Main Page

Legacy of Kain is a series of action-adventure video games primarily developed by Crystal Dynamics and published by Square Enix Europe (formerly Eidos Interactive). The first title, Blood Omen: Legacy of Kain, was created by Silicon Knights in association with Crystal Dynamics, but, after a legal battle, Crystal Dynamics retained the rights to the game's intellectual property, and continued its story with four sequels. To date, five games comprise the series, all initially developed for video game consoles and later ported to Microsoft Windows. Focusing on the eponymous character of Kain, a vampire antihero, each title features action, exploration and puzzle-solving, with some role-playing game elements.
The series takes place in the fictional land of Nosgoth—a gothic fantasy setting—and revolves around Kain's quest to defy his fate and restore balance to the world. Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver introduced another antihero protagonist, Raziel; the adventures of both characters culminate in Legacy of Kain: Defiance. Themes of destiny, free will, morality, redemption and the hero's journey recur in the storyline, which was inspired by ancient literature, horror fiction, Shakespeare's plays and Gnosticism. The Legacy of Kain games have enjoyed critical success, particularly receiving praise for high-quality voice acting, narrative, and visuals, and, as a whole, had sold over 3.5 million copies as of 2007. In 2015, a sequel has been confirmed as "50/50".[1]
Games

Blood Omen: Legacy of Kain was created by Silicon Knights under the direction of Denis Dyack, with assistance from publisher Crystal Dynamics, and was released in 1996 on the PlayStation. In 1997, it was ported to Microsoft Windows. Dyack conceived the "vampire project" under the title The Pillars of Nosgoth in 1993, and Crystal Dynamics producer Lyle Hall chose this fantasy concept over two other proposals (one of which was Too Human).[3][4][5] Pursued in hopes of bringing a strong narrative and artistic cinema to consoles, it was built as "a game which adults would want to play", featuring an unconventional hero and gameplay that demanded thought as well as reflexes.[3][4] Developed as a 2D action-adventure game with role-playing game elements,[6][7] it debuted to positive critical and commercial reception.[3][7][8][9] Selling points included its 50+ hour length and the wide array of items and abilities the player character commands.[10] Blood Omen introduces Nosgoth, a fictional land designed with novel-like complexity,[4][6] and gives the player control of Kain, a newly resurrected vampire seeking revenge against his murderers and a cure for his vampiric curse.
Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver was released in 1999 for the PlayStation and Microsoft Windows, and was ported to the Dreamcast in 2000. It originated as an independent concept inspired by Biblical themes called Shifter, devised by Crystal Dynamics' Amy Hennig and Seth Carus,[11][12] but, at the request of company executives, was integrated into the Legacy of Kain universe in pre-production.[7][12] Hennig, the game's director, likened the technological advance from Blood Omen to Soul Reaver to the evolution of The Legend of Zelda series from the Super Nintendo to the Nintendo 64—bringing the franchise into 3D while maintaining a similar style.[13] Soul Reaver was hailed as a technical achievement for its plane-shifting gameplay mechanics and its data-streaming game engine, which eliminated the loading pauses that were prevalent in PlayStation-era games.[12][14][15] It was a commercial and critical success, selling 1.5 million units worldwide,[16][17][18] but the strong reactions of players to its cliffhanger ending impelled the developers to allay concerns that it was released unfinished.[19] The game elaborates on one of the two endings to Blood Omen, taking place in Nosgoth's dark future where Kain rules an empire of vampires, and introduces a new protagonist, his lieutenant Raziel, who is executed by Kain and resurrected to exact revenge on his brothers and master.
Soul Reaver 2 had an accelerated development cycle and was released after two years, despite a switch to sixth generation consoles early in the project. It was initially targeted for release in late 2000 on the PlayStation and Dreamcast, but was reworked and released in 2001 as a PlayStation 2 exclusive, and was ported to Microsoft Windows later that year.[20] The developers' goal was to retain the elements that made its predecessor successful,[21] but they decided to eschew the "complete a level, fight a boss" flow of the previous game in favor of a more narrative-driven approach.[22] The plot serves as a direct sequel to Soul Reaver, picking up immediately after its ending. The player controls Raziel as he uncovers the mysteries surrounding Nosgoth's distant past and his own destiny. Meanwhile, Kain attempts to subvert fate and restore the world by manipulating history. While Soul Reaver was still in development, Crystal Dynamics initiated another project—a successor to Blood Omen—and when the Soul Reaver team had started work on their follow-up in late 1999, two Legacy of Kain games were in simultaneous development.[22][23]
Blood Omen 2's "creative seeds were sown" in 1999, and the finished product was released in 2002, six months after Soul Reaver 2, for the PlayStation 2, Xbox, Microsoft Windows and Nintendo GameCube.[24] It was not produced with the involvement of the Soul Reaver crew, instead being created by a new team at Crystal Dynamics under the direction of Glen Schofield.[23][25] A key point of focus for the developers was the main character, Kain;[26] Crystal Dynamics had "a huge investment in Kain as a character".[27] Shifting the focus of gameplay towards action, gore and combat instead of puzzle-solving, it retains several of the qualities which made the previous games popular, but was criticized for lacking innovation.[28][29] Despite middling critical reception, it was released on four platforms and sold well.[30] The setting, an enormous industrial city, is a departure for the series. The story picks up after the ending of Soul Reaver 2—players control a younger Kain after an unsuccessful campaign to conquer Nosgoth, as he is opposed by traitorous vampires and a new enemy.
Legacy of Kain: Defiance, the most recent entry in the series, was released in 2003 on the PlayStation 2, Xbox and Microsoft Windows. First conceptualized as Soul Reaver 3,[20][23] it represented a combined effort from the Soul Reaver 2 and Blood Omen 2 teams to consolidate and re-balance the storytelling, puzzle-solving and combat aspects of its predecessors, fusing elements from the two sub-series into one game.[23] They chose a new title under the Legacy of Kain banner to reflect this new focus.[31] The player alternates between control of Raziel and the Soul Reaver 2 incarnation of Kain in each of the game's chapters, under the premise that only one of the two will survive—emphasis was placed on cinematic presentation.[23][31] The story concludes on a hopeful note, but without full resolution; during production, Hennig departed Crystal Dynamics to work for Naughty Dog,[32][33] and Defiance did not meet Eidos' sales expectations.[34] Following its release, Eidos placed the series on hold.[35] Former Eidos North America CEO Bill Gardner and Eidos Life President Ian Livingstone expressed interest in reviving the franchise,[36][37] but Crystal Dynamics stated that they were not working on a continuation.[38]
Nosgoth, a multiplayer game, was confirmed by Square Enix London Studios community manager George Kelion to be in development in June 2013, in response to a series of internet leaks and resultant speculation. According to Kelion, it was to be set in the same universe as previous Legacy of Kain titles, but would not be "a traditional or even single-player LoK experience". The game was intended to be viewed as "very much on a separate branch to both the Soul Reaver and Blood Omen series", and Crystal Dynamics were not involved in its development. Kelion stated that Nosgoth would be more formally announced and revealed at a future date, sometime beyond the Electronic Entertainment Expo 2013.[39][40] However Nosgoth was never officially released, but began open beta in January 2015. The game officially shut down its servers on May 31, 2016.
Overview
Common elements
The Legacy of Kain games fall into the action-adventure genre, utilizing a balance of action, puzzle-solving and exploration. Starting from Soul Reaver, the series also features platforming elements from a 3D, third-person perspective. Whereas Blood Omen and Soul Reaver employ an open world system in the style of The Legend of Zelda or Super Mario 64,[2] the latter three games are divided into chapters, and are more linear in progression. As the player solves pivotal puzzles or defeats bosses, they receive new weapons and abilities, such as telekinesis, shapeshifting, mind control and magical spells. The main character's health constantly declines in each game—Kain must consume blood to sustain his strength, whereas Raziel requires souls—prompting combat, which focuses on hack and slash techniques, and allows the player to kill and feed from enemies.
Blood Omen 2 and Defiance include experience point systems, and in the Soul Reaver games and Defiance, the player must shift between the material and spectral planes of existence to progress – both realms have unique physical laws, geometry and enemies. The Soul Reaver sword, a recurring ultimate weapon and soul-devouring blade inhabited by a ravenous entity, appears in all five titles. Dialogue in the series is florid and Elizabethan in style, inspired by period pieces such as Becket, The Lion in Winter and A Man for All Seasons,[12][41] and each game was scripted in the manner of a stage play, with monologues, asides and cutscenes interspersing gameplay.[31] During Blood Omen's production, Silicon Knights hired classically trained actors to deliver voice talent, a precedent which Crystal Dynamics continued in successive games.[6]
Simon Templeman and Michael Bell voice protagonists Kain and Raziel respectively. Supporting cast members include Paul Lukather as Vorador, Anna Gunn as Ariel, Richard Doyle as Moebius, and René Auberjonois as Janos Audron. Tony Jay played Mortanius in Blood Omen, and returned as The Elder God in subsequent games; in Defiance, Mortanius was recast as Alastair Duncan. Gordon Hunt and Kris Zimmerman provided voice direction from Soul Reaver and onward.[13] The developers coordinated the actors by ensuring they were involved as collaborators, recording their dialogue together rather than in isolation, and thus established techniques which would later carry over to Naughty Dog's Uncharted series.[12]
Story

The health of the land of Nosgoth is inextricably tied to nine edifices known as the Pillars of Nosgoth. The Pillars are preserved by an oligarchy of sorcerers known as the Circle of Nine, each of whom serves as the guardian of an individual Pillar. When a guardian dies, a new one is born to take their place.[42] In the prologue of Blood Omen, Ariel, the guardian of balance, is killed, and the resulting chain of events leads to the spiritual corruption of the Pillars and their guardians.[43] Thirty years later, Kain, a young nobleman, is murdered by brigands, and resurrected as a vampire by a necromancer, Mortanius.[44] Directed by Mortanius and the specter of Ariel, he tracks down and kills the guardians in hopes of attaining revenge and a cure to his vampirism,[45] but slowly begins to embrace his new powers.[46] While hunting Moebius, the guardian of time, he defies the advice of Vorador (a senior vampire), and travels back in time. Using the Soul Reaver, he prevents a tyrant king from coming to power,[47] but the temporal paradox which this causes results in a new timeline where Nosgoth's humans have hunted the vampires to extinction.[48] Kain discovers that Mortanius — the guardian of death —orchestrated his murder to purge the Circle and kills all but one of the remaining guardians.[49] After killing Mortanius, Kain encounters the malevolent being known as The Dark Entity who orchestrated the murder of Ariel (by possessing Mortanius) and the entire affair in Nosgoth so that he could establish own reign. After killing The Dark Entity, Kain realizes that he himself is the final corrupt guardian, born as Ariel's successor, and is left to decide between sacrificing himself to restore the world (but destroying the vampire race), or ruling Nosgoth in its damnation.[50][51] Soul Reaver establishes that Kain, disgusted by the humans' machinations, chose the latter option and embraced vampirism as a blessing. He raised a cadre of vampire lieutenants to conquer Nosgoth's human kingdoms,[52] establishing an all-powerful empire under his control while the land decays.[53]
1500 years after the events of Blood Omen, Raziel, his first-born son, transgresses against Kain, and is consequently executed.[54] A demiurge-like entity known as The Elder God resurrects Raziel, who quickly confronts Kain.[55] Kain strikes Raziel with the Reaver,[56] but it shatters against him, and the captive spirit formerly within the blade binds itself to Raziel's arm.[57] Raziel murders his lieutenant brethren, and discovers that Kain resurrected them all from the corpses of the Sarafan, an ancient vampire-hunting spiritual brotherhood.[58] Infuriated at this revelation, he pursues Kain to Moebius's long-abandoned time machine, and Kain lures him into the past.[59] In Soul Reaver 2, Raziel conspires with Moebius to destroy Kain, but—after realizing that Kain wishes to restore the Pillars,[60] and learning that Moebius secretly serves The Elder God[61]—his lust for vengeance is tempered by a higher quest for enlightenment and freedom from the ensnarement of predestination. On advice from Vorador, he seeks Janos Audron, an infamous, long-dead vampire who holds the key to his destiny.[62] Raziel assists Kain in triggering another paradox which changes Kain's fate, prolonging his life, and travels Nosgoth's history.[63] Beginning to unearth the secrets of his past, he briefly meets with Janos in the era of the Sarafan, but realizes that his own, human former self murdered the ancient vampire.[64] He slaughters the Sarafan lieutenants, and murders his former self, becoming the catalyst of Kain's future empire and his own history.[65] In a final epiphany, he discovers that he is the ravenous spirit destined to become imprisoned in the Reaver—that the cycle of his destiny will never end.[66] At the last minute, Kain saves Raziel from this fate and takes the empty Reaver, but the paradox that this causes changes history for the worse.[67]
Soul Reaver 2, Blood Omen 2 and Defiance expand the backstory of the series. Initially, alongside the humans, two other major races existed in Nosgoth's distant past: the ancient vampires and the Hylden.[68] The Vampires exalted the spiritual and the wheel of fate, whereas the Hylden were technologically inclined beings. Though the vampires worshiped The Elder God, the Hylden rejected his doctrine, and the vampires declared war in response to this blasphemy.[69] Using incredible magic, the vampires erected the Pillars, banishing the Hylden into another dimension, and forged the Reaver as a safeguard.[70] The Hylden retaliated by afflicting the vampires with a blood curse, which transformed them into immortal, sterile predators of humankind. Divorced from the wheel of fate and their god, many vampires turned to suicide, and as their race died out, the humans of Nosgoth seized control of the Pillars.[71] Over the centuries, the Hylden strained against the barriers of their prison, seeking to topple the Pillars. Kain's spiritual corruption hinders him from realizing his role as the balance guardian—he seeks to somehow resolve the dilemma he faced at the end of Blood Omen by both restoring the Pillars and returning them to vampire rule.[60] Raziel's execution was necessitated—his unique, cyclic destiny affords him free will, enabling Kain to create paradoxes and defy history.[72] Blood Omen 2 pursues a younger Kain in the altered timeline created at the end of Soul Reaver 2, depicting his war against the leader of the Hylden. Eventually, Kain kills The Hylden Lord, and departs, to eventually establish his empire from Soul Reaver.[73]
Defiance covers earlier points in the same timeline, directly after Soul Reaver 2. Kain and Raziel each discover evidence that the ancient vampires and Hylden had prophesied two champions—one representing each race—who would decide the fate of Nosgoth.[74] Whereas Raziel is bent on resurrecting Janos to escape his destiny, Kain strives to stop him, and the two are drawn into battle. Raziel learns from Mortanius that Kain was raised using Janos' heart, and rips this from Kain's chest in their last battle, ostensibly killing his former master.[75][76] Though disillusioned, Raziel resurrects Janos, who guides him to a final trial.[77] Though he succeeds, receiving spiritual powers, Raziel witnesses the collapse of the Pillars. The resulting breach enables The Hylden Lord to possess Janos (facilitating his invasion in Blood Omen 2), and Raziel is defeated in the ensuing battle, trapped by The Elder God.[78] He concludes that the Elder, sustained by the souls of Nosgoth, is the ultimate cause of all the conflict and strife throughout history,[79] and realizes that he, himself, was both the Vampiric and Hylden champions; Kain was neither. His free will, and his destiny to enter the Reaver (consuming himself), ensures that neither champion can win.[80] Later, Kain miraculously awakes, despite the loss of his heart. He encounters Raziel, and they reconcile; Raziel enters the Reaver willingly, but first uses his spiritual powers to cleanse Kain of the corruption he had inherited at birth as a member of the Circle of Nine.[81][82] Thus healed, Kain is able to perceive The Elder God for the first time. They skirmish briefly, and Kain wounds the Elder with the Reaver, but is unable to destroy him.[83] As he looks out over Nosgoth, Kain contemplates Raziel's sacrifice, and the first bitter taste of hope it has given him.[84]
Themes
Each of the Legacy of Kain games concerns distinct themes and dilemmas, but their overarching philosophical topic involves fatalism and man's struggle for free will.[41] Blood Omen was intended to ask "what is evil? Perhaps it is merely a perspective", and to "address morals, evil and good, propaganda and fate in ways that have never been explored in a computer game before".[4][6] Other latent issues included trust, manipulation and betrayal, which carried over into Crystal Dynamics' sequels. In Soul Reaver and Soul Reaver 2, Amy Hennig identified "the question of free will in a universe apparently ruled by fate" as the core of the story.[41] Gnosticism, in which "the material world is an illusion, a lie perpetrated by a false and malignant god whose aim is to keep the human soul in darkness and ignorance" and the hero's goal is "knowledge, enlightenment, and the exposure of the truth", helped to formulate Raziel's arc.[2][12][41] Themes of despair, hope and illumination in the works of T. S. Eliot and James Joyce influenced the story.[41]
The developers also attempted to subvert the monomyth and other tropes within literature and gaming. Silicon Knights conceptualized Kain, a vampire antihero inspired by Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven, as an atypical "gray" protagonist, neither good nor evil, despite being advised in 1993 that such a character would not appeal to gamers.[4][6][41][85] Similarly, Hennig developed Raziel as a "self-righteous little twit" with villainy, seeking redemption and transcendence through knowledge, in contrast to an idealistic hero.[2][27] Drawing from Joseph Campbell's ideas,[7] she felt it would be interesting to see how players interpret morality in this context, and argued that "the only way a hero can ever succeed is by following his own path. As long as he's following a path laid out by someone else, ultimately he's going to fail".[2] Defiance portrayed Kain and Raziel as Sophoclean Oedipus-like figures, "being railroaded by fate".[41][86] Hennig said that "they are heroes because they refuse to submit, even when all the odds are stacked against them".[41]
Development

During and after the completion of Dark Legions,[3] Silicon Knights spent several months working on the design of Blood Omen without a particular platform in mind.[4][6][87] Major inspirations behind the project included The Wheel of Time, Necroscope and Shakespeare's plays, while the concept of the Pillars of Nosgoth was derived from cover art for The Pillars of the Earth.[4][6] Crystal Dynamics agreed to publish the game in 1993, and although there was indecision as to whether it should be produced for the 3DO Interactive Multiplayer or the Sega Saturn, both parties settled on the PlayStation once Sony announced its impending launch.[6] The game took over three years to develop,[4][7] undergoing a substantial expansion mid-process which required Silicon Knights to increase its workforce—Crystal Dynamics sent several staff to assist them, including Amy Hennig and Seth Carus.[4][23][88] Following "Herculean efforts", Blood Omen was released in late 1996.[3] After its success, Silicon Knights contemplated creating a sequel in what they described as the Blood Omen series,[6][11][89] but their relationship with Crystal Dynamics dissolved in 1997.[90] Crystal Dynamics began developing Soul Reaver internally, and were acquired by Eidos Interactive during its production.[7]
In 1998, Silicon Knights filed a suit against Crystal Dynamics for rights to the Legacy of Kain IP, requesting an injunction to prevent Crystal Dynamics from marketing the sequel.[91] The two studios settled their legal dispute privately, and Crystal Dynamics and Eidos retained rights to the Legacy of Kain franchise, provided that Soul Reaver acknowledge Silicon Knights as the series' original creator.[90] Paradise Lost was the original inspiration behind the concept,[12][23] and sources such as Rabbinic lore, vampire mythology, Eastern myth and mysticism were also key influences.[7][23] Visual cues were borrowed from films such as The City of Lost Children and The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, and H. P. Lovecraft's Cthulhu Mythos.[12][23][25][41] Soul Reaver was highly anticipated despite several delays, and was promoted on the covers of over ten game industry magazines,[14] but schedule pressures forced Crystal Dynamics to cut content from the ending sequence. They intended to integrate the removed material into the sequel.[19][92] Soul Reaver 2 was inspired by time travel fiction and Kurt Rudolph's research into Gnosticism.[2] It was slated to include more of Blood Omen's role-playing game aspects and a wider breadth of acquirable abilities,[7] though the team was handicapped by the release of the PlayStation 2.[20]
The Soul Reaver 2 project was produced for the PlayStation for a short time, but, after creating a proof-of-concept demo, the developers were given approval to scrap their work and switch to the newer console. With "remarkable dedication, and sickening hours", the game was developed in 17 months; as with Soul Reaver, several features were cut in order to meet the release deadline.[2][20] Blood Omen 2 was concurrently developed by an independent Crystal Dynamics team with creative autonomy,[23][25] extrapolating from the 19th century steampunk aesthetic of Soul Reaver to settle on a Victorian feel.[12][93] Its crew was wary of relying too strongly on the original Blood Omen as an influence, and expanded on the franchise's backstory in hopes of starting a new series.[94] However, inconsistencies raised by its plot left the Soul Reaver 2 team to reconcile the storyline in the next game.[25] Defiance represented "a whole new approach" to the franchise, with more focus on drama, an overhauled combat system, and scripted, cinematic camera angles.[31] After fan speculation that it would become the last Legacy of Kain title, Crystal Dynamics unofficially confirmed on their forums that another game was being worked on,[95] though no announcement followed, and, in 2005, their next project was revealed to be Tomb Raider: Legend.[96] In 2008, it emerged that a sixth game, Legacy of Kain: The Dark Prophecy, had briefly been in development at Ritual Entertainment in 2004 before being canceled.[97][98] Later, in 2013, Square Enix confirmed allegations that Climax Studios had worked on another new Legacy of Kain title, for the PlayStation 4—Legacy of Kain: Dead Sun—until this project's cancellation in 2012.[99]
"As a general rule, ancient Vampire and Kain's architecture followed Arabic designs, while human areas followed more European designs. Sarafan took from French architecture, while Averness took from a combination of areas (like Notre Dame, or Florence cathedrals). We took some influence from spanish gravesites as well. Venician influences touched the true vampire burial sites in terms of material (the variety of marbles used) and the dead vampires themselves (influenced by carnivale masks). We mixed and matched within styles mercilessly."
―Daniel Cabuco
In October 2015, Crystal Dynamics' senior designer, Michael Brinker, revealed there is "a 50/50 chance" of a Legacy of Kain 6 single player game coming out during the Xbox One/PlayStation 4 generation.[100]
Other media
Music from both Soul Reaver and Soul Reaver 2 was released on a promotional soundtrack in 2001.[101] For Soul Reaver, Amy Hennig selected Kurt Harland of synthpop band Information Society to compose the score. According to Harland, a colleague introduced the Soul Reaver team to his work through "Ozar Midrashim", a track from Information Society's 1997 album Don't Be Afraid.[102] This track went on to feature in Soul Reaver as the opening theme. Harland worked with audio engineer Jim Hedges in the creation of an adaptive audio system for Soul Reaver which allowed the music to change based on in-game context. This approach became a mainstay of subsequent games in the series.[13]
Following the release of Soul Reaver, action figures of the characters Kain and Raziel were created by Blue Box Interactive and the National Entertainment Collectibles Association in partnership with Eidos.[103][104] A single-issue promotional comic by Top Cow Productions was released in October 1999 to promote the release of Soul Reaver, starring the vampire Raziel and serving as a prequel to the game's events.[7] Top Cow collaborated with Crystal Dynamics to produce a second comic in early 2004, recapitulating the series' backstory, to coincide with the release of Defiance.[105] Both Kain and Raziel also feature as playable characters in downloadable content for 2010's Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light.[106][107]
Reception

By 2007, the Legacy of Kain series had collectively sold over 3.5 million copies, but its commercial success has varied with each game.[127] Blood Omen surpassed Crystal Dynamics' expectations,[3][7] with reported sales figures ranging from 320,082 units to 2 million copies,[9] whereas Soul Reaver sold over 1.5 million copies, and was included on Sony's "Greatest Hits" list.[128][129] Soul Reaver 2 and Blood Omen 2 also performed well, selling in excess of 500,000 copies each and becoming Greatest Hits titles.[30][92][130] Defiance sold between 500,000 and 1 million units, but failed to live up to Eidos's sales targets.[34]
Legacy of Kain has been cited as one of the most popular video game intellectual properties associated with vampires.[131][132] IGN's Douglass C. Perry regarded the series as "a strangely attractive, yet equally obscure one that [had him] torn between loving and hating it".[133] GameSpot's Greg Kasavin was critical of Blood Omen 2, but praised the Soul Reaver games as "great" for their "innovation and surprising drama", voice acting and technical feats.[134] Matt Clemens of Computer and Video Games said that the series had engaging narrative, impressive cinematic sequences and fluid combat, calling Soul Reaver an "absolute classic".[135] The Houston Press described Legacy of Kain's voice cast as "the greatest unrecognized brilliance in video game acting", and compared the dialogue of the series to plays by William Shakespeare.[136][137] Mikel Reparaz of GamesRadar said that "known for nuanced storytelling, unconventional protagonists, amazing boss fights and rich Shakespearean baritones, the series raised the bar for writing and acting in games".[138] GameSpy's Chuck Osborn complimented the games' storyline as "deep", but described their mythology as convoluted.[139]
Individually, each title has generally been received well by critics. GameRankings, a video game review aggregator website, determined that Blood Omen received an average review score of 83.25% on its PlayStation debut,[8] that Soul Reaver achieved 88.16% on the PlayStation,[16] that Soul Reaver 2 was ranked at 80.71% on the PlayStation 2,[111] and that Blood Omen 2 and Defiance scored 73.33% and 77.72% on the PS2 and Xbox, respectively.[115][121] Metacritic, which similarly aggregates reviews, calculated that Soul Reaver 2 and Defiance received generally favorable reviews on multiple platforms,[113][114][124][125][126] that Blood Omen 2 ranged from mixed or average to favorable scores,[29][118][119][120] and that Soul Reaver achieved universal acclaim;[17] Soul Reaver was also Amy Hennig's self-proclaimed greatest achievement.[140] Later games in the series were criticized for repetitive gameplay elements and review scores of subsequent titles trended downward.[135]

See also
List of Square Enix franchises


A regiment is a military unit. Their role and size varies markedly, depending on the country and the arm of service.
In Medieval Europe, the term "regiment" denoted any large body of front-line soldiers,[1] recruited or conscripted in one geographical area, by a leader who was often also the feudal lord of the soldiers.
By the end of the 17th century, regiments in most European armies were permanent units, numbering about 1,000 men and under the command of a colonel.
Definitions

During the modern era, the word "regiment" – much like "corps" – may have two somewhat divergent meanings, which refer to two distinct roles:
a front-line military formation; or
an administrative or ceremonial unit.
In many armies, the first role has been assumed by independent battalions, battlegroups, task forces, brigades and other, similarly-sized operational units. However, these non-regimental units tend to be short-lived; and regiments have tended to retain their traditional responsibilities for ceremonial duties, the recruitment of volunteers, induction of new recruits, individual morale and esprit de corps, and administrative roles (such as pay).
A regiment may consequently be a variety of sizes:
smaller than a standard battalion, e.g. Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment;
a battalion equivalent, e.g. 3rd Foreign Infantry Regiment;
a brigade equivalent, e.g. 8th Marine Regiment (United States);
several battalions, e.g.
3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard) and
Royal Regiment of Scotland; or
an entire arm of service, e.g.
the Royal Australian Regiment includes all of the Australian Army's regular infantry (other than reserve and special forces units), and
the artillery units of the British Army are known collectively as the   Royal Regiment of Artillery, which is sub-divided for operation purposes into field regiments.
Historical origin
The French term régiment is considered to have entered military usage in Europe at the end of the 16th century, when armies evolved from collections of retinues who followed knights, to  formally organised, permanent military forces. At that time, regiments were usually named after their commanding colonels, and disbanded at the end of the campaign or war; the colonel and his regiment might recruit from and serve several monarchs or countries. Later, it was customary to name the regiment by its precedence in the line of battle, and to recruit from specific places, called cantons. The oldest regiments which still exist, and their dates of establishment, include the Spanish 9th Infantry Regiment “Soria” (originally the Tercio de Nápoles)[2] (1505), Swedish Life Guards (1521), the British Honourable Artillery Company (1537) and the King's Own Immemorial Regiment of Spain, first established in 1248 during the conquest of Seville by King Ferdinand the Saint.[3]
In the 17th century, brigades were formed as units combining infantry, cavalry, and artillery that were more effective than the older, single-arms regiments; in many armies, brigades replaced regiments.
By the beginning of the 18th century, regiments in most European continental armies had evolved into permanent units with distinctive titles and uniforms, each under the command of a colonel. When at full strength, an infantry regiment normally comprised two field battalions of about 800 men each or 8–10 companies. In some armies, an independent regiment with fewer companies was labelled a demi-regiment.[4] A cavalry regiment numbered 600 to 900 troopers, making up a single entity.[5] On campaign, these numbers were soon reduced by casualties and detachments and it was sometimes necessary to amalgamate regiments or to withdraw them to a depot while recruits were obtained and trained.
With the widespread adoption of conscription in European armies during the nineteenth century, the regimental system underwent modification. Prior to World War I, an infantry regiment in the French, German, Russian, and other smaller armies would comprise four battalions, each with a full strength on mobilization of about 1,000 men. As far as possible, the separate battalions would be garrisoned in the same military district, so that the regiment could be mobilized and campaign as a 4,000 strong linked group of sub-units. A cavalry regiment by contrast made up a single entity of up to 1,000 troopers. A notable exception to this practice was the British line infantry system where the two regular battalions constituting a regiment alternated between "home" and "foreign" service and seldom came together as a single unit.
Regimental system

In the regimental system, each regiment is responsible for recruiting, training, and administration; each regiment is permanently maintained and therefore the regiment will develop its unique esprit de corps because of its unitary history, traditions, recruitment, and function. Usually, the regiment is responsible for recruiting and administering all of a soldier's military career. Depending upon the country, regiments can be either combat units or administrative units or both.
This is often contrasted to the "continental system" adopted by many armies. In the continental system, the division is the functional army unit, and its commander is the administrator of every aspect of the formation: his staff train and administer the soldiers, officers, and commanders of the division's subordinate units. Generally, divisions are garrisoned together and share the same installations: thus, in divisional administration, a battalion commanding officer is just another officer in a chain of command. Soldiers and officers are transferred in and out of divisions as required.
Some regiments recruited from specific geographical areas, and usually incorporated the place name into the regimental name. In other cases, regiments would recruit from a given age group within a nation (e.g. Zulu Impis), an ethnic group (e.g. the Gurkhas), or foreigners (e.g. the French Foreign Legion). In other cases, new regiments were raised for new functions within an army; e.g. the Fusiliers, the Parachute Regiment (British Army), and the U.S. Army 75th Ranger Regiment.
Disadvantages of the regimental system are hazardous regimental competition, a lack of interchangeability between units of different regiments, and more pronounced "old boy networks" within the military that may hamper efficiency and fairness.
A key aspect of the regimental system is that the regiment or battalion is the fundamental tactical building block. This flows historically from the colonial period, when battalions were widely dispersed and virtually autonomous, but is easily adapted to a number of different purposes. For example, a regiment might include different types of battalions (e.g. infantry or artillery) of different origins (e.g. regular or reserve).
Within the regimental system, soldiers, and usually officers, are always posted to a tactical unit of their own regiment whenever posted to field duty. In addition to combat units, other organizations are very much part of the regimental family: regimental training schools, serving members on "extra-regimental employment", regimental associations (retirees), bands and associated cadet groups. The aspects that an administrative regiment might have in common include a symbolic colonel-in-chief (often a member of the royal family), a colonel of the regiment or "honorary colonel" who protects the traditions and interests of the regimental family and insists on the maintenance of high standards, battle honours (honours earned by one unit of an administrative regiment are credited to the regiment), ceremonial uniforms, cap badges, peculiarities of insignia, stable belts, and regimental marches and songs. The regiment usually has a traditional "home station" or Regimental depot, which is often a historic garrison that houses the regimental museum and regimental headquarters. The latter has a modest staff to support regimental committees and administer both the regular members and the association(s) of retired members.
Advantages and disadvantages
The regimental system is generally admired for the esprit de corps it engenders in its units' members, but efforts to implement it in countries with a previously-existing continental system usually do not succeed. The system presents difficulties for military planners, who must deal with the problems of trying to keep soldiers of a regiment together throughout their careers and of administering separate garrisons, training and mess facilities. The regimental community of serving and retired members often makes it very difficult for planners to restructure forces by moving, merging or re-purposing units.
In those armies where the continental system exists, the regimental system is criticised as parochial and as creating unnecessary rivalry between different regiments. The question is also raised as to whether it is healthy to develop soldiers more loyal to their regiment than to the military in general. Regiments recruited from areas of political ferment (such as Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Quebec, India, etc.), tend to perform particularly well because of the loyalty their members exhibit to the regiments. Generally, the regimental system is found to function best in countries with small-to medium-sized military forces where the problems of administering vast numbers of personnel are not as prevalent. The regimental system works particularly well in an environment in which the prime role of the army consists of small-scale police actions and counterinsurgency operations, requiring prolonged deployment away from home. In such a situation, co-ordination between regiments is rarely necessary, and the esprit de corps of the regiment provides an emotional substitute for the sense of public approval that an army receives at home. This is particularly relevant to British experience during the days of the empire, where the army was virtually continuously engaged in low-intensity conflict with insurgents, and full-scale warfare was the exception rather than the rule.
A regimental system, since it is decentralized and the regiments are independent from each other, prevents the army from staging a coup d'état. This is best exemplified by the British Army: since the formation of the United Kingdom, there have been no military takeovers.[6][7]
A regimental system can also foster close links between the regiment and the community from which it is recruited. This sense of community 'ownership' over local regiments can be seen in the public outcry over recent regimental amalgamations in the United Kingdom. On the other hand, recruitment from a single community can lead to a concentrated and potentially devastating local impact if the regiment takes heavy casualties.
Further, the regimental system offers the advantage of grouping like units together for centralized administrative, training, and logistical purposes, thereby creating an "economies of scale" effect and its ensuing increased efficiency.
An illustrative example of this is the modular integration employed by the United States Marine Corps, which can take elements from its regimentally grouped forces and specifically tailor combined arms task forces for a particular mission or the deployed Marine Expeditionary Units (MEU). This is achievable partially because of the Marines mission adaptability, flexibility, philosophy, shared culture, history and overall esprit de corps, which allows for near seamless interoperability.[8]
Commonwealth armies
In the British Army and armies modeled on it (such as the Australian, the New Zealand, the Canadian, the Indian and the Pakistani), the term regiment is used confusingly in two different ways: it can mean an administrative identity and grouping, or a tactical unit. In the former Dominion of Newfoundland, "Regiment" was used to describe the entirety of the fighting armed forces, such as the Royal Newfoundland Regiment.
In the Commonwealth countries listed above, the large administrative regiment has been the normal practice for many years. In the case of India, "large regiments" of four to five battalions date from 1923 and, since the 1950s, many of these have expanded even further. As an example, the Punjab Regiment has expanded from four battalions in 1956 to its present strength of 20, while, in Pakistan, several regiments have over 50 battalions.
In Canada, the regiment is a formation of one or more units; existing almost exclusively for reasons of heritage, the continuance of battle honors and esprit de corps.  The three regular force infantry regiments each consist of three regular force battalions of approximately 600 soldiers, in addition to one or more reserve battalions. Canadian battalions are employed tactically and administratively within mechanized brigade groups for regular units, or light brigade groups for reserve units.
In Australia, there is but one administrative infantry regiment in the regular army: the Royal Australian Regiment, consisting of all seven regular infantry battalions in the Army. The Australian Army Reserve also has state-based infantry regiments which administer the reserve infantry battalions.
In Pakistan, the word regiment is an administrative grouping. While individual battalions may have different roles (for example different battalions of the Frontier Force Regiment may be mechanized infantry, paratroop infantry, or mountain troops), the regiment is considered to encompass all of them.
British Army

The modern British regimental system came about as a result of the 19th century Cardwell Reforms.
In the British Army, for most purposes, the regiment is the largest "permanent" organisational unit. Above regimental level, the organisation is changed to meet the tasks at hand. Because of their permanent nature, many regiments have long histories, often going back for centuries: the oldest British regiment still in existence is the Royal Jersey Militia, established in 1337 although historically the Jersey Militia are referred to as a regiment it is disputed that they are in fact a corps. The Buffs (Royal East Kent Regiment), formed in 1572, was the oldest infantry regiment. It now forms part of the Princess of Wales Royal Regiment.[9]
In the United Kingdom, there existed until recently a number of administrative "divisions" in the infantry that encompassed several regiments, such as the Guards Division, the former Scottish Division (now a single regiment), or the Light Division (now also compressed into a multi-battalion single regiment). The reduction and consolidation of British infantry regiments that began in the late 1950s and concluded in 2006 has resulted in a system of administrative regiments each with several battalions, a band, a common badge and uniform etc.
In the British regimental system, the tactical regiment or battalion is the basic functional unit and its commanding officer more autonomous than in continental systems. Divisional and brigade commanders generally do not immerse themselves in the day-to-day functioning of a battalion – they can replace the commanding officer but will not micro-manage the unit. The regimental sergeant major is another key figure, responsible to the CO for unit discipline and the behaviour of the NCOs.
It should, however, be noted that amalgamations beginning in the late 1950s and ending in 2006 have diluted the British regimental system through the now almost universal adoption of "large regiments" for the infantry of the Army. As of 2014, only thirteen line infantry regiments survive, each comprising up to six of the former battalions that previously had separate regimental status. Only the five Guards regiments retain their historic separate identities. Similarly, as of 2015, only eight of the regiments of the Royal Armoured Corps (cavalry plus Royal Tank Regiments) survive.
Armour
Armoured regiments in Canada since the end of the Second World War have usually consisted of a single tactical regiment. During the 1960s, three Canadian regiments had both regular and militia components, which were disbanded shortly after unification in 1968. Currently, one regiment is organised with two tactical regiments, 12e Régiment blindé du Canada and 12e Régiment blindé du Canada (Milice) are both part of the administrative regiment 12e Régiment blindé du Canada.
One administrative armoured regiment of the British Army consisted of more than one tactical regiment.  The Royal Tank Regiment until 2014 had two (1 and 2 RTR), and once had many more.  They were all amalgamated into a single regiment.
Artillery
All of a nation's artillery units are considered part of a single administrative regiment, but there are typically several tactical artillery regiments. They are designated by numbers, names or both. For example, the tactical regiments 1st Regiment, Royal Canadian Horse Artillery, 7th Toronto Regiment, RCA and many others are part of the single administrative regiment The Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery. In Britain, the Royal Regiment of Artillery works in the same way.
Infantry
Administrative infantry regiments are composed of one or more battalions. When a regiment has only one battalion, the battalion may have exactly the same name as the regiment. For example, The North Saskatchewan Regiment is the only battalion in the administrative regiment of the same name. When there is more than one battalion, they are distinguished by numbers, subsidiary titles or both. In Britain, every infantry battalion bears a number, even if it is the only remaining battalion in the regiment (in that case it is the 1st Battalion, with the exception of The Irish Regiment of Canada, which has a 2nd Battalion only). Until after the Second World War, every regiment had at least two battalions. Traditionally, the regular battalions were the 1st and 2nd Battalions, the militia (later Special Reserve) battalion was the 3rd Battalion, and the Army Reserve battalions were the 4th Battalion, the 5th Battalion and up. A few regiments had up to four regular battalions and more than one militia battalion, which disrupted the numbering, but this was rare. For this reason, although the regular battalion today (if there is only one) will always be the 1st Battalion, the TA battalions may have non-consecutive numbers.
In practice, it is impossible to exercise all the administrative functions of a true regiment when the regiment consists of a single unit. Soldiers, and particularly officers, cannot spend a full career in one battalion. Thus in the Armoured Corps, the traditional administrative "regiment" tends to play more of a ceremonial role, while in practice, its members are administered by their corps or "branch" as in the Artillery. Thus soldiers and officers can serve in many different "regiments", changing hat badges without too much concern during their career. Indeed, in the artillery, all regiments wear the same badge.
Corps
The British Army also has battalion-sized tactical regiments of the Royal Engineers, Royal Corps of Signals, Army Air Corps, Royal Logistic Corps, and Royal Military Police.
United States
United States Army

Historically, the United States Army was organized into regiments, except from 1792 to 1796 during the existence of the Legion of the United States. During this period the Army, or "Legion", was organized into four "sub-legions", 18th century forerunners of the modern combined arms brigade. When combined with other regiments during wartime, for active field operations, regiments were further formed into brigades and divisions.
From colonial times, the regiment consisted of a small regimental headquarters (regimental headquarters companies not existing before 1915) and in 1775 ten "line" companies, based on the British Army model, without any permanent intermediate level of organization, viz., battalion headquarters organic to the regiment. From 1776 through 1783 American infantry regiments contained from as few as seven companies (e.g. South Carolina Rifles) to as many as twelve (Pennsylvania Rifles and Maryland State troops) with Continental Army infantry regiments having eight companies (increased to nine in 1781). (Briefly, from 1790 to 1792, regiments were organized into three battalions of four companies each.) Traditionally, the regiment and battalion were one and the same, with the "battalion" simply being the regiment organized for battle.
During the Civil War, there were nine new United States regular army infantry regiments (11th though the 19th) added to the ten already existing. The old regiments (1st through 10th) were single-battalion, ten-company regiments, but the new regiments were authorized three battalions of eight companies each.[10] However, only three of these nine regiments ever reached full strength of three battalions, with four others only achieving a manning level of two full battalions.  Regiments were usually commanded by a colonel, assisted by a lieutenant colonel and a major, as well as additional staff officers and enlisted men in the regimental headquarters. Occasionally, a regimental commander would organize several companies into one, or rarely two, temporary organizations, called battalions, under command of the regiment's lieutenant colonel, major, or a senior captain. (An historic example of this arrangement is the 7th Cavalry Regiment during the Battle of the Little Big Horn in 1876.)
Many more additional volunteer regiments were recruited from each state during the American Civil War according to General Orders No. 15., War Department, Adjutant General's Office, Washington, May 4, 1861:
The President of the United States having called for a Volunteer Force to aid in the enforcement of the laws and the suppression of insurrection, and to consist of thirty-nine regiments of infantry and one regiment of cavalry, making a minimum aggregate of (34,506) thirty-four thousand five hundred and six officers and enlisted men, and a maximum aggregate of (42,034) forty two thousand and thirty-four officers and enlisted men, the following plan of organization has been adopted, and is directed to be printed for general information.

In 1890, the number of companies in a regiment was reduced from the traditional ten to only eight, as the end of the Indian Wars became evident and troop reductions became in order. However, in 1898 as the war with Spain began, a three-battalion, 12-company structure was effected. This expanded regimental structure produced units, proportionally roughly the same approximate size as the single battalion, ten-company regiments of the Civil War. (For example: 101 officers and enlisted men per company, and a 36-member regimental headquarters, with 1,046 per typical Union Army infantry regiment in 1861, vs. 112 officers and enlisted men per company, and the same 36-member regimental headquarters, with 1,380 per regiment in a typical U.S. Army infantry regiment in 1898.) After the short war the Army reduced the size of companies, battalions, and regiments by about 30% under demobilization. However, the number of companies and battalions per regiment remained at 12 and three, respectively.
Until 1917, under its traditional triangular organizational plan, infantry regiments were organized into brigades of three regiments, with three infantry brigades (for a total of nine infantry regiments), along with one brigade each of cavalry and field artillery constituting a division. In 1917 the Army adopted the square division organizational plan, which massively increased the size of units from the company through corps, more than tripling, or nearly quadrupling, the number of troops per unit. (From 1915 to 1917, the authorized strength of rifle companies increased from 76 officers and enlisted men to 256, and infantry regiments grew from 959 to 3,720.)
The "square division" consisted of two infantry brigades of two infantry regiments each, with each regiment containing a regimental headquarters company, a machinegun company, a supply company, and 12 rifle companies organized into three battalions of four rifle companies each. (The single machine gun company reported directly to regimental headquarters.) The division also contained an artillery brigade of three regiments and three separate combat service support regiments: engineer, quartermaster, and medical.
The Army reorganized in preparation for World War II by effecting its triangular division organizational structure in 1939. Under this plan, divisional brigades were eliminated and the division consisted of three infantry regiments and one artillery regiment, styled as "Division Artillery" (DIVARTY), but usually consisting of battalions with the same regimental affiliation. The infantry regiments still contained three battalions; there were now "headquarters and headquarters" companies (HHCs) not only at the regimental-level but in each battalion as well. The battalions still contained four "line" companies, but instead of four rifle companies, now had three rifle companies and a heavy weapons company (containing machine guns and mortars). The regiment's machine gun company was now an anti-tank company, the supply company became the service company, and a cannon company and a medical detachment were added to the regiment. In 1942 the Army began organizing armored divisions into combat commands, which grouped armor, armored infantry, and armored field artillery battalions into three tactical groups within the division without regard to regimental affiliation. However, armored regiment designations were retained for lineage and heraldic purposes.
As the United States Army transformed after the Korean War for potential combat against a nuclear-armed Warsaw Pact, reorganization began in 1956 to transform infantry regiments into battle groups under its Pentomic organizational plan. Under this plan, battalions were eliminated and the infantry battle groups consisted of an HHC, five rifle companies, and a combat support company.  Again, this scheme retained the regimental designation for lineage and heraldry purposes, but the regiment ceased to exist as an intact organization for both infantry and field artillery units. DIVARTY organizations were now composed of several unrelated artillery battalions.
By 1965, the Army had completely eliminated the regiment (replaced by the brigade) under the Reorganization Objective Army Divisions (ROAD) plan as a tactical and administrative organization in all combat arms, save for a few armored cavalry regiments. However the battalion was restored as a tactical echelon, now organized into an HHC, three rifle companies, and a combat support company. The ROAD structure sealed the fate of the regiment in the U.S. Army, confirming its elimination as a level of command that had begun in 1942 with the "combat command" organization of the armored divisions and furthered by the Pentomic experiment in the 1950s. By 2015, the only Army unit still organized as a traditional regiment was the 75th Ranger Regiment.
In the 20th century, by using modern industrial management techniques, the Army was able to draft, assemble, equip, train and then employ huge masses of conscripted civilians in very short order, starting with minimal resources. Beginning with the First World War, as units became increasingly larger, and weapon systems and equipment became more complex, the regiment, while still filling a role as the immediate headquarters for its organic battalions, began to be replaced by the brigade as the intermediate tactical and operational headquarters for battalions, with the division becoming the senior administrative and logistical headquarters for the battalions, regiments, and brigades under its command.
A new system, the Combat Arms Regimental System, or CARS, was adopted in 1957 to replace the old regimental system. CARS uses the Army's traditional regiments as parent organizations for historical purposes, but the primary building blocks are divisions, brigades, and battalions. Each battalion carries an association with a parent regiment, even though the regimental organization no longer exists. In some brigades several numbered battalions carrying the same regimental association may still serve together, and tend to consider themselves part of the traditional regiment when in fact they are independent battalions serving a brigade, rather than a regimental, headquarters.
The United States Army Regimental System (USARS) was established in 1981 to replace the Combat Arms Regimental System, to provide each soldier with continuous identification with a single regiment, and to support that concept with a personnel system that would increase a soldier’s probability of serving recurring assignments with his or her regiment. The USARS was developed with the intention that it would enhance combat effectiveness by providing the opportunity for a regimental affiliation, thus obtaining some of the benefits of the traditional regimental system.
There are exceptions to USARS regimental titles, including the armored cavalry regiments (now defunct) and the 75th Ranger Regiment created in 1986. On 1 October 2005, the word "regiment" was formally appended to the name of all active and inactive CARS and USARS regiments. So, for example, the 1st Cavalry officially became titled the 1st Cavalry Regiment.
United States Marine Corps

The historical background of the use of regiments in the United States Marine Corps is contained within USMC: A Complete History (Hoffman, 2002)[11] and a summary of that information follows:
Before 1913, indeed since the American Revolution, it was common practice for Marine detachments (both ship-based, and shore-based) to be combined to form provisional (viz., temporary) units. Most often these formations took the form of provisional battalions, but on occasion would become provisional regiments, provisional brigades, or rarely (especially when combined with Navy personnel) naval infantry brigades.[12] These organizations were intentionally temporary as the Marine Corps did not usually maintain standing forces larger than company size, but rather created "task units" on an "as needed" basis.
While provisional regiments, designated variously as the 1st through 4th Regiments, had been formed for expeditionary operations in Panama (1895) and Philippines (1899),[13] the lineage of modern USMC regiments began in 1913 with the creation of the 1st and 2nd Advanced Base Force Regiments. These two regiments, (currently the 2nd and 1st Marines, respectively), along with the numerical forbearers of the 3rd and 4th Marines, (formed in 1914 for the short-lived Tampico Affair with Mexico, involving the occupation of Veracruz, Mexico), are the pre-World War I antecedents to the several regiments of the modern U.S. Marine Corps.
Beginning in World War I, with the U.S. Marine Corps' participation with the U.S. Army in the American Expeditionary Force, in which the 5th and 6th Marines (along with the 6th Machine Gun Battalion) formed the 4th Marine Brigade of the U.S. Army 2nd Infantry Division (United States), the Corps began organizing larger standing forces. World War I era USMC units mirrored equivalent U.S. Army units by employing the "square division" organizational plan in forming its regiments and brigades.
In World War II, the Marine Corps organized its regiments and divisions under the "triangular division" model developed by the Army in 1939. Modern USMC regiments and divisions continue to be organized using a triangular model very similar to the WWII version, with slight variations to adapt to modern weapons, equipment, and enlisted rank structure.
Current Marine infantry, field artillery, and combat logistics battalions are organized into regiments, commanded by a colonel. Marine infantry and field artillery regiments are sequentially numbered and are referred to generically as "Marines" or "Marine Regiment," as in 1st Marines (an infantry regiment) or 12th Marine Regiment (a field artillery regiment). Marine infantry regiments consist of a regimental Headquarters and Service Company (H&S Co) and three identical infantry battalions. Marine field artillery regiments consist of a regimental Headquarters and Service Battery (H&S Bttry), a Target Acquisition Battery, and from two to four field artillery battalions.
Marine Logistics Groups (MLG) contain two types of regiments; one Headquarters (HQ) Regiment (except 4th MLG) and two Combat Logistics Regiments (CLR). Each of these two types of regiments contain a Headquarters Company and varying numbers and types of logistics battalions and separate logistics companies, depending upon whether the regiment's primary mission is to provide direct support to (1) a Regimental Combat Team (RCT) or a Marine Amphibious Unit (MEU), or (2) provide general support across the Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF), including intermediate ground logistics support to Marine aviation units. These varying types of battalions and separate companies include: Combat Logistics, Maintenance, and Supply battalions, and Combat Logistics, Communications, Food Service, and Service companies (the latter three types in 3rd MLG only).
The HQ Regiments (whose primary mission includes providing support to the MEUs) are not numbered; however, the CLRs are numbered according to their primary mission. CLRs that support RCT's have the same number as the parent Marine Division of its supported RCT. Therefore, CLR 2 supports the RCTs of the 2nd Marine Division. CLRs that provide general maintenance and supply support to the MEF are designated by a two-digit number, the first digit is the Hindu-Arabic numeral equivalent of the MEFs Roman numeral designation and the second digit is always an arbitrarily assigned numeral "5." Therefore, the CLR that provides general maintenance and supply support to III MEF is CLR 35.
The United States Marine Corps deploys battalions from its infantry regiments to form the nucleus of a Battalion landing Team (BLT) as the Ground Combat Element (GCE) of a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU). However, a USMC infantry regiment may deploy en masse to form the nucleus of a Regimental Combat Team (RCT) or Regimental Landing Team (RLT) as the GCE of a Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB). In both cases the infantry component is reinforced with ground combat support forces including field artillery, reconnaissance, assault amphibian vehicle, light armored reconnaissance vehicle, tank, and combat engineer units. The resulting GCE is then combined with an Aviation Combat Element (ACE), a Logistics Combat Element (LCE), and a Command Element (CE) to form a Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF).
Russian Army
The regiments (Russian: полк)[14] of the Russian Army, and armed forces influenced by Russia consist of battalions (Russian: батальон), in the infantry or tank troops, divisions (Russian: дивизион) in the artillery troops, and squadrons (Russian: эскадрилья) in aviation troops. Land forces regiments also include support units – companies (Russian: рота) and/or platoons (Russian: взвод).
Soviet Armed Forces
Motorised Rifle Regiment
The Motorised Rifle Regiment was one of the basic tactical units within the Soviet Armed Forces, totaling around 2,500 officers and other ranks. While normally operating as part of a Motorised Rifle Division or Tank Division, it was capable of short-term independent operations.  By the late 1980s, it consisted of a regimental headquarters in command of three Motorised Rifle Battalions, each numbering around five hundred personnel and equipped with either BMP infantry fighting vehicles or BTR armoured personnel carriers, and one Tank Battalion, typically consisting of thirty-one T-64, T-72 or T-80 tanks, although older models were present in units outside the European Theater of Operations. These were supported by a battalion of eighteen 122mm artillery pieces, either the self-propelled 2S1 Gvozdika in BMP regiments or towed D-30 howitzers in BTR regiments, though some BTR regiments also used the 2S1, with additional fire support from the organic mortar battery in each infantry battalion. Additional combat support came in the form of an air defence missile and artillery company with four SA-9 or SA-13s and four ZSU-23-4 or 2S6 Tunguskas, an antitank missile battery with nine BRDM-mounted AT-3 Sagger or AT-5 Spandrel launchers, a reconnaissance company mounted on BMPs, BRDMs and motorbikes and an engineer company. Other non-combat formations included a signals company, chemical protection platoon, material support company, maintenance company, and regimental medical point.[15]
Tank Regiment
The Tank Regiment was found in both Motorised Rifle Divisions and Tank Divisions, with slight organisational differences depending between the two. By the late 1980s, Tank Regiments operating as part of Motorised Rifle Divisions contained slightly over 1,100 officers and other ranks while those operating within Tank Divisions contained over 1,600. A regimental headquarters oversaw command of three Tank Battalions of thirty-one tanks each, typically T-64, T-72, or T-80 tanks although some units used older models, and an artillery battalion of eighteen 2S1 Gvozdika self-propelled howitzers, with some using the older towed D-30 howitzer. Tank Regiments operating as part of a Tank Division included a fifth combat battalion of motorised infantry, identical to those in BMP-equipped Motorised Rifle Regiments. Combat support and combat service support subunits were the same as in Motorised Rifle Regiments with the exception of the antitank missile battery.[16][17]
Artillery Regiment
The Artillery Regiment was used to provide fire support, but differed depending on whether it was part of a Motorised Rifle Division or Tank Division. The artillery regiment of an MRD consisted of three battalions of eighteen 2S3 Akatsiyas each and a battalion of eighteen BM-21 Grads, numbering just under 1,300 personnel total, while a TD artillery regiment had one less battalion of 2S3s and a little over one thousand personnel total. This was the standard model by the late 1980s, however not all artillery regiments had yet to conformed to it and one or more of the battalions might have used older weapon systems like the D-30 howitzer. Each regiment was led by a command control battery and included an artillery reconnaissance battery, motor transport company, maintenance company, regimental medical point, chemical protection platoon and supply and service platoon.[18]
SAM Regiment
The SAM regiment was an important part of a Motorised Rifle Division or Tank Division's effort to envelop the battlefield in an extensive air defence network. Numbering a little over five hundred personnel total, the SAM regiment consisted of a regimental headquarters in charge of twenty SA-6 Gainfuls organised into five missile firing batteries; most were SA-6a platforms although since 1979 a limited number of SA-6bs were also deployed and some regiments used the SA-8 Gecko as an alternative. Each missile battery, along with the regimental headquarter and missile technical battery, were also equipped with three MANPADs, either the SA-7 Grail, SA-14 Gremlin or SA-16 Gimlet. Besides the missile technical battery, other support subunits included an artillery reconnaissance battery, motor transport company, maintenance company and chemical protection platoon.[19]
Antiaircraft Artillery Regiment
Antiaircraft artillery (AAA) regiments in the late 1980s took the place of SAM regiments in divisions which were assigned to rear areas. These were equipped with twenty-four S-60 57mm Anti Aircraft Guns organised into four firing batteries. Each firing battery along with the regimental headquarters were also equipped with three MANPADs, either the SA-7 Grail, SA-14 Gremlin or SA-16 Gimlet. Additional subunits include a command and control battery and service battery.[20]
Irish Army
The Irish Army field artillery units are called regiments. They are divided into batteries and together the regiments form the Artillery Corps.
Air Defence units are organised as a single regiment with individual batteries stationed around the country.
See also
Demi-brigade
Military organization
Regimental combat team
Regimental depot
Regimental police

How many CO's are typically in a platoon?


The War of the First Coalition (French: Guerre de la Première Coalition) is the traditional name of the wars that several European powers fought between 1792 and 1797 against the French First Republic.[9] Despite the collective strength of these nations compared with France, they were not really allied and fought without much apparent coordination or agreement. Each power had its eye on a different part of France it wanted to appropriate after a French defeat, which never occurred.[10]
France declared war on the Habsburg Monarchy (cf. the Holy Roman Empire, Austrian Empire etc.) on 20 April 1792. In July 1792, an army under the Duke of Brunswick and composed mostly of Prussians joined the Austrian side and invaded France, only to be rebuffed at the Battle of Valmy in September.
Subsequently these powers made several invasions of France by land and sea, with Prussia and Austria attacking from the Austrian Netherlands and the Rhine, and the Kingdom of Great Britain supporting revolts in provincial France and laying siege to Toulon in October 1793. France suffered reverses (Battle of Neerwinden, 18 March 1793) and internal strife (War in the Vendée) and responded with draconian measures. The Committee of Public Safety formed (6 April 1793) and the levée en masse drafted all potential soldiers aged 18 to 25 (August 1793). The new French armies counterattacked, repelled the invaders, and advanced beyond France.
The French established the Batavian Republic as a sister republic (May 1795) and gained Prussian recognition of French control of the Left Bank of the Rhine by the first Peace of Basel. With the Treaty of Campo Formio, the Holy Roman Empire ceded the Austrian Netherlands to France and Northern Italy was turned into several French sister republics. Spain made a separate peace accord with France (Second Treaty of Basel) and the French Directory carried out plans to conquer more of the Holy Roman Empire (German States, and Austria under the same rule).
North of the Alps, Archduke Charles, Duke of Teschen redressed the situation in 1796, but Napoleon carried all before him against Sardinia and Austria in northern Italy (1796–1797) near the Po Valley, culminating in the Treaty of Leoben and the Treaty of Campo Formio (October 1797). The First Coalition collapsed, leaving only Britain in the field fighting against France.
Background
Revolution in France
As early as 1791, other monarchies in Europe were watching the developments in France with alarm, and considered intervening, either in support of Louis XVI or to take advantage of the chaos in France. The key figure, the Holy Roman Emperor Leopold II, brother of the French Queen Marie Antoinette, had initially looked on the Revolution calmly. He became increasingly concerned as the Revolution grew more radical, although he still hoped to avoid war.
On 27 August 1791, Leopold and King Frederick William II of Prussia, in consultation with émigré French nobles, issued the Declaration of Pillnitz, which declared the concern of the monarchs of Europe for the well-being of Louis and his family, and threatened vague but severe consequences if anything should befall them. Although Leopold saw the Pillnitz Declaration as a way of taking action that would enable him to avoid actually doing anything about France, at least for the moment, Paris saw the Declaration as a serious threat and the revolutionary leaders denounced it.[11]
In addition to the ideological differences between France and the monarchical powers of Europe, disputes continued over the status of Imperial estates in Alsace,[11] and the French authorities became concerned about the agitation of émigré nobles abroad, especially in the Austrian Netherlands and in the minor states of Germany. In the end, France declared war on Austria first, with the Assembly voting for war on 20 April 1792, after the presentation of a long list of grievances by the newly appointed foreign minister Charles François Dumouriez.[12]
1792

Dumouriez prepared an invasion of the Austrian Netherlands, where he expected the local population to rise against Austrian rule. However, the revolution had thoroughly disorganized the French army, which had insufficient forces for the invasion. Its soldiers fled at the first sign of battle, deserting en masse, in one case murdering General Théobald Dillon.[12]
While the revolutionary government frantically raised fresh troops and reorganized its armies, an allied army under Charles William Ferdinand, Duke of Brunswick assembled at Koblenz on the Rhine. The invasion commenced in July 1792. Brunswick's army, composed mostly of Prussian veterans, took the fortresses of Longwy and Verdun.[13] The Duke then issued a declaration on 25 July 1792, which had been written by the brothers of Louis XVI, that declared his [Brunswick's] intent to restore the French King to his full powers, and to treat any person or town who opposed him as rebels to be condemned to death by martial law.[12] This motivated the revolutionary army and government to oppose the Prussian invaders by any means necessary,[12] and led almost immediately to the overthrow of the King by a crowd which stormed the Tuileries Palace.[14]
The invaders continued on, but at the Battle of Valmy on 20 September 1792 they came to a stalemate against Dumouriez and Kellermann in which the highly professional French artillery distinguished itself. Although the battle was a tactical draw, it bought time for the revolutionaries and gave a great boost to French morale. Furthermore, the Prussians, facing a campaign longer and more costly than predicted, decided against the cost and risk of continued fighting, and determined to retreat from France to preserve their army.[9]
Meanwhile, the French had been successful on several other fronts, occupying Savoy and Nice in Italy, while General Custine invaded Germany, capturing Speyer, Worms and Mainz along the Rhine, and reaching as far as Frankfurt. Dumouriez went on the offensive in Belgium once again, winning a great victory over the Austrians at Jemappes on 6 November 1792, and occupying the entire country by the beginning of winter.[9]
1793

On 21 January the revolutionary government executed Louis XVI after a trial.[15] This united all European governments, including Spain, Naples, and the Netherlands against the Revolution. France declared war against Britain and the Netherlands on 1 February 1793 and soon afterwards against Spain. In the course of the year 1793 the Holy Roman Empire (on 23 March), the kings of Portugal and Naples, and the Grand-Duke of Tuscany declared war against France. Thus the First Coalition was formed.[9]
France introduced a new levy of hundreds of thousands of men, beginning a French policy of using mass conscription to deploy more of its manpower than the other states could,[9] and remaining on the offensive so that these mass armies could commandeer war material from the territory of their enemies. The French government sent Citizen Genet to the United States to encourage them into entering the war on France's side. The newly formed nation refused and remained neutral throughout the conflict.
After a victory in the Battle of Neerwinden in March, the Austrians suffered twin defeats at the battles of Wattignies and Wissembourg.[16] British land forces were defeated at the Battle of Hondschoote in September.[16]
1794

1794 brought increased success to the revolutionary armies. A major victory against combined coalition forces at the Battle of Fleurus gained all of Belgium and the Rhineland for France.[16] Although the British navy maintained its supremacy at sea, it was unable to support effectively any land operations after the fall of the Belgian provinces.[17] The Prussians were slowly driven out of the eastern departments[16] and by the end of the year they had retired from any active part in the war.[17] Against Spain, the French made successful incursions in both Catalonia and Navarre.[17]
Action extended into the French colonies in the West Indies. A British fleet successfully captured Martinique, St. Lucia, and Guadeloupe, although a French fleet arrived later in the year and recovered the latter.[18]
1795

After seizing the Low Countries in a surprise winter attack, France established the Batavian Republic as a puppet state. Even before the close of 1794 the king of Prussia retired from any active part in the war, and on 5 April 1795 he concluded with France the Peace of Basel, which recognized France's occupation of the left bank of the Rhine. The new French-dominated Dutch government bought peace by surrendering Dutch territory to the south of that river. A treaty of peace between France and Spain followed in July. The grand duke of Tuscany had been admitted to terms in February. The coalition thus fell into ruin and France proper would be free from invasion for many years.[19]
Britain attempted to reinforce the rebels in the Vendée by landing French Royalist troops at Quiberon, but failed,[20] and attempts to overthrow the government at Paris by force were foiled by the military garrison led by Napoleon Bonaparte, leading to the establishment of the Directory.[21][22]
On the Rhine frontier, General Pichegru, negotiating with the exiled Royalists, betrayed his army and forced the evacuation of Mannheim and the failure of the siege of Mainz by Jourdan.[23]
1796

The French prepared a great advance on three fronts, with Jourdan and Jean Victor Marie Moreau on the Rhine and the newly promoted Napoleon Bonaparte in Italy. The three armies were to link up in Tyrol and march on Vienna.
In the Rhine Campaign of 1796, Jourdan and Moreau crossed the Rhine River and advanced into Germany. Jourdan advanced as far as Amberg in late August while Moreau reached Bavaria and the edge of Tyrol by September. However Jourdan was defeated by Archduke Charles, Duke of Teschen and both armies were forced to retreat back across the Rhine.[23][24]
Napoleon, on the other hand, was successful in a daring invasion of Italy. In the Montenotte Campaign, he separated the armies of Sardinia and Austria, defeating each one in turn, and then forced a peace on Sardinia. Following this, his army captured Milan and started the Siege of Mantua. Bonaparte defeated successive Austrian armies sent against him under Johann Peter Beaulieu, Dagobert Sigmund von Wurmser and József Alvinczi while continuing the siege.[24][23]
The rebellion in the Vendée was also crushed in 1796 by Louis Lazare Hoche.[24] Hoche's subsequent attempt to land a large invasion force in Munster to aid the United Irishmen was unsuccessful.[18]
1797

On 2 February Napoleon finally captured Mantua,[25] with the Austrians surrendering 18,000 men. Archduke Charles of Austria was unable to stop Napoleon from invading the Tyrol, and the Austrian government sued for peace in April. At the same time there was a new French invasion of Germany under Moreau and Hoche.[25]
On 22 February, a French invasion force consisting of 1,400 troops from the La Legion Noire (The Black Legion) under the command of Irish American Colonel William Tate landed near Fishguard in Wales. They were met by a quickly assembled group of around 500 British reservists, militia and sailors under the command of John Campbell, 1st Baron Cawdor. After brief clashes with the local civilian population and Lord Cawdor's forces on 23 February, Tate was forced into an unconditional surrender by 24 February. This would be the only battle fought on British soil during the Revolutionary Wars.
Austria signed the Treaty of Campo Formio in October,[25] ceding Belgium to France and recognizing French control of the Rhineland and much of Italy.[24] The ancient Republic of Venice was partitioned between Austria and France. This ended the War of the First Coalition, although Great Britain and France remained at war.
See also
War of the Second Coalition
Notes

Further reading
Fremont-Barnes, Gregory. The French Revolutionary Wars (2013)
Gardiner, Robert. Fleet Battle And Blockade: The French Revolutionary War 1793–1797 (2006)
Lefebvre, Georges. The French Revolution Volume II: from 1793 to 1799 (1964).
Ross, Steven T.  Quest for Victory; French Military Strategy, 1792–1799 (1973)

 Media related to Screenshots of Wikipedia Main Page at Wikimedia Commons

When was the First Coalition formed under Archduke Charles?


Taxation
An aspect of fiscal policy
Policies
Government revenue
Tax revenue
Non-tax revenue
Tax law
Tax bracket
Tax threshold
Exemption
Credit
Deduction
Tax shift
Tax cut
Tax holiday
Tax advantage
Tax incentive
Tax reform
Tax harmonization
Tax competition
Double taxation
Representation
Unions
Medical savings account
Tax, tariff and trade
Economics

General Theory
Price effect
Excess burden
Tax incidence
Laffer curve
Optimal tax
Theory
Optimal capital income taxation
Distribution of Tax
Tax rate
Flat
Progressive
Regressive
Proportional
Collection
Revenue service
Revenue stamp
Tax assessment
Taxable income
Tax lien
Tax refund
Tax shield
Tax residence
Tax preparation
Tax investigation
Tax shelter
Private tax collection
Tax farming
Noncompliance

General
Tax avoidance
Tax evasion
Tax resistance
Tax shelter
Smuggling
Black market
Unreported employment
Corporate
Tax inversion
Transfer mispricing
Base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS)
Double Irish
Dutch Sandwich
Single Malt
CAIA/Green Jersey
Locations
Tax havens
Corporate tax havens
Offshore financial centres (OFCs)
Offshore magic circle
Conduit and Sink OFCs
Financial centres
Financial Secrecy Index
Major examples
Apple €13 billion fine
Ireland as a tax haven
Leprechaun economics
Liechtenstein tax affair
Luxembourg Leaks
Offshore Leaks
Paradise Papers
Panama Papers
Swiss Leaks
United States as a tax haven
Panama as a tax haven
Types
Direct
Indirect
Per unit
Ad valorem
In rem
Capital gains
Carbon
Consumption
Dividend
Ecotax
Excise
Fuel
Georgist
Gift
Gross receipts
Income
Inheritance (estate)
Land value
Payroll
Pigovian
Property
Sales
Sin
Single
Stamp
Steering
Turnover
Value-added (VAT)
Corporate profit
Excess profits
Windfall profits
Negative (income)
Wealth
International
Financial transaction tax
Currency transaction tax
European Union Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB)
Tobin tax
Spahn tax
Tax equalization
Tax treaty
Permanent establishment
Transfer pricing
European Union FTT
Foreign revenue rule
Trade
Custom
Duty
Tariff
Import
Export
Tariff war
Free trade
Free trade zone
Trade agreement
ATA Carnet
Research

Academic
Mihir A. Desai
Dhammika Dharmapala
James R. Hines Jr.
Ronen Palan
Joel Slemrod
Gabriel Zucman
Advocacy groups
Tax Justice Network (TJN)
Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP)
Oxfam (UK)
Tax Foundation (US)
Tax Policy Center (US)
Religious
Church tax
Eight per thousand
Teind
Tithe
Fiscus Judaicus
Leibzoll
Temple tax
Tolerance tax
Jizya
Kharaj
Khums
Nisab
Zakat
By country

All Countries
List of countries by tax rates
Tax revenues as % of GDP
Tax rates in Europe
Individual Countries
Albania
Algeria
Argentina
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bangladesh
Bhutan
Brazil
Bulgaria
BVI
Canada
China
Colombia
Croatia
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hong Kong
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Kazakhstan
Lithuania
Malta
Morocco
Namibia
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Pakistan
Palestine
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Tanzania
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguayvt

This is a list of the maximum potential tax rates around Europe for certain income brackets. It is focused on three types of taxes: corporate, individual, and value added taxes (VAT). It is not intended to represent the true tax burden to either the corporation or the individual in the listed country.
Summary list
The quoted income tax rate is, except where noted, the top rate of tax: most jurisdictions have lower rate of taxes for low levels of income. Some countries also have lower rates of corporation tax for smaller companies. In 1980, the top rates of most European countries were above 60%. Today most European countries have rates below 50%.[1]

Per country information
Austria
Austrian income taxation is determined by §33 of Austrian Income Tax Code (Einkommensteuergesetz - EStG)

It should be noted that until the end of the year 2020 an additional tax (55%) will affect income of over 1 million €.
Portugal
Income tax in Portugal depends on the number of people in the household. The taxable income is calculated based on the number of household and marital status.

The above values include the special solidarity income tax.
To the above taxes should be added 11% of social securtity contribution by the employee.
Germany

German income tax comprises 5 income tax bands, with the first two being based on a totally Progressive tax rate and the rest being flat rate. Taxable income is derived after subtracting personal and child allowances from earned income. In addition a number of other deductions may be claimed by German taxpayers.
Personal allowance: €9,000 per adult
Child allowance: €7,428 per child

In Germany, married couples are taxed jointly. This means that the tax liability for the couple is twice the amount resulting from the tariff when inserting the average income of both spouses. Due to the progressive tariff, filing jointly uniformly reduces the total tax burden if spouses' incomes differ.
Netherlands

Income tax in the Netherlands (Loonheffing) and social security contributions are combined  in one payroll tax. There are no personal tax-free allowances

*) Exclusive income dependend standard tax reductions.
France

Income tax in France depends on the number of people in the household. The taxable income is divided by the number of persons belonging to the household. Each adult counts as one person while the first two children count as half each. From the third child onwards each child counts as one person. Therefore, a household comprising 2 adults and 3 children is considered to be a household of 4 persons for tax purposes

Finland

The total Finnish income tax includes the income tax dependable on the net salary, employee unemployment payment, and employer unemployment payment. [65] [66]
The tax rate increases very progressively rapidly at 13 ke/year (from 25% to 48%) and at 29 ke/year to 55% and eventually rearches 67% at 83 ke/year, while little decreases at 127 ke/year to 65%.
The middle-income person will get 44 euros from every 100 euros the employer puts on the work.
The GP will then again get from every extra 100 euros that the employer puts on the work only 33 euros.
Some sources do not include the employer unemployment payment, for instance Veronmaksajat -organisation. [67]
[68]

Spain
Spanish income tax includes a personal tax free allowance and an allowance per child. In 2012 a special temporary surcharge was introduced as part of austerity measures to balance the budget.
The personal allowance currently stands at €5,151.
1st child €1,836
2nd child  €2,040
3rd child €3,672
4th & subs €4,182

Italy

Personal Allowance: €800  per adult
Allowance per child: €1,120

United Kingdom

Income tax for the United Kingdom is based on 2016/17 tax bands. The current tax free threshold on earnings is £11,500.[71] The relief is tapered by £1 for every £2 earned over £100,000.

Denmark

See also
List of countries by tax revenue as percentage of GDP
VAT rates
Tax Freedom Day
Tax haven
Tax rates around the world

Sources

, 1 July 2013, European Commission
, 1 July 2013, European Commission

Which country in Europe has the highest income tax?