document_title: Causes of the Indian Rebellion of 1857

question_text: the first sepoy who refused to use the greased cartridge

text: Causes of the Indian Rebellion of 1857

text: Frictions[edit]

text: Some Indians were upset with what they saw as the draconian rule of the Company who had embarked on a project of territorial expansion and westernisation that was imposed without any regard for historical subtleties in Indian society. Furthermore, legal changes introduced by the British were accompanied by prohibitions on Indian religious customs and were seen as steps towards forced conversion to Christianity.[2] As early as the Charter Act of 1813 Christian missionaries were encouraged to come to Bombay and Calcutta under BEIC control. The British Governor-General of India from 1848 to 1856 was Lord Dalhousie who passed the Widow Remarriage Act of 1856 which allowed women to remarry, like Christian women. He also passed decrees allowing Hindus who had converted to Christianity to be able to inherit property, which had previously been denied by local practice.[3] Author Pramod Nayar points out that by 1851 there were nineteen Protestant religious societies operating in India whose goal was the conversion of Indians to Christianity. Christian organisations from Britain had additionally created 222 "unattached" mission stations across India in the decade preceding the rebellion.[4]

text: Religious disquiet as the cause of rebellion underlies the work of historian William Dalrymple who asserts that the rebels were motivated primarily by resistance to the actions of the British East India Company, especially under James Broun-Ramsay reign, which were perceived as attempts to impose Christianity and Christian laws in India. For instance, once the rebellion was underway, Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar met the sepoys on May 11, 1857, he was told: "We have joined hands to protect our religion and our faith." They later stood in Chandni Chowk, the main square, and asked the people gathered there, "Brothers, are you with those of the faith?"[5] Those European men and women who had previously converted to Islam such as Sergeant-Major Gordon, and Abdullah Beg, a former Company soldier, were spared. In contrast, foreign Christians such as Revd Midgeley John Jennings, and Indian converts to Christianity such as one of Zafar's personal physicians, Dr. Chaman Lal, were killed.[6]

text: Dalrymple further points out that as late as 6 September, when calling the inhabitants of Delhi to rally against the upcoming Company assault, Zafar issued a proclamation stating that this was a religious war being prosecuted on behalf of 'the faith', and that all Muslim and Hindu residents of the imperial city, or of the countryside were encouraged to stay true to their faith and creeds. As further evidence, he observes that the Urdu sources of the pre- and post-rebellion periods usually refer to the British not as angrez (the English), goras (whites) or firangis (foreigners), but as kafir (disbeliever) and nasrani (Christians).[5]

text: Some historians have suggested that the impact of British economic and social 'reforms' has been greatly exaggerated, since the Company did not have the resources to enforce them, meaning that away from Calcutta their effect was negligible.[7]

text: Economics[edit]

text: Many Indians felt that the Company was asking for heavy tax from the locals. This included an increase in the taxation on land. This seems to have been a very important reason for the spread of the rebellion, keeping in view the speed at which the conflagration ignited in many villages in northern India where farmers rushed to get back their unfairly grabbed title deeds. The resumption of tax free land and confiscation of jagirs (the grant or right to locally control land revenue) caused discontent among the jagirdars and zamindars. Dalhousie had also appointed Inam Commission with powers to confiscate land.[8] Several years before the sepoys' mutiny, Lord William Bentinck had attacked several jagirs in western Bengal. He also resumed the practice of tax free lands in some areas. These changes caused widespread resentment not only among the landed aristocracy but also caused great havoc to a larger section of the middle-class people. Lands were confiscated from the landlords and auctioned. Rich people like the merchants and moneylenders were therefore able to speculate in British land sales and drive out the most vulnerable peasant farmers.

text: Sepoys[edit]

text: During the late eighteenth century and the early part of the nineteenth century, the armies of the East India Company, in particular those of the Bengal Presidency, were victorious and indomitable — the term "high noon of the sepoy army" has been used by a military historian. The Company had an unbroken series of victories in India, against the Marathas, Mysore, north Indian states, and the Gurkhas, later against the Sikhs, and further afield in China and Burma. The Company had developed a military organisation where, in theory, fealty of the sepoys to the Company was considered the height of "izzat" or honour, where the European officer replaced the village headman with benevolent figures of authority, and where regiments were mostly recruited from sepoys belonging to the same caste, and community.[9]

text: Unlike the Madras and Bombay Armies of the BEIC, which were far more diverse, the Bengal Army recruited its regular soldiers almost exclusively amongst the landowning Bhumihars and Rajputs of the Ganges Valley. Though paid marginally less than the Bombay and Madras Presidency troops, there was a tradition of trust between the soldiery and the establishment — the soldiers felt needed and that the Company would care for their welfare. The soldiers performed well on the field of battle in exchange for which they were rewarded with symbolic heraldic rewards such as battle honours in addition to the extra pay or "batta" (foreign pay) routinely disbursed for operations committed beyond the established borders of Company rule.[10]

text: Until the 1840s there had been a widespread belief amongst the Bengal sepoys in the iqbal or continued good fortune of the East India Company. However much of this sense of the invincibility of the British was lost in the First Anglo-Afghan War where poor political judgement and inept British leadership led to the massacre of Elphinstone's army (which included three Bengal regiments) while retreating from Kabul. When the mood of the sepoys turned against their masters, they remembered Kabul and that the British were not invincible.[11]

text: Caste privileges and customs within the Bengal Army were not merely tolerated but encouraged in the early years of the Company's rule. Partly owing to this, Bengal sepoys were not subject to the penalty of flogging as were the European soldiers. This meant that when they came to be threatened by modernising regimes in Calcutta, from the 1840s onwards, the sepoys had become accustomed to very high ritual status, and were extremely sensitive to suggestions that their caste might be polluted.[12] If the caste of high-caste sepoys was considered to be "polluted", they would have to expend considerable sums of money on ritual purification before being accepted back into society.[13]

text: There had been earlier indications that all was not well in the armies of the East India Company. As early as 1806, concerns that the sepoys' caste may be polluted had led to the Vellore Mutiny, which was brutally suppressed. In 1824, there was another mutiny by a regiment ordered overseas in the First Anglo-Burmese War, who were refused transport to carry individual cooking vessels and told to share communal pots. Eleven of the sepoys were executed and hundreds more sentenced to hard labour.[14] In 1851-2 sepoys who were required to serve in the Second Anglo-Burmese War also refused to embark, but were merely sent to serve elsewhere.[15]

text: The pay of the sepoy was relatively low and after Awadh and the Punjab were annexed, the soldiers no longer received extra pay (batta or bhatta) if posted there, because this was no longer considered "foreign service". Since the batta made the difference between active service being considered munificent or burdensome, the sepoys repeatedly resented and actively opposed inconsiderate unilateral changes in pay and batta ordered by the Military Audit department. Prior to the period of British rule, any refusal to proceed on service until pay issues were resolved was considered a legitimate form of displaying grievance by Indian troops serving under Indian rulers. Such measures were considered a valid negotiating tactic by the sepoys, likely to be repeated every time such issues arose. In contrast to their Indian predecessors, the British considered such refusals at times to be outright "mutinies" and therefore to be suppressed brutally. At other times however the Company directly or indirectly conceded the legitimacy of the sepoy's demands, such as when troops of the Bengal and Madras armies refused to serve in Sindh without batta after its conquest.[16]

text: The varying stances of the British government, the reduction of allowances and harsh punishments,  contributed to a feeling amongst the troops that the Company no longer cared for them.  Certain actions of the government, such as increased recruitment of Sikhs and Gurkhas, peoples considered by the Bengal sepoys to be inferior in caste to them, increased the distrust of the sepoys who thought that this was a sign of their services not being needed any more. The transfer of the number 66th which was taken away from a regular Bengal sepoy regiment of the line disbanded over refusal to serve without batta, and given to a Gurkha battalion, was considered by the sepoys as a breach of faith by the Company.[17]

text: At the beginning of the nineteenth century, British officers were generally closely involved with their troops, speaking Indian languages fluently; participating in local culture through such practices as having regimental flags and weapons blessed by Brahman priests; and frequently having native mistresses. Later, the attitudes of British officers changed with increased intolerance, lack of involvement and unconcern of the welfare of troops becoming manifest more and more. Sympathetic rulers, such as Lord William Bentinck were replaced by arrogant aristocrats, such as Lord Dalhousie, who despised the troops and the populace.  As time passed, the powers of the commanding officers reduced and the government became more unfeeling or distant from the concerns of the sepoys.[18]

text: Officers of an evangelical persuasion in the Company's Army (such as Herbert Edwardes and Colonel S.G. Wheler of the 34th Bengal Infantry) had taken to preaching to their Sepoys in the hope of converting them to Christianity.[19]

text: The General Services Enlistment Act of 1856 required new recruits to serve overseas, if asked. The serving high-caste sepoys were fearful that this requirement would be eventually extended to them, violating observance of the Kala Pani prohibition on sea travel.[20] Thus, the Hindu soldiers viewed the Act as a potential threat to their faith.[21]

text: In 1857, the Bengal Army contained 10 regular regiments of Indian cavalry and 74 of infantry. All of the Bengal Native Cavalry regiments and 45 of the infantry units rebelled at some point. Following the disarming and disbandment of an additional seventeen Bengal Native Infantry regiments, which were suspected of planning mutiny, only twelve survived to serve in the new post-mutiny army. Once the first rebellions took place, it was clear to most British commanders that the grievances which led to them were felt throughout the Bengal army and no Indian unit could wholly be trusted, although many officers continued to vouch for their men's loyalty, even in the face of captured correspondence indicating their intention to rebel.[22]

text: The Bengal Army also administered, sometimes loosely, 29 regiments of irregular horse and 42 of irregular infantry. Some of these units belonged to states allied to the British or recently absorbed into British-administered territory, and of these, two large contingents from the states of Awadh and Gwalior readily joined the growing rebellion. Other irregular units were raised in frontier areas from communities such as Assamese or Pashtuns to maintain order locally. Few of these participated in the rebellion, and one contingent in particular (the recently raised Punjab Irregular Force) actively participated on the British side.[23]

text: The Bengal Army also contained three "European" regiments of infantry, and many artillery units manned by white personnel. Due to the need for technical specialists, the artillery units generally had a higher proportion of British personnel. Although the armies of many Rajas or states which rebelled contained large numbers of guns, the British superiority in artillery was to be decisive in the siege of Delhi after the arrival of a siege train of thirty-two howitzers and mortars.[24]

text: There were also a number of regiments from the British Army (referred to in India as "Queen's troops") stationed in India, but in 1857 several of these had been withdrawn to take part in the Crimean War or the Anglo-Persian War of 1856. The moment at which the sepoys' grievances led them openly to defy British authority also happened to be the most favourable opportunity to do so.[25]

text: The Enfield Rifle[edit]

text: The rebellion was, literally, started over a gun. Sepoys throughout India were issued with a new rifle, the Pattern 1853 Enfield rifled musket—a more powerful and accurate weapon than the old but smoothbore Brown Bess they had been using for the previous decades. The rifling inside the musket barrel ensured accuracy at much greater distances than was possible with old muskets. One thing did not change in this new weapon — the loading process, which did not improve significantly until the introduction of breech loaders and metallic, one-piece cartridges a few decades later.

text: To load both the old musket and the new rifle, soldiers had to bite the cartridge open and pour the gunpowder it contained into the rifle's muzzle, then stuff the paper cartridge (overlaid with a thin mixture of beeswax and mutton tallow for waterproofing) into the musket as wadding, the ball being secured to the top of the cartridge and guided into place for ramming down the muzzle. The rifle's cartridges contained 68 grains of FF blackpowder, and the ball was typically a 530-grain Pritchett or a Burton-Minié ball.

text: Despite no discernible reason for a change in practice, some sepoys believed that the cartridges that were standard issue with the new rifle were greased with lard (pork fat) which was regarded as unclean by Muslims and tallow (cow fat) which angered the Hindus as cows were equal to a goddess to them. The sepoys' British officers dismissed these claims as rumours, and suggested that the sepoys make a batch of fresh cartridges, and grease these with beeswax and mutton fat. This reinforced the belief that the original issue cartridges were indeed greased with lard and tallow.

text: Another suggestion they put forward was to introduce a new drill, in which the cartridge was not bitten with the teeth but torn open with the hand. The sepoys rejected this, pointing out that they might very well forget and bite the cartridge, not surprising given the extensive drilling that allowed 19th century British and Indian troops to fire three to four rounds per minute. British and Indian military drills of the time required soldiers to bite off the end of the Beeswax paper cartridge, pour the gunpowder contained within down the barrel, stuff the remaining paper cartridge into the barrel, ram the paper cartridge (which included the ball wrapped and tied in place) down the barrel, remove the ram-rod, return the ram-rod, bring the rifle to the ready, set the sights, add a percussion cap, present the rifle, and fire. The musketry books also recommended that, "Whenever the grease around the bullet appears to be melted away, or otherwise removed from the cartridge, the sides of the bullet should be wetted in the mouth before putting it into the barrel; the saliva will serve the purpose of grease for the time being" This meant that biting a musket cartridge was second nature to the Sepoys, some of whom had decades of service in the Company's army, and who had been doing musket drill for every day of their service. The first sepoy who rebelled by aiming his loaded weapon at a British officer was Mangal Pandey who was later executed.[26]

text: Prophecies, omens, signs and rumours[edit]

text: There was rumour about an old prophecy that the Company's rule would end after a hundred years.[citation needed] Their rule in India had begun with the Battle of Plassey in 1757.

text: Before the rebellion, there were reports that "holy men" were mysteriously circulating chapatis and lotus flowers among the sepoys. Leader of the British Conservative Party and future prime minister Benjamin Disraeli argued these objects were signs to rebel and evidence of a conspiracy, and the press echoed this belief.[27][28]

text: After the rebellion, there was rumour in Britain that Russia was responsible.[28]


document_title: Battle of the Hornburg

question_text: who leads the elves to helm's deep

question_tokens: who leads the elves to helm 's deep

root

text: Battle of the Hornburg

text: The Battle[edit]

text: Strength[edit]

text: In the book The Lord of the Rings, The Two Towers, the size of the initial garrison at Helm's Deep for Rohan was nearly 1,000, but many more were coming into the fort from across Rohan. The estimated number of total Rohirrim defenders was 2,000[1] by the time Saruman's army arrived. Merry says that the force that left Isengard numbered 10,000 at least, most marching towards Helm's Deep and others heading off to the Fords of Isen. This number is later qualified by Gandalf: "I have about ten thousand Orcs to manage",[2] so considerably more than 10,000 when the Men of Dunland are added. Though the battle appears severely lopsided, as Uruk-hai were much better in battle than simple orcs, the defenders managed to hold the fort until a force of almost 1,000 men on foot[3] led by Gandalf along with a forest of Huorns arrived at dawn in the rear of the hosts of Isengard and surround the Uruks.

tag: p

text: Background[edit]

text: After being released from the influence of his malevolent adviser, Gríma Wormtongue, by the benevolent Wizard Gandalf, Théoden set out to the Fords of Isen, where his marshal Erkenbrand was fighting Saruman's forces. However, Théoden found out that they had been scattered. Gandalf advised him to take refuge in the Hornburg fortress of Helm's Deep, an area named after one of their kings. Gandalf then left on an unexplained errand. Théoden's army went to the area, where local people were commanded by a captain called Gamling the Old. Many of the forces there were very old or young. The women and children of Théoden's capital Edoras were safe in Dunharrow, led by the King's niece Éowyn.

text: The battle[edit]

text: The forces of Saruman, common Orcs and Uruk-hai, along with some orc-human hybrids (called "half-orcs and goblin-men" – which may have referred to or included the Uruk-hai themselves) and human Dunlendings, arrived at the valley of Helm's Deep in the middle of the night during a storm. Meanwhile, Legolas the Elf and Gimli the Dwarf agreed to compete to see which one could kill the most orcs.

text: The attackers quickly scaled over the first defence, Helm's Dike, forcing the defenders there to fall back to the fortress. When the Orcs were close, the defenders drove them back with arrows and stones, but they managed to get close to the wall after multiple charges. They attempted to break down the gate with a battering ram, but a sortie led by Aragorn and Éomer scattered the forces.

text: The Orcs and Dunlendings then raised hundreds of ladders to scale the wall. Aragorn and Éomer repeatedly motivated the tired defenders to repel the Orcs coming up the ladders. However, some Orcs had crept in through a culvert which let a stream out of Helm's Deep, and while the defenders were busy with the assault on the wall, they were suddenly attacked from behind. This was repulsed and the culvert was blocked up under Gimli's supervision.

text: However, the enemies re-entered the culvert and blasted a wide hole in the wall using an ambiguous explosive device invented by Saruman, a "blasting-fire". Some defenders then retreated to the Glittering Caves, Éomer, Gamling and Gimli among them, while others including Aragorn and Legolas retreated to the burg itself.

text: Soon Saruman's forces broke through the gate and gained entrance to the fortress. At this moment, however, the horn of King Helm was sounded, and a cavalry charge led by Théoden and Aragorn rode forth, followed by all the Rohirrim left inside. They cut their way through the Orcs and drove them back from the fortress walls.

text: Both armies then noticed that a strange forest had suddenly sprung up (actually the arrival of many Huorns) which blocked the escape route for the Orcs. Then Gandalf arrived on Shadowfax, with Erkenbrand and a thousand infantry – the remaining strength of the Rohirrim that had been routed at the Fords of Isen. They charged into the fray. The Dunlendings were so terrified of Gandalf that most of them dropped their weapons. The surviving Orcs fled into the "forest" of Huorns, where they were completely annihilated.

text: After the battle, those Dunlendings who surrendered were given amnesty by Erkenbrand and allowed to return home (much to their surprise, since Saruman had told them that the men of Rohan would burn all survivors alive). The Rohirrim required that all hostilities cease, and that the Dunlendings retreat behind the River Isen again and never recross while bearing arms. Before they were freed, though, the Dunlending captives were put to work in repairing the fortress.

text: Among the Rohirrim dead was Háma, captain of Théoden's personal guard and doorward of his hall (he plays a significant role in the previous chapter, "The King of the Golden Hall"). Háma had fallen defending the gate and the Orcs had hewed his body after he died, an atrocity that Théoden did not forget during the upcoming parley with Saruman. Gimli was wounded, but had killed 42 to Legolas's 41.

text: The "forest" of Huorns had disappeared the next morning, and the Orcs had been buried in an earthen-works hill known as "Death's Down".

text: Terminology[edit]

text: The event is sometimes called the Battle of Helm's Deep, a title which was never used by Tolkien but which is often used by readers and other fans, this has led to the misconception that the term "Helm's Deep" refers to the fortress. Properly speaking, the fortress is the Hornburg (Anglo-Saxon = horn fortress) and Helm's Deep is the ravine behind it. In one of his letters regarding a proposed film adaptation, Tolkien protested the use of Helm's Deep, stating that, "the 'defence of the Hornburg' would be a better title, since Helm's Deep, the ravine behind, is not shown" (Letters, 210).

text: Adaptations[edit]

text: In Ralph Bakshi's animated film[edit]

text: The Battle of the Hornburg is a key part of Ralph Bakshi's 1978 animated adaptation. However, it is never referred to by that name, or any other name. Bakshi incorrectly calls the fortress itself "Helm's Deep". As Gandalf says to Aragorn: "Halfway between Edoras and Isengard, there lies an old strong fortress that men call Helm’s Deep."

text: Some differences between the book and the film battles are:

text:
Bakshi does not elaborate on different kinds of Orcs through dialogue (as is true for the whole film), though some Orcs are clearly visually different from others.
Aragorn and Gimli repel a battering-ram crew by themselves, instead of Aragorn and Éomer leading a sortie against the ram.
Directly after this sequence, the "blasting-fire" is used to breach the wall. It is turned into magical projectiles resembling comets coming from Isengard (Aragorn, seeing them, calls out "Fire of Isengard!"). While Tolkien does not give detailed descriptions, "blasting fire" is clearly different in the book (as Orcs are said to have "brought" it).
More importantly, Éomer is not present at the start of the battle. Gandalf rides off to find him and his Riders (and explicitly says so), and returns with them at the end.

tag: ul

text: Peter Jackson's "Battle of Helm's Deep"[edit]

text: The Battle of the Hornburg is also a key part of Peter Jackson's film adaptation, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers.

text: In the context of the film, it is referred to as the Battle of Helm's Deep, and like Bakshi, Jackson identifies "Helm's Deep" with the fortress itself. As Gríma says to Saruman: "Théoden will not stay at Edoras ... They will flee to Helm's Deep, the great fortress of Rohan."

text: In the movie, 10,000 of Saruman's Uruk-hai (with no orcs of other races, Dunlendings or wargs to accompany them) lay siege to the fortress, which is defended by around 300 Rohirrim (before the battle, Legolas states their strength to be "three hundred against ten thousand", but he may have meant at that time, as more were fleeing to the fortress). Soon after, however, a large group of the Elves of Lórien join the defences. Elrond, at the prompting of Galadriel, sends the Elves under the command of Haldir of Lórien to reinforce the defence of the keep. During the battle, nearly all of the Elves are killed, including Haldir. The defenders suffer heavy losses, but hold out until dawn, when Gandalf arrives with 2,000[4] riders led by Éomer, who finally turn the tide of the battle and send Saruman's forces into retreat. In the Extended DVD version, the Huorns make an appearance, massacring the fleeing Uruk-hai after the battle, but were absent from the theatrical cut.

text: Peter Jackson gave himself a cameo appearance as one of the Rohirrim; he throws a javelin at the Uruks. Producer Barrie Osborne has a similar cameo, as a Rohirrim throwing a rock down on them.

text: The film contains many differences from Tolkien's work, and several of these differences concern the battle. These differences include:

text:
In an earlier scene, Gandalf is skeptical towards the Hornburg and suggests that the forces of Rohan should meet Saruman's army in the open field, an idea immediately rejected by Théoden. The opposite happens in the book: Théoden rides to reinforce Erkenbrand at the Fords of Isen; when it is learned that Erkenbrand was defeated and driven from the fords, Gandalf advises Théoden to divert his force to the Hornburg.
Before and during the battle, Jackson shows women and children of Rohan being sheltered within the Deeps, overseen by Éowyn. Later, he shows all boys able to carry weapons arming for battle. Aragorn comforts a boy named Haleth son of Háma (already dead at this point in the movie, but who dies before the gates of the Hornburg in the novel). In the text, the women and children of Edoras are sheltered at Dunharrow. However many of the folk from the Westfold had taken shelter in the Deeps after the defeat of Erkenbrand at the ford of Isen.
In the novel, the Orcs are temporarily delayed at Helm's Dike, while in the movie they march unhindered until they reach the walls.
In the novel, there are no other Elven archers besides Legolas present. Legolas merely wishes that they had a hundred archers of Mirkwood with them, and tells Gimli that his folk are busy with their own troubles. The Elves of Lothlórien and Mirkwood do withstand assaults by Sauron's armies; but these battles occur off stage. In his commentary on the Extended DVD version, Jackson said he wanted to show the sacrifice of the Elves in a visible fashion. Craig Parker, the actor who portrayed Haldir, suggested on his commentary his character was killed to show the consequences of battle as opposed to "boys running around hitting sticks together and wandering off at the end."
The ambiguous "blasting-fire" of the novel is interpreted as bombs containing a form of black powder, detonated by an Uruk carrying a torch with a glittering white flame.
Aragorn's parley is not featured. However, he and Gimli (whose height is used for comedic effect at the start of the battle) share a scene where they sneak through a side-door and he tosses the dwarf into a group of enemies who are battering down the doors to the keep.
The portrayal of Rohirrim reinforcements and Gandalf at the end of the battle differ; in the novel they are infantry led by Erkenbrand (while Éomer had fought at the Hornburg alongside Aragorn), whereas in the film they are cavalry led by Éomer. While Tolkien wrote that the Orcs were already demoralized by Théoden's cavalry charge before Gandalf arrived, the film encounter is somewhat more dramatic with the Orcs forming up an organized sheltron against the charging Rohirrim horseman but at last minute the Orcs' line falters after they are dazzled by sunlight.
At the end of the battle, Gimli wins the contest by 43 to Legolas' 42. In the novel the two of them share a light moment (a sign of their growing friendship after initial mistrust), where Legolas gives congratulations while Gimli complains that his axe was notched as his 42nd victim had an iron collar (Legolas, likewise, had one less kill in the book than in the movie, at 41). In the film (only in the extended edition), this is a comedy scene with Legolas shooting a dead Uruk and claiming a tie on the basis that it was moving, and then Gimli irately explaining that his axe was embedded in that Uruk's nervous system.
In the theatrical release, the elimination of the Orcs after Gandalf's charge is not seen. However, the Extended DVD Edition shows the Orcs fleeing into the "forest" of Huorns where they are promptly annihilated while the Rohirrim look on. In the novel, the Huorns' destruction of the Orcs is not realized until the next day.
In the novel, Treebeard and the Ents and Huorns go to war immediately upon the conclusion of Entmoot. In the film, they decide that the war is not their concern and Treebeard offers Pippin and Merry a lift to the edge of Fangorn. Pippin tricks Treebeard into taking them south by Isengard where the Ent witnesses the mass clearing of trees by Saruman's forces, upon which Treebeard promptly calls the Ents and Huorns off to war.

text: In the original script of the film, Elrond and Arwen had gone to see Galadriel in person, and it was Arwen who led the Elves to fight alongside the Rohan defenders. Arwen's involvement was rejected after Jackson revised the portrayal of her character from a "warrior princess" to a role closer to that of the book, but the Elves remained part of the battle since Jackson liked the concept.[5]


document_title: War crimes trial

question_text: when was the idea for putting war criminals on trial first developed

text: War crimes trial

text: History[edit]

text: This section only describes one highly specialized aspect of its associated subject. Please help improve this article by adding more general information. The talk page may contain suggestions. (July 2010)

tag: table

text: The trial of Peter von Hagenbach by an ad hoc tribunal of the Holy Roman Empire in 1474, was the first “international” war crimes trials and also of command responsibility.[1][2] Hagenbach was put on trial for atrocities committed during the occupation of Breisach, found guilty, and beheaded.[3] Since he was convicted for crimes, "he as a knight was deemed to have a duty to prevent", although Hagenbach defended himself by arguing that he was only following orders from the Duke of Burgundy, Charles the Bold, to whom the Holy Roman Empire had given Breisach.

text: In 1865, Henry Wirz, a Confederate officer, was held accountable and hanged for appalling conditions at Andersonville Prison where many Union soldiers died during the American Civil War.

text: After World War I, a small number of German personnel were tried by a German court in the Leipzig War Crimes Trials for crimes allegedly committed during that war.

text: Article 227 of the Treaty of Versailles, the peace treaty between Germany and the Allied Powers after the First World War, “publicly arraign[ed] William II of Hohenzollern, formerly German Emperor, for a supreme offence against international morality and the sanctity of treaties.”[4] The former Kaiser had escaped to the Netherlands, however, and despite demands for his extradition having been made, the Dutch refused to surrender him,[5] and he was not brought to trial. Germany, as a signatory to the treaty, thus was placed on notice as to what might occur in the event of a subsequent war.

text: After World War II, the phrase referred usually to the trials of German and Japanese leaders in courts established by the victorious Allied nations.

text: The most important of these trials were held in Nuremberg, Germany, under the authority of two legal instruments. One, the London Charter was signed by representatives of the United States, Great Britain, France, and the USSR in London on August 8, 1945; the other, Law No. 10, was promulgated by the Allied Control Council in Berlin on December 20, 1945.

text: The London Charter provided for the establishment of the International Military Tribunal, composed of one judge and one alternate judge from each of the signatory nations, to try war criminals. Under the London Charter, the crimes charged against defendants fell into three categories: crimes against peace, that is, crimes involving the planning, initiating, and waging a war of aggression; war crimes, that is, violations of the laws and customs of war as embodied in the Hague Conventions and generally recognized by military forces of civilized nations; and crimes against humanity, such as the extermination of racial, ethnic, and religious groups and other such atrocities against civilians.

text: On October 8, 1945, Anton Dostler was the first German general to be tried for war crimes by a U.S. military tribunal at the Royal Palace of Caserta in Caserta. He was accused of ordering the killing of 15 captured U.S. soldiers of Operation Ginny II in Italy in March 1944. He admitted into ordering the execution but said that he cannot be held responsible because he was just following orders from his superiors. The execution of 15 U.S. prisoners of war in Italy ordered by Dostler was an implementation of Hitler's Commando Order of 1942 which required the immediate execution of all Allied commandos, whether in proper uniforms or not, without trial if apprehended by German forces. The tribunal rejected the defense of Superior Orders and found Dostler guilty of war crimes. He was sentenced to death and executed by a firing squad on December 1, 1945, in Aversa.

text: The Dostler case became precedent for the Nuremberg trials of German generals, officials, and Nazi leaders beginning in November 1945 that using Superior orders as a defense does not relieve officers from responsibility of carrying out illegal orders and liable to be punished in court. This principle was codified in Principle IV of the Nuremberg Principles and similar principle were found in sections of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

text: Nuremberg trials[edit]

text: On October 18, 1945, the chief prosecutors lodged an indictment with the tribunal charging 24 individuals with a variety of crimes and atrocities, including the deliberate instigation of aggressive wars, extermination of racial and religious groups, murder and mistreatment of prisoners of war, and the murder, mistreatment, and deportation of hundreds of thousands of inhabitants of countries occupied by Germany during the war.

text: Among the accused were the Nationalist Socialist leaders Hermann Göring and Rudolf Hess, the diplomat Joachim von Ribbentrop, the munitions maker Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach, Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, Grand Admiral Erich Raeder and 18 other military leaders and civilian officials. Seven organizations that formed part of the basic structure of the Nazi government were also charged as criminal. These organizations included the SS (Schutzstaffel, Defense Corps), the Gestapo (Geheime Staatspolizei, Secret State Police), and the SA (Sturmabteilung, Storm Troops), as well as the General Staff and High Command of the German armed forces.

text: The trial began on November 20, 1945. Much of the evidence submitted by the prosecution consisted of original military, diplomatic, and other government documents that fell into the hands of the Allied forces after the collapse of the German government.

text: The judgment of the International Military Tribunal was handed down on September 30-October 1, 1946. Among notable features of the decision was the conclusion, in accordance with the London Agreement, that to plan or instigate an aggressive war is a crime under the principles of international law. The tribunal rejected the contention of the defense that such acts had not previously been defined as crimes under international law and that therefore the condemnation of the defendants would violate the principle of justice prohibiting ex post facto punishments. As with the Dostler case, it also rejected the contention of a number of the defendants that they were not legally responsible for their acts because they performed the acts under the orders of superior authority, stating that "the true test . . . is not the existence of the order but whether moral choice (in executing it) was in fact possible."

text: With respect to war crimes and crimes against humanity, the tribunal found overwhelming evidence of a systematic rule of violence, brutality, and terrorism by the German government in the territories occupied by its forces. Millions of persons were murdered in Nazi concentration camps, many of which were equipped with gas chambers for the extermination of Jews, Gypsies, and members of other ethnic or religious groups. Under the slave-labor policy of the German government, at least 5 million persons had been forcibly deported from their homes to Germany. Many of them died because of inhumane treatment. The tribunal also found that atrocities had been committed on a large scale and as a matter of official policy.

text: Of the seven indicted organizations, the tribunal declared criminal the Leadership Corps of the National Socialist Party, the SS, the SD (Sicherheitsdienst, Security Service), and the Gestapo.

text: Ad hoc tribunals[edit]

text: In May 1993, during the Yugoslav Wars following the massive war crimes, and acts of "ethnic cleansing" in the former Yugoslavia by Bosnian-Serb forces, the United Nations established the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, to try war criminals of all nationalities. The crimes indicted included grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. It was the first international tribunal since the Nuremberg Trials to do so. In 1994, the UN opened the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda following the April–June genocide in that country of Hutu nationals. In the ICTY nearly 161 individuals were indicted: 68% of Serb ethnicity. Croatian-Serb, Bosnian-Serb, Serbian, and Bosnian-Croat officials were convicted of crimes against humanity, and Bosnian-Serb leaders of genocide. It was the first tribunal in which sexual assault was prosecuted as a war crime. The tribunals, while effective in prosecution of individuals, proved to be a costly venture, and exposed the need for a permanent tribunal, which was eventually known as the International Criminal Court.


document_title: The First 48

question_text: when does new season of first 48 start

question_tokens: when does new season of first 48 start

text: The First 48

text: Title sequence[edit]

text: Until the 28th episode of the 12th season, the opening title sequence featured the conceptual statement "For homicide detectives, the clock starts ticking the moment they are called. Their chance of solving a murder is cut in half if they don't get a lead within the first 48 hours." The original soundtrack, opening title theme and dark ambient sound design for the overall program were composed by Chuck Hammer (2004–2006). Later composers included Brian and Justin Deming (2006–2008) and Paul Brill (2008–2018), who continued with a combination of dark ambient music integrated with sound design.

text: Episodes[edit]

text: Spin-offs[edit]

text: The series has several follow-up episodes entitled After the First 48—detailing the trials of those accused in previous episodes—and the aftermath of victims' survivors. The First 48: Missing Persons follows the same story format as the original series. The Killer Speaks, depicts convicted felons as they describe their crimes through their first-hand accounts. The latest spin-off, Marcia Clark Investigates: The First 48, follows a similar story format but focuses on highly publicized cases such as those of Casey Anthony, Drew Peterson and Robert Blake, presented by O. J. Simpson trial prosecutor Marcia Clark.

text: Reception[edit]

text: In 2016, a New York Times study of the 50 TV shows with the most Facebook Likes found that The First 48 "has a classic Black Belt audience pattern".[3]

text: Controversy[edit]

text: On November 18, 2009, 21-year-old Taiwan Smart was charged with two counts of second-degree murder of his two roommates in Miami's Little Haiti neighborhood.[4] His story aired later as an episode titled "Inside Job." Evidence later established that police made important mistakes in their investigation. Additionally, The First 48 misrepresented a key witness's statement on the program. Smart was released in June 2011 and has since sued the city of Miami for false imprisonment. The episode continues to air without correction.[4]

text: On May 16, 2010, a 7-year-old Detroit girl named Aiyana Jones was shot and killed during a "special weapons and tactics" (SWAT) raid that was filmed by The First 48 cameras.[5] Detroit SWAT unit raided the duplex while searching for a homicide suspect. On October 5, 2011, prosecutors charged the Detroit police officer with the involuntary manslaughter of Jones. Allison Howard, an A&E Television Network camera operator filming that night, was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice after lying under oath.[6] She pleaded no contest to obstruction of justice and was sentenced to two years of probation.[7]

text: The show's unprecedented access to police departments has generated some controversy because such access is not typically given to traditional local news media. Moreover, the show has been criticized for putting witnesses in danger by revealing their faces and their voices on a nationally televised program and for not being sensitive to what might happen to them in the form of retaliation. In response to such criticism, witnesses often ask producers to have their faces blurred out and voices changed or to speak off camera.


document_title: Our Souls at Night (film)

question_text: our souls at night where is it filmed

question_tokens: our souls at night where is it filmed

text: Our Souls at Night (film)

text: Plot[edit]

text: Louis Waters is a widower. One evening he is visited by Addie, a widow who lives next door. She invites him to sometimes sleep over - platonically - talking in bed to combat loneliness. They try it out, and like it. The community finds out, but assume it's a sexual relationship.

text: Addie's son dumps his child Jamie with her. Louis helps her care for him, and gets him a dog. After Jamie's father picks him up, Louis and Addie go on a trip and have sex.

text: Addie falls down and ends up in the hospital, and her son wants her to move in with him and Jamie. She does, and both she and Louis sleep alone. So Louis sends her a phone, and they start talking to each other after getting into bed. And the movie ends.

text: Cast[edit]

text:
Robert Redford as Louis Waters, a widower who lives next door to Addie, and Holly's father.[2]
Jane Fonda as Addie Moore, a widow who lives next door to Louis, Gene's mother, and Jamie's grandmother.[2]
Matthias Schoenaerts as Gene Moore, Addie's son and Jamie's father.[2]
Judy Greer as Holly Waters, Louis' daughter.[2]
Bruce Dern as Dorlan Becker[2]
Iain Armitage as Jamie Moore, Gene's son and Addie's grandson.[2]

text: Production[edit]

text: On July 7, 2016, Netflix hired Ritesh Batra to direct the film adaptation of Kent Haruf's novel Our Souls at Night, scripted by Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber.[3]

text: Principal photography on the film began on September 12, 2016 in Colorado Springs, Colorado, while it would also be shot in Florence.[4][2] Filming was completed on November 2, 2016.[5]

text: Release[edit]

text: The film had its world premiere at the Venice Film Festival on September 1, 2017.[6] It was released on September 29, 2017.[7]