Physics Video One - Inertial and Non-Inertial Frames of Reference

 My First Physics Video

Western History 153: How did slavery manifest itself in the Western World?

Slavery as an institution has a ubiquitous presence across a multitude of civilizations. In fact the absence of slavery for a prolonged period is more of the exception than the norm within the generalized timeline of  history.  People have been enslaved for a variety of reasons that include debt bondage, war imprisonment and the economic rationale of forced or unfree labour. 

Many slaves were tied to the land (serfs) while others were traded as one would commodities or property (chattel or traditional slavery). Whatever the rationale there is  no discounting the notion that slavery, despite its diversity of severity,  was largely a  dehumanizing experience for its victims. Its eradication in the Western world of what was once seen as a staple ought to be celebrated as a milestone in both the moral and legal development of the civilization.

The realization that it still exists elsewhere (some have put the global slave population at around 40 million – largely in West Africa and the Middle East according to the Global Slave Index – 71% of these are female and 1 in 4 are children) remains though as a blight on our universal humanity.

All of the great civilizations of the Ancient world – Egypt, Greece and Rome – made use of a slave workforce. While this brought with it economic benefits the downside of slave rebellions (such as though seen during Rome’s servile wars) added to the instability of the slave system. Slave numbers in the Roman world (largely white Europeans) numbered in the tens of millions.

Slavery during Roman Times source: historyonthenet.com

Within the European continent itself slavery decreased as populations grew after the Fall of the Roman Empire. It became more profitable to pay workers than to fund overseers/taskmasters to keep the slaves in check. The Catholic church took a hardline against the use of Christian slaves  (although this was not the case with respect to their stance on pagans, Muslims and other non-believers) and even though serfdom persisted until the mid 15^th century in Western Europe  by the year 1200 traditional slavery within the continent itself was largely a relic of earlier times. The Vikings who had engaged in slave trading had disappeared as a force and slave rebellions in the Arab world had weakened the appetite for European slaves.

Nevertheless the Mid-East slave trade that largely involved the Arabs and had a death toll of 18 million Africans and half a million Europeans lasted from the seventh to the nineteenth century.

Map showing how Africa was exploited for the Mid-East slave Trade source: cs.mcgill.ca

However on the European periphery (Russia for example) the institution (largely serfdom) still survived and with the colonization of the Americas the slave system was employed in the large single crop plantation system. Slave gang systems acted as processing lines.  They were imported from West Africa with the co-operation of local chieftains and slave traders (middlemen). Compensation for the traders was paid for by gold, trinkets, weapons and maize. 

Sir John Hawkins - Notorious British slave trader source: npr.org.uk

On almost all fronts the life of a slave was tragic. Most were acquired through inland raids by trader parties or sold to traders as part of the spoils of war. Wars were often initiated by local trading interests for the sole purpose of acquiring slaves. Many slaves were marched over great distances with captives often dying en route to the ports. At the ports the slaves were selected based on physicality and sold to the European or Arab interests. The slave population shipped across the ocean to the Americas was disproportionately male.

Map showing the Tran-Atlantic Slave Trade source: abolition. e2bn.org

Conditions on board the ships were horrendous. Privacy was non-existent and the slaves were chained together below deck in great filth often wallowing in their own waste. They were fed sustainable meals but this did not do much to reduce the horrors of the trans-Atlantic voyage that in itself cost many lives.

Upon arrival in the New World the slaves were sold to their new owners and then seasoned to acclimatize to the new conditions. While the seasoning work was often less intense then the brutal Plantation work (in sugar and cotton fields)  that followed, it too took a toll on the slaves. Adapting to a new environment with its novel diseases would prove costly.

Slaves on board a slave trade ship source: britannica.com

Historian Matthew White puts the death toll of the Atlantic Slave trade at 16 million making it the 10^th largest Genocide in human history. The trade lasted from 1452 to 1807 and involved the nations of France, Great Britain. Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and the United States. Slaves were acquired from the Ashanti, Benin, Dahomey, Kongo, Lunda and Oyo Kingdoms of Africa.  The chief colonies that received the slaves were Brazil, Carolina, Cuba, Georgia, Jamaica, Maryland, Saint-Domingue and Virginia. Much of the slave trade (especially the early part) coincides with the age of exploration.

Slaves being marched to the Trading Ports source: keepthefaith.co.uk
However by the 18^th century thinkers from the Scottish Enlightenment  (such as Adam Smith) made both an economic and moral case for the abolition of slavery. As a system it was simply incompatible with Liberalism. Opposition against slavery came as well from religious groups such as the Quakers. A strong Abolition movement would over the next century deal a sharp blow to slavery.

A breakdown of slavery deaths source: web.stanford.edu

Presidential....Election map 2020

This is how the situation looks right now. I think that Biden will take Wisconsin and Trump will win Florida and Arizona. Pa and Michigan are too close to call. Until Thursday I thought it was Biden's to lose in Pa. Trump though looks to have a legitimate shot in Michigan. Whatever happens the election will likely go down the wire. and we may have no answer on November 3rd. . Biden will likely win the popular vote by 2-3%.

Western History 152: Why did the War of 1812 occur?

Overlapping in time with the later portion of the Wars of the Napoleonic Era was the War of 1812 that lasted from 1812 to 1815. It was fought between Great Britain and the fledgling United States of America over the issue of maritime rights violations.

So how then did the situation come to be? American shippers had greatly prospered from trade with the French and the Spanish since the late 18^th century.  However the situation started to become more complicated when Napoleon set up his Continental System (1806) to isolate Britain as a trading power. The British responded with the so-called Orders in Council (1807). The Orders stipulated that neutral shippers had to acquire a trading license at British ports if they wished to trade with the French. If not they could be subject to attack by ships from the Royal Navy.

The decision by the British invoked a French response through the mechanism of the  Milan Decree (1807) that ordered the capture of ships that had been searched by the British. American shipping interests were caught in between this continental power struggle. They were open to attacks from both sides. For the Anglo-skeptic US President Thomas Jefferson this was a difficult predicament.

Battles of the War of 1812 source: thecanadianencyclopedia.ca

On top of all of this the Royal Navy was following  a policy of Impressment whereby  they seized American ships under the auspices of ferreting out  Royal Navy deserters.  This infringement of American rights reached a head when the US Navy frigate Chesapeake was fired on by a Royal Navy vessel and subsequently boarded. Three US citizens were seized forcing Britain to apologize for the incident to avert war.

However tension in the US congress remained high and in 1807 the Embargo Act was passed which forbade all export shipping from US ports while closing American ports to British ships. This however caused more problems than it solved. American shippers for one were not keen on the idea forcing congress to back track with a series of later acts. Meanwhile in France Napoleon claimed that he would exempt American ships from the Berlin Decree (the driving force behind the Continental system) and the later Milan follow-up as well. Britain though still refused to compromise on neutral shipping.

Meanwhile on the Indian Frontier of North America the Shawnee chief Tecumseh and his brother Tenskwatawa attempted to form a confederation to resist American encroachment on their land. The  Shawnee were defeated at the Battle of Tippecanoe in 1811 by the American Governor William Harrison (a future President) but the net effect was to drive his people into an alliance with the British. At the same time Canadian/British fears about American expansion  was also intensifying the situation.

Shawnee Chief Tecumseh source: the star.com

The American President, James Madison, was trapped as well between competing interests back home. War Hawks (such as Henry Clay) were demanding a defense of American honour. Western and Southern Interests supported expansion New Englanders tended to oppose it. At the end the former carried the day. The US acted on such sentiment and attacked Canada.

From a British perspective the war was seen as somewhat of a nuisance. London was preoccupied with the Napoleonic conflict. However they couldn’t stand by while Canada (which was part of the British sphere of influence) was attacked.  Isaac Brock (the British Commander) and Tecumseh chased the Americans back to Detroit. 

Depending who you ask (American, British/Canadian) each side claims that they won the War of 1812. While the British prevented an American invasion of Canada, burnt down the White House in 1814 and achieved victories at Queenston Heights (October 1812 – a  battle that cost Brock his life) and Chrysler’s Farm (Nov 1813), the Americans had a great deal of success as well.

The USS Constitution 'Old Ironside' battling and defeating the HMS Guerriere source: history.com

The Americans burnt York (modern day Toronto) and were victorious at Fort Stephenson, the Naval Battle on Lake Erie and the Battle of Thames. All of this occurred in 1813. In addition they followed this up  with a victory at Chippawa and a brave stance at Lundy’s Lane (although this was technically an American defeat) in 1814.

The British burning of the White House (1814) source: history.com

James Madison did flee Washington ahead of the burning of the White House but this proved to be only a temporary setback for the Americans who guaranteed their northern front with a victory at Plattsburg in 1814. The later Battle of Baltimore (which inspired the writing of the Star Spangled Banner by Francis Scott Key) was perhaps the most memorable moment for the Americans in the war. Although the American retreated they inflicted heavy casualties on the British.

By December 1814 both sides came to the table to work out a schedule for the ending of the War. The Treaty of Ghent was agreed on and  later ratified by the US Congress in February 1815. Before its ratification though the future President Andrew Jackson defeated British forces at the Battle of New Orleans , which was the last major engagement of the war. This helped the US secure its gains from the Louisiana Purchase.

Andrew Jackson at the Battle of New Orleans source: history.com

                

Western History 151: How did the Concert of Europe come about?

With the Napoleonic Era coming to an end the European powers were driven to ensure that the chaos engendered by both the French revolution and the coalition wars were not to be repeated. The Congress of Vienna was the step in this direction that sought to establish a balance of power that would limit and check the growth of nationalism and liberalism.

The Viscount of Castlereagh Britain’s Foreign minister and representative at Vienna, believed that European security was best maintained through avenues of diplomacy as opposed to active armed intervention. The Concert of Europe was his creation. Castlereagh  envisioned a situation where the powers of the Quadruple Alliance (Britain, Austria, Prussia and Russia) would use regular diplomatic conferences to resolve the crisis at hand.

Viscount Castlereagh source: historicalportraits.com

Four conferences were called. The first, the Congress of Aix-la-Chappelle (1818), admitted France to the concert of powers. Later conferences were held at Troppau (1820), Laibach (1821) and Verona (1822).  Unfortunately for Castlereagh he was often in the minority in his opposition to strong military interference. His liberal view often clashed with the reactionary position taken by the other powers (usually led by Metternich of Austria). in this respect the Big  Powers would use the concert system to formalize military action to quell uprisings in both Italy (1820) and Spain (1822). In fact a grouping of three of these powers (Austria,, Prussia and Russia) was formed (the so-called Holy Alliance) to oppose liberalism and its secularist intentions..

A meeting of one of the Conferences called. source: www.ehne.fr

The British public grew weary of Castlereagh's involvement in the anti-Liberal Concert and within time public sentiment would shift favouring British withdrawal from the system and the establishment of a more single focused 'go-it-alone' Pax Britannica for the island nation. Britain's powerful navy would serve as the backbone for this initiative.

Nevertheless British Romantics such as Lord Byron urged and secured London's backing for the Greek revolt against the Turks in 1821. Heavy fighting between the Greeks and Turks continued until 1829. The Wars most famous Battle was the naval skirmish at Navarino (1827) which saw the Allied forces of Russia, France and Britain victorious over their Ottoman foes thereby securing Greek independence.

Lord Byron - Poet and lover of Greek Classics. He fought in the Greek Civil War but lost his life at the Siege of Missolonghi in April 1824. source: the parisreview.com

Western History 150: What was the Congress of Vienna?

The Congress of Vienna met between September 1814 and June 1815 to re-draw the map of Europe in light of what appeared to be the end of the Napoleonic Era. In actuality the Battle of Waterloo occurred shortly after the Final Act of the Congress however this did not significantly alter the agreements reached in Vienna. 

From a philosophical standpoint the main function of the Congress was predicated on restoring the necessary Balance of Power as a safeguard against future instability on the Continent. In terms of overall scope the agreements reached represented the largest treaty yet in western history.

The key powers involved at the Congress were the Big Four (although there many smaller players) - Austria, Great Britain, Prussia and Russia.

Klemens von Metternich represented Austria on behalf of Emperor Francis II while Karl von Hardenberg was the voice of the Prussian Kaiser Frederick Wilhelm II. Tsar Alexander I negotiated on behalf of Russia with British Foreign Minister, Viscount Castlereagh representing His Majesty's Government. Napoleon has been exiled to Elba and replaced by the restored Bourbon monarch Louis XVIII who sent Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand to forward French interests.

Klemens von Metternich - A key player at the Congress of Europe. Source: thefamouspeople.com

Charles Maurice de Talleyrand - A chameleon like figure who had a knack for survival (he escaped both the ramifications of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars) 

Source: the famouspeople.com

An unfortunate feature of the Congress was the infighting. The Big Four looked to dominate the Congress but Talleyrand safeguarded France's position by appealing to some of the Congresses smaller players.

One area that created much friction was the division of German territory with a Prussian/Russian alliance clashing with a French/British/Austrian grouping. Nevertheless a great deal of territorial compromise did take place if we  juxtapose the map of Europe in 1812 to that after the Congress of Vienna.

Before Vienna the map of Europe looked something like this.

Europe in 1812 source: www.britannica.com

After Vienna it had changed to what is shown below.

Europe in 1815 source: www.britannica.com

In short Russia obtained control of Poland but surrendered Galicia to Austria. Prussia lost territory in Saxony but was compensated elsewhere in Germany (they also took over Swedish Pomerania). The Kingdom of the Netherlands was formed joining together the United Provinces and Belgium. Austria now had control of Lombardy and Venice in Italy and other regions of Southern Germany. A confederation was put in place in Germany although it was not very strong and Switzerland was granted a new constitution.

In the Italian sub-continent Piedmont's position was strengthened with their influence extended to Genoa. The Papal State was returned to the Pope ending a turbulent time in the history of the Church that in 1809 had seen the annexation of the Papal States by Napoleon and the imprisonment of the Pope.

Politically the Congress of Vienna sought to roll back the hands of time (in a sense it was reactionary). It favored the Big Powers and took a harsh stand against both nationalism and liberalism. While it did ensure a certain degree of stability in the content for the next forty years, the agreements reached would ultimately be shaken by the Revolutions of 1848 but more importantly by the Italian and German Unification drives that would feature prominently later in the 19th century. 

Source: https://www.diplomacy.edu/resources/general/persuasion-through-negotiation-congress-vienna-1814-1815

Western History 149: What was the significance of Napoleon in the long run?

The Napoleonic Era together with its predecessor the French Revolution represents watershed periods in the History of Western Civilization. Our modern political dichotomy – left versus right – emerges from the latter but it is with Napoleon that we see the genesis of the totalitarian state and the politics of nationalism.

Napoleon was not the first absolute ruler however he was the first to suffuse the trappings of the nation state, the scientific revolution, the will to power and populist glory to cement such a regime. France during the Napoleonic Era was a police state. Loyalty to the Emperor was paramount and Joseph Fouché who served as the Minister of Police ensured that the Bonaparte vision was articulated and enforced on the domestic front (although he would later conspire against Napoleon during the Hundred days). The establishment of the French consulate (1799-1804) was the earliest sign that opposition to Napoleon would be short-circuited. While the two powerful figures did clash Napoleon was ever cautious to tread lightly with his Minister of Police as he needed Fouché’s guile to diffuse the many conspiracies directed against the Emperor.

The police state ensured Napoleon’s survival in a France where the maintenance of political power since the Revolution was always tenuous. By codifying the Law and utilizing the police Napoleon could stay ahead of his enemies. It was a bizarre fusion. On one hand Napoleon respected the French Revolution for its emphasis on the Rights of Man but at the same time he was a staunch collectivist who saw the state as all encompassing, driven of course by a new enlightened figure of which he was the most authentic. The police were his necessary adjuncts.

Napoleon’s blood-stained march across Europe and the great French expansion was critical in that it helped spread the ideological gains of the French Revolution across the continent. Bonaparte was its main vehicle and Europe as he saw it, would eventually welcome what the French had to offer. In terms of the Hegelian March of History he was as he saw it on the right side of a revealed directionality.

However like most dictators Napoleon deluded himself.  As was  the case of military figures before him he was eventually brought down by his own success. If anything French expansion encouraged a counter-nationalism that bit back hard against Gallic Imperialism (look at Spain during the Peninsular War) sowing the seeds for his downfall.

Yes he had spread the ideals of the French Revolution but in doing so had morphed into a modern guardian of Ancien Regime absolutism that was simply unpalatable to those who were not French. His national chauvinism would not sit well in the longer term even if it was couched in the trappings of modernism and the science of a brand new era.

For later dictators the ‘rise and fall’ of Napoleon offered an eerie reminder that not all share a certainty of one’s inspired vision, especially when such an outlook threatens the lifeblood of freedom and what it is to be a people.

Western History 148: What events followed Napoleon's disastrous Russian campaign?

A Sixth Coalition was assembled to face Bonaparte’s France in 1813. The coalition included Russia, Prussia, Austria, Britain, Sweden, Spain  plus several minor players. It was the largest coalition yet organized to face Napoleon.

The French Emperor responded by raising what was to be known as the ‘New Army'.  His forces acted swiftly defeating a Russia/Prussia army at the Battle of Lützen, however the French failed to take strategic advantage of this win . Later victories followed at Bautzen and Dresden. This momentum ground toa  halt though in the days between October 16^th and 19^th  when the French were decisively defeated at the pivotal Battle of Leipzig  (also known as the Battle of Nations). The New Army suffered 38,000 casualties with over 100,000 soldiers taken prisoner in the aftermath.

Battle of Leipzig (1813) source: emperornapoleon.com

With confidence the Coalition forces pressed forward into France winning fights at Brienne, Champaubert, Montereau and Rheim.  Paris would eventually fall on May 31st. Napoleon was now in the hands of his captors who sent him to exile on the island of Elba. Soon afterward the process leading to the signing of Treaty of Paris was initiated with the intent of restoring the pre-1793 borders.

However Napoleon’s exile was only temporarily.  On the 20th March 2015 he returned with a hero’s welcome to Paris. The Little Corporal was back but he would face an even more daunting task if he sought to recover his previous status. A Seventh Coalition that included most of Europe - other than France and Naples - was established to fight against him. Coalition forces were led by Peninsular War veteran the Duke of Wellington and the Prussian general Gerhard Leberecht von Blücher. It was in Belgium that the forces of both sides would collide. The early skirmishes at Ligny and Quatre-Bras though were inconclusive.

Napoleon’s final defeat occurred on the June 18^th, 1815 at the very significant Battle of Waterloo. The French went on the offensive immediately with a force of 71,000 troops but they failed to break the British/Dutch line that was 66,000 strong. This brave defense earned the coalition enough time until they were relieved by the  arrival of 45,000 Prussians. A Prussian/British counterattack drove forward and  broke the French line.  There was no recovery. France had been defeated.

Field Marshal Prince Von Blücher source: ageofrevolution.org

Battle of Waterloo source: battleofwaterloo.org

Soon afterward Napoleon was forced to abdicate and this time he would be exiled to the British controlled island of St. Helena in the South Atlantic.  The  Treaty of Paris was signed on Nov 20^th ending the era of the Napoleonic wars. Re-drawing the map of Europe would be given priority. This was the ultimate purpose of the Congress of Vienna that followed. Looking backwards historians classify the period from  Napoleon's return to Paris to the restoration of the Bourbon monarch Louis XVIII on the 8th of July as the Hundred Days

As for Napoleon he would die in exile on St. Helena on May 5^th, 1821. Some have suggested that he was murdered by his enemies who were ever fearful of his return to the continent

Death of Napoleon source: shannoneslin.com

Thought for the Day

The pursuit of  meaning is more important then the chase of  happiness. The former endures and will ultimately provide the latter.

Great rivalries in sport....Sebastian Coe versus Steve Ovett

As a child of the late 70's and a teen of the 80's I was fortunate to witness the running rivalry of Britain's Sebastian Coe and Steve Ovett. Together with countryman Steve Cram (who was still more of the other guy) the three dominated middle distance running during this time period. Coe (now Lord Coe) was the greatest of the three rivals. Here is a list of his achievements:

1979 - Coe sets world record in 800m, 1 mile and 1,500m. He holds all three records simultaneously.
1980 - Wins 1500m at Moscow Olympics and is runner up to Ovett at 800m. Each won each other's speciality at this Olympics.
1980 - Breaks World Record in 1,000m.
1981 - Betters time on 1,000m. New Record will stand for 18 years. Breaks record for the mile twice. Sets time of 1 minute 41.73 seconds for the 800m. This record will stand until 1997 (it was broken by Danish/Kenyan Wilson Kipketer).
1982 - Is part of relay team that sets the world record in the 4 x 800m. The record will stand for 24 years.
1984 - Wins silver in the 800m (behind Joaquim Cruz of Brazil) and takes gold in the 1500m at the Los Angeles Olympics.
1986 - Wins 800m at European Championships. Is voted best athlete for the fourth time in his career.

Sebastian Coe source: european-athletics.org

To see Coe's amazing 800m world record run go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0e1yaMIM08

Ovett's achievements should not be scoffed at either.

1976 - Finishes fifth at the Montreal Olympics in the 800m behind legendary Cuban runner,
Alberto 'the horse' Juantorena (who won both the 400m and the 800m that year)
1977 - Wins gold at the IAAF World Championships in the 1500m defeating the favourite New Zealand's, John Walker.
1978 - Takes 1500m Gold at the European Championship. Sets World Record in the 2-mile.
1980 - Wins Gold in Moscow in the 800m but only finishes third in the 1500m. Breaks mile world record and equals Coe's time at 1500m. Breaks world record in 1500,
1981 - Exchanges world records with Coe in the mile - three times in 10 days.

Steve Ovett source: thepowerof10.info

Here is some footage of Cram vs Ovett in their inspiring duel at Crystal Palace in 1983.
ww.youtube.com/watch?v=X87JPlY8TkU

On Epistemology - The Study of the Nature of Knowledge.

I am prepared to admit with a sense of pride that I am a lover of knowledge. However like all those with a similar affection I am mindful of ensuring that what I accept as real knowledge is in fact exactly that. Philosophy has realized this problem from the early days of its Athenian youth

The earlier Milesian Greeks had more of a rudimentary understanding of epistemology and appeared to be more concerned with the nature of things - in a sense they were the first theoretical physicists.

A sceptic would have one reject all that there is and build upwards from a non-reducible point. For Descartes this was the working of his own mind, for others its the basic axioms of mathematics and logic while a third group puts faith (and indeed it is a faith) on the competency of sense. Many object to the three approaches altogether preferring an external metaphysical explanation that transcends both rationality and experience. However such a line of thought seems anathema to the Western Philosophical tradition that sees an explanations within itself.

In my thinking on this topic I have noticed that many thinkers are much better at destroying structures that have been built than creating sturdier constructs the next time round. In fact our philosophical tradition is inherently critical in a way that screams 'destruction'. Its no wonder that after 2000 plus years of bashing and building we are no further ahead in our overall understanding of some of the big questions in epistemology than we were at the times of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Yes, we have terminology and lots of it but are we much better for that?

This does not mean that all avenues of human intellectual pursuit have been so convoluted. Scientific progress is real as have been advances in other areas of philosophy (particularly ethics and politics) but I am still not convinced that epistemology itself has even progressed forward.

Perhaps it can be argued that epistemology is one of those subject areas that abhors an absolutist system of measurement. In fact it can be further articulated that its strength lies in cementing relationships between other disciplines, a process that indeed defies analysis based on looking at the field of study as a stand alone entity. This is indeed a possibility which I will investigate further.

Why I loathe Collectivism and champion Individualism.

This fifteen minute clip deconstructs the notion of collectivism and makes an excellent case for the Individual. At this time when freedoms are more and more under threat it is more pertinent than ever.

Western History 147: What was the purpose of Napoleon’s Russian campaign and what was the end result?

Napoleon invaded Russia in 1812 to force the country to support the Continental System - his trade embargo against Britain. Officially though he titled the invasion as the Second Polish War where he advanced the narrative of liberating Poland from Russia,

The invasion began on  June 24, 1812. When the  French Grande Armée of 680,000 men crossed the Neman River. While 81% of the soldiers were French this vast  military juggernaut had a substantial Polish, Austrian, Italian and German contingent.

Between the 16^th and 18^th of August the  Armée defeated the Russians at the Battle of Smolensk pushing the bulk of the Russian force into retreat. It was at this point that the Cossacks started burning villages and land ahead of the French Army in what historians have described as a Scorched Earth policy. The Russians would continue their retreat for the next three months.

On September 7^th the two sides faced off the Battle of Borodino which provided a French victory. However the success came at a high cost. When the French entered Moscow they found the city ablaze and Tsar Alexander I refusing to sue for peace.

Six weeks later the French won another victory at the  Battle of Maloyaroslavets  however the Russians continued their policy of retreat.

Naploleon's Russian Campaign source: www.historyhome.co.uk

The Scorched Earth  policy was  working. An army marches on its stomach  and the French started to suffer from a lack of food and fodder for the animals. They began a long retreat as a harsh winter set in.

French forces retreating from Russia source: history.com

On the march back the French forces were harassed by Peasant and Cossack units. Hypothermia sets in as a mounting death rate took a heavy toll. The Invasion proved to be a tragedy. Troops of  the Armée  were decimated. 380,000 died  and a further  100,000 were captured on return. At the end only 27,000 soldiers  remained when the French crossed  the Berezina River. 

For Napoleon this was the biggest blow to both his prestige and military might and would encourage a new round of coalition wars. If ever there was a turning point on the road to glory this was it. It was the beginning of the End for the Little corporal.

Marshal Ney - One of Napoleon's most loyal Generals. His unit was the last to return to France (December 1812).

The Events of Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace are set in the back drop of Napoleon's invasion of Russia. source: the guardian.com

How many Jihadist groups are there?

My answer on Quora.

Since the Second World War the growth of the Armed Jihad (which has all too often been infused with petrodollars) has been substantial. So much so that I don’t believe that we can nail down with certainty the number of these Jihadist groups that do exist. A figure close to one hundred is likely.

It looks at the troika of intellectuals and activists - Hasan al-Banna, Sayyid Qutb and Syed Abul A'la Maududi - who had a key role in propagating the Doctrine of the Armed Jihad  (DAJ) throughout the Sunni Ummah (Islamic community) The story is rather fascinating.

Source; Sayyid Qutb - Leading thinker behind the philosophy of the Armed Jihad source:jewishreviewofbooks.com

Worth noting is that the DAJ in the form expressed by the ’Big Three’ is a Sunni movement. There are some Shi’ite equivalencies but it is vital to make a distinction between these two branches of Islamism. Shi’a terrorism is usually centrally funded by Iran/Syria and its proxy Army, Hezbollah who enjoy substantial support in Lebanon. In the 2009 election for example they won 93.1% of the Shi’ite vote.Hezbollah’s Influence in Lebanon. Their influence cannot be understated. Hezbollah: Revolutionary Iran’s most successful export.

Hezbollah are by far the most dominant force responsible for Shi’a terrorism although other groups such as the Islamic Jihad Organization (IJO) have been active in the past. It was the IJO that was responsible for the attack on the US embassy in Beirut in 1983 that killed 64 people (including the suicide bomber) and injured 120 others. They were also involved in the same year in the Beirut barracks bombings that took the lives of 305 people (241 US military personnel, 58 french military personnel, 6 civilians + 2 suicide bombers).

As of 2017 Iran is still seen as the leading state exporter of terrorism. Iran still top state sponsor of terrorism, U.S. report says.

I have yet to find reliable information on the number of Shi’a splinter groups.

The largest cohort of Sunni Jihadist related groups are those that are affiliated with Salafi-Jihadism. Practioners follow an extreme version of the DAJ that plays an important role in the ideological underpinnings of Abu Sayyaf , Al-Qaeda, Al Shabaab and Daesh (ISIL/ISIS) etc.

The growth of Salafi-Jihadism over time is shown in the graph below. Unlike the Shi’a Terrorist infrastructure there is less state control over activities and a greater number of smaller splinter groups.

Source: (Data from A Persistent Threat, The Evolution of al Qa’ida and Other Salafi Jihadists, Seth G. Jones, 2014, Figure 3.1)

The Chief locations where the Salafist groups operate are shown below:

An excellent study of the extent of the Jihadist threat was published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in 2018. It concluded that there were four times as many Sunni militants in 2018 as there were at the time of 911. The authors of the report had this to say.

Based on a CSIS data set of groups, fighters, and violence, the regions with the largest number of fighters are Syria (between 43,650 and 70,550 fighters), Afghanistan (between 27,000 and 64,060), Paki­stan (between 17,900 and 39,540), Iraq (between 10,000 and 15,000), Nigeria (between 3,450 and 6,900), and Somalia (between 3,095 and 7,240). The Evolution of the Salafi-Jihadist Threat

The PDF link at the end of this answer takes you to the full report. I counted 98 Salafi-Jihadist groups. However as of 2020 this number may underestimate the number of groups.

One of the problems of coming up with an exact number for all groups (major and minor) is that they have a tendency, to split, reform, incorporate and amalgamate. Popular figures often create their own groups only to see them disappear as a distinct entity following the demise of the charismatic leader. Some smaller groups may only have a handful of members. The strength of the groups varies considerably.

Regional branches often develop into groupings in their own right. Alliances also shift. Many of which are driven more by convenience than ideology.

As an example, the Schematic below shows ISIS in Syria’s relationship with other groups including the Iranian backed Shi’ite Hezbollah. It is complex.(Graph source: KARA GORDON (DATA: MARTHA CRENSHAW, MAPPING MILITANT ORGANIZATIONS, STANFORD UNIVERSITY)

Fortunately ISIS has been in retreat for some time now. Its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdad was killed by a US strike in October 2019 but even before that it had suffered significant territorial losses in Syria and Iraq. However many believe that it has set up affiliates elsewhere. News of its full demise could be premature.The Inconvenient Truth About ISIS. Al Qaeda may also be gaining a second lease on life. Al Qaeda Is Ready to Attack You Again.

So a great deal is up in the air with respect to the exact number of Jihadist groups. The short answer is that nobody knows for sure although we can temporally ballpark the number. One hundred seems about right which in itself is a disturbing number.

Sources:

1. https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/publication/181221_EvolvingTerroristThreat.pdf (https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/publication/181221_EvolvingTerroristThreat.pdf)
2. Timeline: the Rise, Spread, and Fall of the Islamic State
3. What ISIS Will Become