that would mean he turned to amphetamines and morphine to cope with the pain. He returned to Formula One for four races in 1955 and, despite finishing on the podium at all three of the ones he started, he felt unable to continue.[5]

text: Alberto Ascari won the drivers' championship for Ferrari in 1952 and became to first person to retain the title.[3] Across the two seasons he won nine consecutive races, a record still unbeaten 60 years later.[3][4][6] Ascari had made his debut with Ferrari in 1950, coming fifth in the championship after contesting just four races. The following year he won two grands prix and was runner-up in the title race. After back-to-back championships with Ferrari in 1952 and 1953 Ascari moved to Lancia but the car was not ready until late in the season leaving him unable to challenge the dominant Juan Manuel Fangio and he ended the year without seeing the chequered flag at a single event. Two races with Lancia in 1955 brought about similar disappointment but Ascari would not manage to see the year out. While testing a Ferrari at Monza he crashed under unexplained circumstances and was killed.[6] He remains the last Italian Formula One Drivers' World Champion and the title holder with the fewest ever grand prix starts (32).[2][3][6]

text: Michele Alboreto started 194 races in a career that spanned 14 seasons. He started with a drive for Tyrrell in 1981, impressing the team enough to secure a three year contract. He won two races with them before moving to Ferrari for five seasons. It was with the Italian team that Alboreto would come close to winning the title – eight podium finishes including two wins was not quite enough to give him the 1985 championship and he finished as the year as the runner-up. On leaving Ferrari Alboreto's career went downhill with only one podium finish in his final six years.[7]

text: Four Italian drivers have started more than 200 races, easily more than any other country. Though they had 936 starts between them, the drivers only scored ten victories and 62 other podium finishes.[8]

text: Giancarlo Fisichella is the most recent Italian driver to win a Formula One Grand Prix having won in 2006.[4] It was his third and final victory and came in his most successful season, one which saw him finish the year fourth in the drivers' championship. Fisichella featured on the podium at 19 of the 229 races he started.[9]

text: Riccardo Patrese competed in Formula One for 17 years, standing on the podium 31 times including six victories. He started 256 races, placing him as one of the top three most experienced Formula One drivers in history,[8] and finished just under half of them. From his 1977 debut to the end of the 1988 season Patrese was only able to finish at best ninth in the championship, but his career rose to new heights with his second year with Williams. He ended the 1989 season third and crossed the finish line in the top three 17 times across 1991 and 1992, finishing third and second in the championship respectively. He left Formula One after the 1993 season to race touring cars.[10]

text: Jarno Trulli competed at 256 events over 15 seasons from 1997. He started on pole and then won the 2004 Monaco Grand Prix, but was sacked later that year when his relationship with Renault team boss Flavio Briatore broke down. It would prove to be Trulli's highest championship finish with his accrued 46 points giving him sixth place.[11]

text: Andrea de Cesaris stood on the podium five times out of 208 race starts, and is the driver with the most starts to never have won a race. He drove twice for Alfa Romeo twice in 1980 before securing a full-time drive with McLaren the following year. Never staying with a team for more than two seasons in a row de Cesaris drove for ten different teams in total. Perhaps his worst time in the sport came between 1985 and 1987 when he only finished six of the 42 races he started.[12]

text: Elio de Angelis scored two wins during a career that spanned eight seasons. He made his debut in 1979 with Shadow before a six-year stint with Lotus. He achieved his best result in 1984 when four podium finishes helped him to third in the title race. He looked to be going better the following year, leading the championship for several races, but a series of poor results put him down to fifth. He moved over to Brabham for the 1986 season but was only able to compete four times before losing his life while testing at Circuit Paul Ricard.[13] He was the last person to die in a Formula One car until the weekend of the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix.[14]

text: Alex Zanardi won two Indy Car championships but was unable to find success in Formula One. He drove in four races across 1991 and 1992 before securing a full-time drive with Lotus in 1993. He finished five races with a best result of sixth before a crash ended his season early. Zanardi returned the following year but did not win a single point and was unable to secure a drive for 1995. On leaving the sport he embarked on a very successful career in Indy Car before returning for one final, and very poor, season in 1999.[15]

text: Lella Lombardi is the only woman to have finished a Formula One race in a points-scoring position. She was first entered for the 1974 British Grand Prix with Brabham but failed to qualify, returning to the sport in 1975 with March. She became the first woman to qualify for a race when she secured a place on the grid at the 1975 South African Grand Prix. Later in the year, at the Spanish Grand Prix, she was running in sixth place when the race was stopped due to an accident. With the race not yet halfway through half points were awarded and Lombardi was awarded half a championship point. She was unable to win any further points and neither has any other female driver since.[16]

text: Other former drivers[edit]

text: Additional to those detailed above the following drivers started at least ten races:

text:
Andrea de Adamich
Luca Badoer
Giancarlo Baghetti
Mauro Baldi
Lorenzo Bandini
Felice Bonetto
Vittorio Brambilla
Gianmaria Bruni
Alex Caffi
Ivan Capelli
Eugenio Castellotti
Corrado Fabi
Teo Fabi
Nanni Galli
Piercarlo Ghinzani
Bruno Giacomelli
Nicola Larini
Vitantonio Liuzzi
Umberto Maglioli
Pierluigi Martini
Arturo Merzario
Stefano Modena
Andrea Montermini
Gianni Morbidelli
Luigi Musso
Alessandro Nannini
Giorgio Pantano
Emanuele Pirro
Ludovico Scarfiotti
Giorgio Scarlatti
Gabriele Tarquini
Piero Taruffi
Luigi Villoresi


document_title: List of UEFA club competition winners

question_text: who has won the european cup the most

question_tokens: who has won the european cup the most

text: List of UEFA club competition winners

text: Winners[edit]

text: By club[edit]

text: Real Madrid hold the record for the most overall titles, with 21 followed by Milan's 17 titles.[6][7] Spanish teams hold the record for the most wins in each of the three main UEFA club competitions: Real Madrid, with twelve European Cup/UEFA Champions League titles; Barcelona, with four Cup Winners' Cup titles; and Sevilla, with five UEFA Cup/UEFA Europa League titles. Milan share the most Super Cup wins (five) with Barcelona, and the most Intercontinental Cup wins (three) with Real Madrid. German clubs Hamburg, Schalke 04 and Stuttgart, and Spanish club Villarreal are the record holders by titles won in the UEFA Intertoto Cup (twice each).

text: Juventus, Ajax, Bayern Munich, Chelsea and Manchester United are the only teams to have won all of UEFA's three main club competitions (European Cup/UEFA Champions League, Cup Winners' Cup, UEFA Cup/UEFA Europa League). However, Juventus is the only team to have won every UEFA club competition, which additionally includes the Super Cup, the Intertoto Cup, and the Intercontinental Cup.[8]

text: The following table lists all the clubs that have won at least one UEFA club competition, and is updated as of 8 August 2017 (in chronological order).

tag: table

text:
List of UEFA club competition winners

Club
Country
UCL
CWC
UEL
UIC
USC
IC
Total

Real Madrid
 Spain
12
0
2
0
4
3
21

Milan
 Italy
7
2
0
0
5
3
17

Barcelona
 Spain
5
4
0
0
5
0
14

Juventus
 Italy
2
1
3
1
2
2
11

Liverpool
 England
5
0
3
0
3
0
11

Ajax
 Netherlands
4
1
1
0
2
2
10

Bayern Munich
 Germany
5
1
1
0
1
2
10

Internazionale
 Italy
3
0
3
0
0
2
8

Manchester United
 England
3
1
1
0
1
1
7

Porto
 Portugal
2
0
2
0
1
2
7

Atlético Madrid
 Spain
0
1
2
0
2
1
6

Sevilla
 Spain
0
0
5
0
1
0
6

Anderlecht
 Belgium
0
2
1
0
2
0
5

Valencia
 Spain
0
1
1
1
2
0
5

Chelsea
 England
1
2
1
0
1
0
5

Parma
 Italy
0
1
2
0
1
0
4

Feyenoord
 Netherlands
1
0
2
0
0
1
4

Hamburg
 Germany
1
1
0
2
0
0
4

Nottingham Forest
 England
2
0
0
0
1
0
3

Aston Villa
 England
1
0
0
1
1
0
3

Tottenham Hotspur
 England
0
1
2
0
0
0
3

Dynamo Kyiv
 Soviet Union
 Ukraine
0
2
0
0
1
0
3

Borussia Dortmund
 Germany
1
1
0
0
0
1
3

Schalke 04
 Germany
0
0
1
2
0
0
3

Benfica
 Portugal
2
0
0
0
0
0
2

Borussia Mönchengladbach
 Germany
0
0
2
0
0
0
2

Aberdeen
 Scotland
0
1
0
0
1
0
2

Steaua București
 Romania
1
0
0
0
1
0
2

IFK Göteborg
 Sweden
0
0
2
0
0
0
2

KV Mechelen
 Belgium
0
1
0
0
1
0
2

PSV
 Netherlands
1
0
1
0
0
0
2

Red Star Belgrade
 Yugoslavia
 Serbia
1
0
0
0
0
1
2

Werder Bremen
 Germany
0
1
0
1
0
0
2

Lazio
 Italy
0
1
0
0
1
0
2

West Ham United
 England
0
1
0
1
0
0
2

Galatasaray
 Turkey
0
0
1
0
1
0
2

Paris Saint-Germain
 France
0
1
0
1
0
0
2

Villarreal
 Spain
0
0
0
2
0
0
2

VfB Stuttgart
 Germany
0
0
0
2
0
0
2

Marseille
 France
1
0
0
1
0
0
2

Zenit St. Petersburg
 Russia
0
0
1
0
1
0
2

Fiorentina
 Italy
0
1
0
0
0
0
1

Sporting CP
 Portugal
0
1
0
0
0
0
1

Celtic
 Scotland
1
0
0
0
0
0
1

Slovan Bratislava
 Czechoslovakia
 Slovakia
0
1
0
0
0
0
1

Manchester City
 England
0
1
0
0
0
0
1

Rangers
 Scotland
0
1
0
0
0
0
1

Magdeburg
 East Germany
 Germany
0
1
0
0
0
0
1

Eintracht Frankfurt
 Germany
0
0
1
0
0
0
1

Dinamo Tbilisi
 Soviet Union
 Georgia
0
1
0
0
0
0
1

Ipswich Town
 England
0
0
1
0
0
0
1

Everton
 England
0
1
0
0
0
0
1

Bayer Leverkusen
 Germany
0
0
1
0
0
0
1

Napoli
 Italy
0
0
1
0
0
0
1

Sampdoria
 Italy
0
1
0
0
0
0
1

Arsenal
 England
0
1
0
0
0
0
1

Real Zaragoza
 Spain
0
1
0
0
0
0
1

Bordeaux
 France
0
0
0
1
0
0
1

Strasbourg
 France
0
0
0
1
0
0
1

Guingamp
 France
0
0
0
1
0
0
1

Karlsruhe
 Germany
0
0
0
1
0
0
1

Silkeborg
 Denmark
0
0
0
1
0
0
1

Lyon
 France
0
0
0
1
0
0
1

Bastia
 France
0
0
0
1
0
0
1

Auxerre
 France
0
0
0
1
0
0
1

Bologna
 Italy
0
0
0
1
0
0
1

Montpellier
 France
0
0
0
1
0
0
1

Celta de Vigo
 Spain
0
0
0
1
0
0
1

Udinese
 Italy
0
0
0
1
0
0
1

Twente
 Netherlands
0
0
0
1
0
0
1

Málaga
 Spain
0
0
0
1
0
0
1

Troyes
 France
0
0
0
1
0
0
1

Fulham
 England
0
0
0
1
0
0
1

Perugia
 Italy
0
0
0
1
0
0
1

Lille
 France
0
0
0
1
0
0
1

CSKA Moscow
 Russia
0
0
1
0
0
0
1

Lens
 France
0
0
0
1
0
0
1

Newcastle United
 England
0
0
0
1
0
0
1

Braga
 Portugal
0
0
0
1
0
0
1

Shakhtar Donetsk
 Ukraine
0
0
1
0
0
0
1

text: By country[edit]

text: Spanish clubs are the most successful in UEFA competitions, with a total of 57 titles, and hold a record number of wins in the European Cup/UEFA Champions League (17), UEFA Super Cup (14), and UEFA Cup/UEFA Europa league (10).[7] Italian clubs have the most victories in the Intercontinental Cup (7). In third place, English clubs have secured 40 titles, including a record eight wins in the Cup Winners' Cup. French clubs, ranked sixth in UEFA competition titles, have won the Intertoto Cup the most times (12). Italian clubs are the only in European football history to have won the three main UEFA competitions in the same season (1989–90).[3]

text: The following table lists all the countries whose clubs have won at least one UEFA competition, and is updated as of 8 August 2017 (in chronological order).

text:
Key

UCL
European Cup or UEFA Champions League

CWC
UEFA Cup Winners' Cup (defunct)

UEL
UEFA Cup or UEFA Europa League

UIC
UEFA Intertoto Cup (defunct)

USC
UEFA Super Cup

IC
Intercontinental Cup (defunct)

text:
List of UEFA club competition winners by country[a]

Nationality
UCL
CWC
UEL
UIC
USC
IC
Total

 Spain
17
7
10
5
14
4
57

 Italy
12
7
9
4
9
7
48

 England
12
8
8
4
7
1
40

 Germany*
7
4
6
8
1
3
29

 Netherlands
6
1
4
0
3
3
17

 France
1
1
0
12
0
0
14

 Portugal
4
1
2
1
1
2
11

 Belgium
0
3
1
0
3
0
7

 Scotland
1
2
0
0
1
0
4

 Soviet Union+
0
3
0
0
1
0
4

 Russia
0
0
2
0
1
0
3

 Romania
1
0
0
0
1
0
2

 Turkey
0
0
1
0
1
0
2

 Yugoslavia+
1
0
0
0
0
1
2

 Sweden
0
0
2
0
0
0
2

 East Germany+
0
1
0
0
0
0
1

 Czechoslovakia+
0
1
0
0
0
0
1

 Ukraine
0
0
1
0
0
0
1

 Denmark
0
0
0
1
0
0
1

text:
+ = National federation no longer exists.
* = Germany's record includes West Germany.