View Full Version : legendary cavalry commanders
ever notice that the great leaders of the cavalry charge seem to have the same personality?
vain, personally fearless, not too bright, relentless in pursuit, single-minded almost to the point of obstinacy, very ambitious.
romance of the 3 kingdoms
lu bu
alexandrian era
philotas
napoleonic era
blucher
murat
american civil war
hood
sheridan
wwii
patton
reading biographical info on these guys is like seeing the same persona over and over again. 'i will charge, and if i win i will charge again, and if i am defeated i will charge again, and if my troops have no strenght left, then i will charge...'
this of course doesn't include cav archer commanders who used different tactics and i guess needed a different type of personality to be successful.
on a minor note, i also think ney was mis-promoted when nappy made him a divisonal commader. the corsican should have kept him like bessieres or murat in his cav reserve or guard. cuz ney kept on trying to make his infantry fight like cavalry which led i.m.o. to many useless deaths.
------------------
indeed
chilliwilli
07-25-2002, 22:07
Yep, even The Mongols had a few of those.
Only exception is they were bright(especially Tamerlane.) and not to vain, but the other traits certainly apply to them.
Actually, Patton was one smart cookie. So was Murat. I can't speak as to the others, as I know very little of them.
I also don't see why you feel the need to slight Ney.
Perhaps you should do some more research, my friend. I have very similar interests to yours, have probably read some of the same sources as you.. and I don't see any basis for your statements.
Just my humble opinion,
Del
P.S.: Not to say that I can disagree with you on a few of the points, perhaps about vanity and ambition. Clausewitz makes a very good analysis of the personality types befitting various sorts of commanders. I highly recommend his book.
[This message has been edited by Del (edited 07-26-2002).]
wasn't trying to slight ney, sorry if that was the way it came across, i was just arguing that he would have been better utilized as an all cavalry force commader.
------------------
indeed
Ah, ACW without J.E.B. Stewart? And Forrest? And Mosby? Yikes!
Can't forget Custer too.
John Bell Hood was fine until he was asked to run a whole army. Then he was a disaster. Look what happened at Franklin.
RageMonsta
07-31-2002, 06:55
Magyar Khan does ok aswell!
Stephen Hummell
07-31-2002, 08:36
Good ol' JEB Stuart. Best cav. commander of the ACW.
I think Nate Forrest was the best. He was smarter than Stuart. JEB did blow it on the way to Gettysburg.
------------------
CONITOERGOVINCO
Toda Nebuchadnezzar
08-01-2002, 20:18
I always thought Amp was a cav commander?
Oh well other good cavalry commanders?? Can't think of any actually, Perhaps Atilla the Hun???
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/eek.gif http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/rolleyes.gif http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif
------------------
Jaguara-Spoken like a TRUE SPAMMER Toda!
No Fear Legend.
Stephen Hummell
08-02-2002, 00:25
JEBs men were the best cavalrymen of the ACW. JEB was the best in the early years of the ACW. Attila was a great cav. commander.
Best general of modern warfare, I mean within the last 100 years.
MacArthur, Eisenhower, Rommel.....
chilliwilli
08-02-2002, 22:16
Attila wasn't an outstanding commander. He had excellent horseman at his disposle and really just told them where to strike. Even when he led a force into battle(Catalaunian Fields) he didn't show any amazing generalship in my opinion. Some other good calvary commanders are Subedei and Belisarius.
[This message has been edited by chilliwilli (edited 08-02-2002).]
eastern storm
08-05-2002, 03:05
kit buqa he was hulegu best general mongol of course but a nestorian christian as was his wife?
[This message has been edited by eastern storm (edited 08-05-2002).]
chilliwilli
08-06-2002, 02:46
Hulegu was not the best Mongol general his success wasn't that great(he faced opponents who were already beaten and just had to rampage through The Middle East with little effort.) and he didn't see battle as much as other Mongols. Best Mongol general is either Subedei or Jochi. Jebe is a close 3rd.
eastern storm
08-06-2002, 04:27
Do you mean jebe[nickname the the arrow who nearly killed genghis?].
I did not mean hulegu was a good general .
I meant kit buka was who i think was killed fighting the mamluks.
What people dont seem to understand that the carnage wrought by the mongols nearly destroyed islam and brought europe to the forefront as in invention industrialistion/etc. As the former muslim states never recovered in fact to this day some places have never recovered that were in the mongol path.
As the europeans were kind of seen as backward then.
thus thanks to the mongols this enabled the europeans to come to the forefront and not be over taken.
Wavesword
08-06-2002, 05:06
A Moslem general called Caleb(?) was an important factor in the success of Arab expansion. In a number of battles his forces arrive 'in the nick of' time. He also had a somewhat legalistic understanding of treaties which led to such acts as his releasing the defenders of a place from molestation for 3 days if they would surrender it. Naturally therefore he tracks them all into enemy territory and strikes at 3 days plus a little bit.
chilliwilli
08-06-2002, 06:57
Oh sorry didn't relize you meant kit buka well he wasn't really outstanding. I know he can't be blamed for the loss to The Mameluks, but you have to ask yourself can he be compared to the likes of Jochi, Jebe, and Subedei? I think not.
eastern storm
08-06-2002, 15:44
I agree with that? But the historical impact the mongols especially genghis and hulegu had on the muslims i think changed the course of history. Especially if you were muslim as they were more at an advanced stage of development than europe.
So probally by accident the mongols changed the course of history as we know today.
Do you mean jebe the arrow who nearly killed genghis and then served as one of his best generals?.
Thats a good book if you can get acopy reprint the secret life of the mongols .
written by the mongols about themselves.
probally the only book to do so.
the Count of Flanders
08-06-2002, 18:03
The Norman Bohemund in the first crusade was pretty good, and Baldwin I of Jerusalem/Boulogne of course.
Commanding Frankish knights can be very challenging!
chilliwilli
08-07-2002, 02:24
Yes, everyone knows that they changed The Muslim world. Just look at Afghanistan for example, do you know that the reason their country is in such bad shape is because Genghis Khan had their entire irrigation system destroyed?
Yes, I am talking about Jebe the youth who killed Genghis Khan's horse(Jebe didn't shoot the arrow into Genghis' jugular vein that almost killed him that was a just some archer from the enemy army.) he was a prodigy who showed exceptional generalship(wich some never learn) and military skills at a young age.
Also the information from The Secret History of The Mongols has been put in every Mongol book out there, so most people have read it and not even known it.
Count, I agree commanding Frankish Knights can be a daunting task! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
hey Count,
was baldwin I, the crusader ruler who used to impress muslim emmisarries by beheading a camel with a single sword blow? or am i thinking of someone else?
------------------
indeed
the Count of Flanders
08-07-2002, 03:32
Quote Originally posted by nokhor:
hey Count,
was baldwin I, the crusader ruler who used to impress muslim emmisarries by beheading a camel with a single sword blow? or am i thinking of someone else?
[/QUOTE]
Hmmm, could very well be. I think it was his brother Godfrey of Bouillon though, but Baldwin also had a very impressive physique, but he impressed the muslems most with his daring (some would say suicidal) cavalry raids against muslem targets. The battles of Ramleh come to mind.
In the first battle he was facing an Egyptian army that outnumbered him at least 15-1. His tactic was unexpected and bold: head on cavalry charge. However the first wave was beaten back, as was the second wave. He set up a feigned flight and the Egyptians smelling a glorious victory recklessly pursued. Then Baldwin and his personal guard (probably no more than 100 knights) turned round, (the rest of the christian army was probably really running away) charged head on and completely routed the entire baffled egyptian army.
One year later he again encountered an Egyptian army some 20000 strong and decided once again on a head-on attack with his 300 knight strong scouting force. This time the Egyptians didn't break though and he was lucky to get out alive. Still he was probably the greatest crusader commander ever (I place him over Saladin).
Kamui_Imagawa
08-07-2002, 03:36
Personally, my favourite cavalry commander of all time just has to be oliver cromwell...He was a smart one and a great leader for his troops, gotta respect him!!!
------------------
The assasin of night is a dangerous foe, the assasin of day is extremely dangerous
Wavesword
08-07-2002, 04:07
Favourite Oliver Cromwell quote that could often be used here: "I beseech you, by the bowels of Christ, at least think it possible that you might be wrong."
------------------
Lay your sleeping head, my love,
Human on my faithless arm;
Time and fevers burn away
Individual beauty from
Thoughtful children, and the grave
Proves the child ephemeral:
But in my arms till break of day
Let the living creature lie,
Mortal, guilty, but to me
The entirely beautiful.
See, Bluecher was actually quite intelligent (despite believing he was pregnant with an elephant fathered by a French soldier) because he assigned the truly intelligent Gneisenau as chief of staff, thus negating his own lack of mental prowess.
BTW I believe Richard ceour de lion belongs in that list of cavalry commanders. All he really had going for him oustide of the attributes listed was an ability to time charges to perfection.
in all honesty, it was finding out about the bluecher/elephant thing, that prompted me to start this thread. i just got to thinking about these guys with their great martial prowess that had all these idiosyncracies.
------------------
indeed
Orda Khan
08-07-2002, 19:46
Jochi played a significant part in the defeat of Khwarazm but the mastermind behind the campaign was Subedei. Too many people overlook Jebei, for much of what was achieved was a joint effort, between Subedei and Jebei. You can bet that Jochi had been well trained by them. Jebei was a tremendous general who would have achieved much more had he not died when he did. Can you imagine the fate of Europe if these two had come back to carry out their plan?
------------------
" Send us your ambassadors and thus we shall judge whether you wish to be at peace with us or at war..if you make war on us the Everlasting God, who makes easy what was difficult and makes near what was far, knows that we know what our power is."
I say Wavesword, by the bowels of Christ, that is a great quote.
------------------
CONITOERGOVINCO
eastern storm
08-11-2002, 01:52
After long consideration it has to be genghis.
1/Uniting all the mongol tribes was no mean feat especially as he was captured and down to a handfull of followers at various points in this campaign.
With out this deed alone the mongols would not have come to be the fearsome force they were. As truces friendships were easily broken. Plus to blend this into one cohsive unit and to keep it all together was a feat in its self and make the mongols one unifying force. Then his conqests in china/europe/middle east speak for themselves. Not only was he a great leader and commander but after his death his legacy lived on in is sons and grandsons who went on to fullfill his ambitions and a dynsty that did not break up on his death.
chilliwilli
08-11-2002, 02:00
We are talking about great cavalry commanders, not life time achievements. We know what he did already and he had a strong will yes, but he only took command of armies while uniting Mongolia and once or twice in the middle east. Jochi and Subedei were the masterminds behind the numerous Mongol campaigns and took command of most of the armies themselves. Genghis Khan did come up with the many tactics of deceit that The Mongols used, but whether he was better at commanding cavalry than Jochi, Subedei, and Jebe is questionable.
[This message has been edited by chilliwilli (edited 08-10-2002).]
[This message has been edited by chilliwilli (edited 08-10-2002).]
Orda Khan
08-11-2002, 20:47
What campaigns did Jochi mastermind?
Chingis Khan had achieved a lot before Subedei joined his following Muqhali was also a great general.
Jochi gave a good account of himself in different campaigns. Jebei and Subedei were the greatest cavalry generals
...Orda
------------------
" Send us your ambassadors and thus we shall judge whether you wish to be at peace with us or at war..if you make war on us the Everlasting God, who makes easy what was difficult and makes near what was far, knows that we know what our power is."
chilliwilli
08-12-2002, 06:54
Jochi was the mastermind behind the famous "great raid" into Russia and surrounding areas. It kind of turned into a campaign because they had such great success capturing many cities with a force of maybe 10,000 men. It is considered one of the greatest raids in military history. Subedei was just along for the ride.
Orda Khan
08-12-2002, 08:15
You mean the reconnaissance force led by Jebei and Subedei of some 20000 or so, who were so successful at Kalkha and then rode on to meet Jochi at the Volga?
The following invasion of Russia was also down to Subedei, Batu, although at its head still took his advice from Subedei.
During this period there were many skillful generals in the Mongol army. For instance look at the devastation that Tolui caused.
But if we talk of cavalry here do we mean mounted armies or cavalry units?
....Orda
------------------
" Send us your ambassadors and thus we shall judge whether you wish to be at peace with us or at war..if you make war on us the Everlasting God, who makes easy what was difficult and makes near what was far, knows that we know what our power is."
chilliwilli
08-13-2002, 03:21
I think we just mean cavalry units not entire mounted armies(mounted armies are good too though), so anyone who was head of a unit of cavalry is eligible for the status of great cavalry commander.
eastern storm
08-14-2002, 23:09
with out genghis uniting all the tribes of the mongol the achievements of jochi/subedei/jebi / would have not have happened.
were they or would they be capable of uniting the tribes ?
what i trying to say is with out genghis none of all there exploits would have happened and the world might have been differant.
i know its a case off if only but with out genghis would we talking about this subject now? who knows.
MagyarKhans Cham
08-17-2002, 06:01
Subudei
discussions ends here http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
this is beyond moot now, but my original idea on this was to concentrate on those guys leading a heavy cav charge against incredible odds and beating their enemies with a certain elan. i wanted to avoid the steppe archers and the pro/anti mongol discussion. for it seems to me that those are 2 distinct types of generalship. should have been more specific in the beginning. and off topic, i think mukhali was the greatest mongol general.
------------------
indeed
Forward Observer
08-19-2002, 01:10
One of my favorite quotes is attributed to
Nathan Bedford Forrest: "Get there firstest with the mostest" Not a bad rule of strategy, and to the point.
Cheers
------------------
Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl.
Yoshitsune
08-19-2002, 01:33
Cromwell is a very good choice for the 17th Century. He was the only commander that could exert *discipline* over a force of cavalry at this time - an arm traditionally made up of unruly toffs. His control over his cavalry regulary decided the outcome of a battle. The New Model Army was a genuinely radical development for its time.
Murat? - never had to face to face British musketry and squares.
JEB Stuart, Forrest, Mosby et al? - expert raiders against soft or ambushed rear elements but of no use during a pitched battle. Yeah, Forrest was great at murdering captured blacks like at Fort Pillow. Why wasn't he ever tried for that war-crime?
eastern storm
08-19-2002, 02:47
A modern version would be leiutenant general vasily i chuikov.
The real hero of stalingrad. not only did he stop three assualts on the city but was there at the destruction of the 6th army.
One of the turning points of the second world war and the shattering of german supremecy that ended in the final battle in berlin.
Forward Observer
08-19-2002, 05:19
Quote Originally posted by Yoshitsune:-----Yeah, Forrest was great at murdering captured blacks like at Fort Pillow. Why wasn't he ever tried for that war-crime? [/B][/QUOTE]
Invariably, someone always brings up the Fort Pillow incident when Forrest's name is mentioned. Sort of like focusing on the slapping incident when talking about Patton.
Granted, there is a world of difference between slapping an enlisted man and the masacre of surrendered soldiers, but Patton is definately guilty of the slapping incident while there is still today, an ongoing controversy about Forrest's guilt in the Fort Pillow event.
There can be doubt about Forrest's racial ideology---He was a successful slave trader before the war and supposedly founded the Ku Klux Klan. However, in almost every detailed account I have read, the events of Fort Pillow have been distorted in favor of the beliefs of who ever was writing about it.
Remember who won the war.
Do a net search and you will find out more information on this than you will ever want to know or believe. Most evidence that I have found tends to absolve Forrest of any personal or professional wrong doing.
Here is one account that does not seem to biased:
http://www.civilwarweb.com/articles/05-99/ftpillow.htm
It is still no controversy, however, that it is a fact that Forrest was an charismatic leader, a brilliant though untutored tactician, and a very successful cavalry commander.
Next time study the history a bit before you parrot something you have only heard or briefly read about.
------------------
Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl.
[This message has been edited by Forward Observer (edited 08-20-2002).]
I'd also like to point out that mounted cav was of little use in a pitched battle by the mid 19th century. Recon, screening and raiding was the work they had in the saddle. Buford's cav did yeoman work at Gettysburg on the first day in a pitched battle but were of course dismounted.
Earlier I forgot to mention Ben Grierson who was also very good for the Union in the ACW, being of immense value to Grant at Vicksburg.
------------------
CONITOERGOVINCO
Yoshitsune
08-23-2002, 05:59
Quote:
'Next time study the history a bit before you parrot something you have only heard or briefly read about.'
Well, much obliged for the advice but actually my historical reading is quite healthy thank-you very much. I can also recognize revisionism when I see it (as well as patronising asses). Confederate memoirs and pro-South accounts are rife so there is no case for any accusation that there is any suppression of Confederate sentiment or 'Unionization' of the ACW.
Fact remains that the Confederate troops under Forrest killed black prisoners in a Malmedy type massacre at Fort Pillow - the very interesting article you quote doesn't deny this. For whatever reasons - Union embarressment over mistakes; desire to bury the hatchet and not prosecute a popular figure like Forrest, meant he was able to get away with mass murder by claiming he was 'looking the other way' or conveniently 'on the other side of the hill'. Whatever. I note you don't deny his involvement in the Klu Klux Klan? I once read a Forrest apologist claim the KKK was some sort of coffee-and-social-club during the Forrest years and not the race-hate group it is known as today. Yeah right.
Anyway, point is by the time of the ACW true cavalry was not a decisive arm on the battlefield. However feel free to argue Forrest et al were 'brilliant' in their chosen field of mounted banditry and murder.
cromwell was an intelligent cav commander.. he would charge pull back regroup, charge again, pull back and regroup and charge again. thereby keeping his cav units involved in the battle as long as pos. the royalist tactics of the time were to charge and smash through the enemy lines and keep going on and pillage the baggage trains, and not take much more part in the battle. Also as to good generals of the 20th century, Monty was a good `un, afterall he defeated Rommel in north africa and played a major role in the normandy invasion. i heard once but dont know if its true so please enlighten me, but Rommel once remarked that he would of defeated Monty if only he had divisions of british troops.
------------------
Move not unless you see an advantage; use not your toops unless there is something to be gained; fight not unless the position is critical......Sun Tzu the Art of War
I also forgot to mention MajesticWishazu Ryuzoji, he good cav commander http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
------------------
Move not unless you see an advantage; use not your toops unless there is something to be gained; fight not unless the position is critical......Sun Tzu the Art of War
RageMonsta
08-25-2002, 20:27
Mr Rommel eats Mr Patton for lunch.....only reason Rommel got beat in the desert was supply trouble.
Then Mr Rommel settles down to study the master....SUBUDEI (depending on translation/spelling).
It is a fact that blitz krieg (which revolutionised warfare was based apon Mongol tactics- Subudei was studied also by Napoleone).
We may also start to realise that Sub was not just one of the/the greatest cav commanders but also close to being one of the/the greatest commanders of all time.
Gil galad
09-03-2002, 22:41
I thought we were talking cavalry commanders?
Rommel was an infantry officer
------------------
And almost every war since too.Fear the C word (change),
its Tradition that wins wars.Damn Machine gun its an ungentlemanly weapon if ever there was one.
It'll never catch on,you mark my words Old Boy.Whaat's that your saying,damned effective weapon,
nonsense dont be such a fool,
which Gentleman would sully his reputation and Honour brandishing such a weapon.
Its a preposterous notion Old Chap,you will be telling me men will be able to fly next.
Wavesword
09-03-2002, 23:35
Tanks were the cavalry of WW2, using similar spearhead style tactics. Rommell not only made excellent use of limited tanks (and the er... plucky Italians) but also improvised well, turning anti-aircraft guns into some of the best tankbusters of the war.
Sjakihata
09-04-2002, 01:17
Yep, specially in the african battles..
Oda Matsu
10-05-2002, 00:29
Genghis Khan was very good, partly because he wasn't only a cavalry commander, partly because he didn't use cavalry just like a knight (battering ram) but like a steppe nomad and hunter as well (missile platform). Besides which, he introduced a number of other brilliant innovations to his command and control that his successors would build upon.
The problem with most cavalry commanders, at least in the West, is the traditional means by which cavalry was expected to be employed. When cavalry leaders arise in other cultures (Takeda Shingen in Japan for example), one gets entirely different personalities. Lateron, in the ACW, once Union cavalry is (self-)armed with repeating carbines, their excellent cavalry commanders (Buford) suddenly start to think critically too.
How do you employ your cavalry? If you're malleable in thinking about how to employ this arm, especially if your cavalry use ranged weaponry, your better commanders are pensive and thoughtful. If your cavalry is simply a close order of lance-wielding torpedos, you end up with dull-minded psychotics - which is, after all, the sort of suicidal character you want driving home that fatal charge against a wall of pikemen...
candidgamera
10-05-2002, 03:04
Here's one that may not of been thought of, but don't know if Allenby can be wholly credited, certainly cavalry used effectively:
Australian mounted infantry charge and victory at Beersheba, WWI.
Glad Nelson mentioned Buford.
candidgamera
10-05-2002, 03:07
Forgot to add:
Cavalry officer that went into Tanks and did quite well with them: Hasso von Manteuffel - deepest penetrations at the Bulge, with Wehrmacht not overstuffed SS Pzr. Div.'s mind - 2d Armored vs. 2d Pzr. at the tip.
Quote Fact remains that the Confederate troops under Forrest killed black prisoners in a Malmedy type massacre at Fort Pillow - the very interesting article you quote doesn't deny this. For whatever reasons - Union embarressment over mistakes; desire to bury the hatchet and not prosecute a popular figure like Forrest, meant he was able to get away with mass murder by claiming he was 'looking the other way' or conveniently 'on the other side of the hill'. Whatever. I note you don't deny his involvement in the Klu Klux Klan? I once read a Forrest apologist claim the KKK was some sort of coffee-and-social-club during the Forrest years and not the race-hate group it is known as today. Yeah right.[/QUOTE]
Uhh, I hate to break it to you but the KKK really was a social club for the sons of aristocrats prior to the occupation of the South. The KKK was transformed into a racialist organization during the infamous period known as Reconstruction, a time which saw the widespread exploitation of the South by Union soldiers during the years of occupation. This same period also saw the empowerment of black Republican soldiers in the Union army who, like their white counterparts, used their martial status to not only seek personal gain but to quite literally, muscle Republican votes from illiterate ex-slaves for the benefit of the Republican party as well as for seeking unmitigated revenge on the white population (be they former slave owner or not). Among its newfound goals, the KKK saw the political ramifications of having a sizeable Republican political foothold in the South so they engaged in an equally brutal guerrilla campaign to intimidate potential black voters. I guess one good wrong deserves another, right?
As to the execution of blacks at Fort Pillow it sort of pales in comparison to the widespread destruction of the South at the hands of Union soldiers when Grant and Sherman made their infamous campaigns. Not to mention the countless military kangaroo courts that hung countless men (and women) convicted of crimes without a proper trial or representation.
The Union couldn't prosecute Forrest because of its own inconsistent record on slavery and the fact that back then, it was widely accepted fact that slavery wasn't the primary cause of the war. The Union didn't just look the other way, it didn't care. Freeing the slaves was a means to an end. But even more importantly, let us recall that in the years after the Civil War, Sherman willingly and with the blessing and authorization of the United States government, systematically engaged in the extermination of the various Indian tribes of the western territories.
They couldn't prosecute Forrest in the same way the Union couldn't bring Jefferson Davis to trial; because the right to slavery and the right of secession was guaranteed by the Constitution. To this day it is considered the greatest 'what if' trials of American Justice system.
And no, I'm not from the South nor am I of Anglo and/or Scottish ancestry.
Rosacrux
10-05-2002, 16:17
about Rommel turning the 88ers into anti-tank artillery: He didn't. He wasn't the first, I mean. The Wehrmacht has been studying this shift even before the war, and they had a chance of using them 88ers against (light) tanks in the Spanish Civil War.
The results were quite encuraging, so Rommel didn't excactly invented the wheel when he did the same in France (by the time they had anti-tank shels specificaly designed for the 88ers).
Btw. Rommel should be aknowledged as a cavalry commander and he is by far greater than any American or British commander of WW2. Generally, after Mannstein, Guderian and Zhukov he was the best overall commander in the WW2 battlefields. Patton wasn't bad (actually he was very good) but he wasn't on par with the abovementioned.
Plus, Rommel led from the first line, something that should be a prime requisite for a cavalry commander as such - when did Patton abandon his 200 miles-from-the-front headquarters? Or when did McCarthy came closer than 500 miles to artilery shelling?
Puu-leeeease!!!!
[This message has been edited by Rosacrux (edited 10-05-2002).]
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.