Hartley II DE-1029 - History

Hartley II DE-1029 - History

Hartley II

(DE-1029: dp. 1,280, 1. 314'6", b. 36'9", dr. 9'3", s. 25 k.; cpl. 170, a. 4 3", 1 ASW rkt., 1 dct., 6 dcp; cl.Dealey)

Hartley was laid down by the New York Shipbuilding Co., Camden, N.J., 31 October 1955, launched 24 November 19555; sponsored by Mrs.Henry Hartley, widow of Admiral Hartley; and commissioned 26 June 1957 at Philadelphia, Pa., Lt. Comdr. C. N. Crandall, Jr., in command.

After shakedown in the Caribbean to test the latest and most efficient antisubmarine equipment, Hartley Joined Escort Squadron 14 in Newport, R.I., for a series of ASW and convoy tactics exercises 28 January 1958. Departing Newport 12 May in company with CortRon 14, CortRon 10, and Wasp (CVS-18), Hartley deployed to the Mediterranean for operations with the mighty 6th Fleet. During the Lebanese crisis in July she patrolled off the coast of Lebanon as the 6th Fleet acted quickly and effectively to stabilize the tense political situation and to prevent the spread of violence to other parts of the unsettled Middle East. For the next 2 months she continued peace-keeping patrols and ranged the Mediterranean from Turkey to France. She returned to Newport 7 October.

After a series of ASW exercises out of her home port, Hartley sailed with CortRon 14 for an extended South American cruise 6 February 1959 American units joined ships from the Brazilian, Argentine, Uruguayan, and Venezuelan navies for intensive ASW training exercises. Hartley returned to Newport 5 May 1959 and engaged in further escort and ASW exercises until June 1960, when she entered Monroe Shipyard, Chelsea, Mass., for installation of a new high speed sonar dome. Hartlely then served as Fleet Sonar School training ship at Key West, Fla., until November 1960.

Antisubmarine exercises out of Newport filled Hartley’s schedule for the following 4 years, punctuated by occasional special operations. In October 1961, Hartley sailed to Norfolk to work with NASA research teams in improving shipboard recovery and space capsule egress procedures for American astronauts. After another tour with the Sonar School at Key West, Hartlely prepared for EAGLE II, a joint Canadian-American exercise which was cancelled because of the Cuban missile crisis in October 1962. In response to the Russian attempt to establish offensive missile bases in Cuba the United States established an effective naval blockade off Cuba vigilant American ships helped repulse this threat to world peace; and, operating off the East Coast, Hartley provided essential support during one of the most tense and dangerous international situations of the Cold War

Since 1962, Hartley has continued operating in the Atlantic and the Caribbean. In March 1963, she conducted surveillance patrols off Cuba, and during the next 5 months she participated in extensive ASW exercises out of Key West and Newport. Early in September she entered the Boston Naval Shipyard where she underwent overhaul and modification. Equipped with the latest advances in sonar equipment and DASH, Hartley resumed duty 27 January 1964. During February and March she trained out of Guantanamo Bay and served at the Sonar School at Key West. Returning to Newport 8 April, she spent the remainder of the year participating in antisubmarine exercises which sent her from the Gulf of Maine to the Straits of Florida.

After conducting surveillance patrols and sonar training out of Key West during the early part of 1965, she was heavily damaged by Norwegian freighter Blue Master 16 June. As Hartley entered Chesapeake Bay in heavy weather, the merchantman hit the destroyer escort broadside, and her bow almost cut Hartley in half. She suffered no casualties but was extensively damaged in the, engineering spaces. Prompt and effective rescue and salvage operations kept her from grounding; 19 hours after the collision, she reached Norfolk under tow.

After extensive repairs at Norfolk Navy Yard, Hartley returned to Newport early in October. There she resumed antisubmarine operations.

Hartley operated out of Newport along the New England coast and in the Caribbean until she sailed for Northern Europe late in May 1987. After cruising along the Scandinavian coast, she arrived Copenhagen 23 June. She next visited Holy Loch, Scotland, before getting underway 17 July for the Mediterranean, There she became an element of stability in that tense and explosive region so recently disturbed by the war between Israel and Arab States.

The USS Hartley is part of the Nine Dealeys Class ships that were based in Newport Rhode Island from 1954 through 1973. You can find more information about the this and other Dealey ships on the Newport Dealeys website.Click Here!
There will be a reunion for the Newport Dealey ships on Oct 20-23, 2005 in Jacksonville, FL.
Please Contact:
Charles Holzschuh
14396-A Canalview Dr,
Delray Beach,FL 33484
Phone 561-499-2818.
Email:[email protected]


Hartley II DE-1029 - History

NOTE: Please Check out the new Whiting Field Gallery. There are several prople on the Whiting Field page that I need help finding. I found two guys in June of 2010, with both of them living close to Orlando, FL. One of these people gave me a link about my old photolab chief, Ernest J. Gaines, who died in 1985 in the Philippnes.

The images in this gallery were made with my personal camera's from May 1959 until Sept of 1962. The first images were made on boot leave from the Naval Basic Training Center in San Diego. I bought a used twin lens reflex in a pawn shop, and starting making pictures around San Diego. After returning to the base my first images were of the barracks, and the sailors in my company, number 148 of 1959.

My next duty station was at NAAS WHITING FIELD, near Milton, FL.

Whiting Field was a large part of the Air Naval Basic Training Command in north west Florida. Cadets started out at Pensacola, and then moved on to NAAS Whiting Field after completing basic flight training in the T-34's. The larger 1300 HP T-28's were the next phase of the student pilots training. Today Whiting is a full NAS, with helicopter training. (I left Whiting as a photographers mate third class.)

In the summer of 1961 I was ordered to Destroyer Development Group Two, at Newport, RI.

The development group had a staff of about forty officers, and enlisted men, with Commodore, (Captain), Donald G. Dockum as the commanding officer. (He died in the late sixties while on a hunting trip in upstate NY.)

The group was housed in building Eighteen near the two destroyer piers, in Coddington Cove. Most of the groups officers had started out as enlisted, and were commissioned through the LDO or Warrent programs. (Commodore Dockum was a 1936 graduate of the Naval Academy.) The group was small with everyone from the commanding officer down working closely together. (Commodore Dockum would often fish with the enlisted men in the evenings, and we had lots of good chats when I drove him to or from the airport at Providence, RI.

The developement group's purpose was to invent and test new equipment that would improve navy destroyer's. We had four WW II era destroyer's to use as test ships. The USS Hazelwood, DD 531, USS Hugh Purvis DD 709, USS Glennon DD 840, and the USS Brownson DD 868. I got to spend some time on all of these ships, but I was on the Hugh Purvis more than any of the others. Everything was classified, with a need to know.

My enlistment ended on Sept, 26, 1962. I was a Photographers Mate, Second Class at this time. PH2

My Email is [email protected] Please put the word NAVY in the email subject line.

It's been over fifty seven years since I enlisted, and sometimes at night I will wake up and think about those days when I could hear the sounds of a radial engine going up to full power, or see the food being served on a chow line. I still miss being in the navy.


Contents

13th century (growth) Edit

Although some former rulers of Bohemia had enjoyed a non-hereditary royal title during the 11th and 12th centuries (Vratislaus II, Vladislaus II), the kingdom was formally established in 1198 by Přemysl Ottokar I, who had his status acknowledged by Philip of Swabia, elected King of the Romans, in return for his support against the rival Emperor Otto IV. In 1204 Ottokar's royal status was accepted by Otto IV as well as by Pope Innocent III. It was officially recognized in 1212 by the Golden Bull of Sicily issued by Emperor Frederick II, elevating the Duchy of Bohemia to Kingdom status and proclaiming its independence which was also later bolstered by future king of Bohemia and emperor Charles IV. with his golden bull in 1356.

Under these terms, the Czech king was to be exempt from all future obligations to the Holy Roman Empire except for participation in the imperial councils. The imperial prerogative to ratify each Bohemian ruler and to appoint the bishop of Prague was revoked. The king's successor was his son Wenceslaus I, from his second marriage.

Wenceslaus I's sister Agnes, later canonized, refused to marry the Holy Roman Emperor and instead devoted her life to spiritual works. Corresponding with the Pope, she established the Knights of the Cross with the Red Star in 1233, the first military order in the Kingdom of Bohemia. Four other military orders were present in Bohemia: the Order of St. John of Jerusalem from c. 1160 the Order of Saint Lazarus from the late 12th century the Teutonic Order from c. 1200–1421 and the Knights Templar from 1232 to 1312. [9]

The 13th century was the most dynamic period of the Přemyslid reign over Bohemia. German Emperor Frederick II's preoccupation with Mediterranean affairs and the dynastic struggles known as the Great Interregnum (1254–73) weakened imperial authority in Central Europe, thus providing opportunities for Přemyslid assertiveness. At the same time, the Mongol invasions (1220–42) absorbed the attention of Bohemia's eastern neighbors, Hungary and Poland.

Přemysl Ottokar II (1253–78) married a German princess, Margaret of Babenberg, and became duke of Austria. He thereby acquired Upper Austria, Lower Austria, and part of Styria. He conquered the rest of Styria, most of Carinthia, and parts of Carniola. He was called "the king of iron and gold" (iron because of his conquests, gold because of his wealth). He campaigned as far as Prussia, where he defeated the pagan natives and in 1256, founded a city he named Královec in Czech, which later became Königsberg (now Kaliningrad).

In 1260, Ottokar defeated Béla IV, king of Hungary in the Battle of Kressenbrunn near the Morava river, where more than 200,000 men clashed. He ruled an area from Austria to the Adriatic Sea. From 1273, however, Habsburg king Rudolf began to reassert imperial authority, checking Ottokar's power. He also had problems with rebellious nobility in Bohemia. All of Ottokar's German possessions were lost in 1276, and in 1278 he was abandoned by part of the Czech nobility and died in the Battle on the Marchfeld against Rudolf.

Ottokar was succeeded by his son King Wenceslaus II, who was crowned King of Poland in 1300. Wenceslaus II's son Wenceslaus III was crowned King of Hungary a year later. At this time, the Kings of Bohemia ruled from Hungary to the Baltic Sea.

The 13th century was also a period of large-scale German immigration, during the Ostsiedlung, often encouraged by the Přemyslid kings. The Germans populated towns and mining districts on the Bohemian periphery and in some cases formed German colonies in the interior of the Czech lands. Stříbro, Kutná Hora, Německý Brod (present-day Havlíčkův Brod), and Jihlava were important German settlements. The Germans brought their own code of law – the ius teutonicum – which formed the basis of the later commercial law of Bohemia and Moravia. Marriages between Czech nobles and Germans soon became commonplace.

14th century ("Golden Age") Edit

The 14th century – particularly the reign of Charles IV (1342–78) – is considered the Golden Age of Czech history. In 1306, the Přemyslid line died out and, after a series of dynastic wars, John, Count of Luxembourg, was elected Bohemian king. He married Elisabeth, the daughter of Wenceslaus II. He was succeeded as king in 1346 by his son, Charles IV, the second king from the House of Luxembourg. Charles was raised at the French court and was cosmopolitan in attitude.

Charles IV strengthened the power and prestige of the Bohemian kingdom. In 1344 he elevated the bishopric of Prague, making it an archbishopric and freeing it from the jurisdiction of Mainz, and the archbishop was given the right to crown Bohemian kings. Charles curbed the Bohemian, Moravian, and Silesian nobility, and rationalized the provincial administration of Bohemia and Moravia. He created the Crown of Bohemia, incorporating Moravia, Silesia and Lusatia.

In 1355 Charles was crowned Holy Roman Emperor. The next year he issued the Golden Bull of 1356, defining and codifying the process of election to the Imperial throne, with the Bohemian king among the seven electors. Issuance of the Golden Bull together with the ensuing acquisition of the Brandenburg Electorate gave the Luxemburgs two votes in the electoral college. Charles also made Prague into an Imperial capital.

Extensive building projects undertaken by the king included the founding of the New Town southeast of the old city. The royal castle, Hradčany, was rebuilt. Of particular significance was the founding of Charles University in Prague in 1348. Charles intended to make Prague into an international center of learning, and the university was divided into Czech, Polish, Saxon, and Bavarian "nations", each with one controlling vote. Charles University, however, would become the nucleus of intense Czech particularism.

Charles died in 1378, and the Bohemian crown went to his son, Wenceslas IV. He had also been elected King of the Romans in 1376, in the first election since his father's Golden Bull. He was deposed from the Imperial throne in 1400, however, having never been crowned Emperor. His half-brother, Sigismund, was eventually crowned Emperor in Rome in 1433, ruling until 1437, and he was the last male member of the House of Luxemburg.

15th century (Hussite movement) Edit

The Hussite movement (1402–85) was primarily a religious, as well as national, manifestation. As a religious reform movement (the so-called Bohemian Reformation), it represented a challenge to papal authority and an assertion of national autonomy in ecclesiastical affairs. The Hussites defeated four crusades from the Holy Roman Empire, and the movement is viewed by many as a part of the (worldwide) Protestant Reformation. Because many of warriors of the crusades were Germans, although many were also Hungarians and Catholic Czechs, the Hussite movement is seen as a Czech national movement. In modern times it acquired anti-imperial and anti-German associations and has sometimes been identified as a manifestation of a long-term ethnic Czech–German conflict.

Hussitism began during the long reign of Wenceslas IV (1378–1419), a period of papal schism and concomitant anarchy in the Holy Roman Empire. It was precipitated by a controversy at Charles University in Prague. In 1403 Jan Hus became rector of the university. A reformist preacher, Hus espoused the anti-papal and anti-hierarchical teachings of John Wycliffe of England, often referred to as the "Morning Star of the Reformation". Hus' teaching was distinguished by its rejection of what he saw as the wealth, corruption, and hierarchical tendencies of the Roman Catholic Church. He advocated the Wycliffe doctrine of clerical purity and poverty, and insisted on the laity receiving communion under both kinds, bread and wine. (The Roman Catholic Church in practice reserved the cup, or wine, for the clergy.) The more moderate followers of Hus, the Utraquists, took their name from the Latin sub utraque specie, meaning "under each kind". The Taborites, a more radical sect, soon formed, taking their name from the city of Tábor, their stronghold in southern Bohemia. They rejected church doctrine and upheld the Bible as the sole authority in all matters of belief.

Soon after Hus assumed office, German professors of theology demanded the condemnation of Wycliffe's writings. Hus protested, receiving the support of the Czech element at the university. Having only one vote in policy decisions against three for the Germans, the Czechs were outvoted, [ citation needed ] and the orthodox position was maintained. In subsequent years, the Czechs demanded a revision of the university charter, granting more adequate representation to the native Czech faculty. The university controversy was intensified by the vacillating position of the Bohemian king Wenceslas. His favoring of Germans in appointments to councillor and other administrative positions had aroused the nationalist sentiments of the Czech nobility and rallied them to Hus' defense. The German faculties had the support of Zbyněk Zajíc, Archbishop of Prague, and the German clergy. For political reasons, Wenceslas switched his support from the Germans to Hus and allied with the reformers. On 18 January 1409, Wenceslas issued the Decree of Kutná Hora: (as was the case at other major universities in Europe) the Czechs would have three votes the others, a single vote. In consequence, German faculty and students left Charles University en masse in the thousands, and many ended up founding the University of Leipzig.

Hus' victory was short lived. He preached against the sale of indulgences, which lost him the support of the king, who had received a percentage of such sales. In 1412 Hus and his followers were suspended from the university and expelled from Prague. For two years the reformers served as itinerant preachers throughout Bohemia. In 1414 Hus was summoned to the Council of Constance to defend his views. Imprisoned when he arrived, he was never given a chance to defend his ideas. The council condemned him as a heretic and burned him at the stake in 1415.

Hus's death sparked the Hussite Wars, decades of religious warfare. Sigismund, the pro-papal king of Hungary and successor to the Bohemian throne after the death of Wenceslas in 1419, failed repeatedly to gain control of the kingdom despite aid by Hungarian and German armies. Riots broke out in Prague. Led by a Czech yeoman, Jan Žižka, the Taborites streamed into the capital. Religious strife pervaded the entire kingdom and was particularly intense in the German-dominated towns. Hussite Czechs and Catholic Germans turned on each other many were massacred, and many German survivors fled or were exiled to the rest of the Holy Roman Empire. Emperor Sigismund led or instigated various crusades against Bohemia with the support of Hungarians and Bohemian Catholics.

The Hussite Wars followed a pattern. When a crusade was launched against Bohemia, moderate and radical Hussites would unite and defeat it. Once the threat was over, the Hussite armies would focus on raiding the land of Catholic sympathizers. Many historians have painted the Hussites as religious fanatics they fought in part for a nationalist purpose: to protect their land from a King and a Pope who did not recognize the right of the Hussites to exist. Zizka led armies to storm castles, monasteries, churches, and villages, expelling the Catholic clergy, expropriating ecclesiastical lands, or accepting conversions.

During the struggle against Sigismund, Taborite armies penetrated into areas of modern-day Slovakia as well. Czech refugees from the religious wars in Bohemia settled there, and from 1438 to 1453 a Czech noble, John Jiskra of Brandýs, controlled most of southern Slovakia from the centers of Zólyom (today Zvolen) and Kassa (today Košice). Thus Hussite doctrines and the Czech Bible were disseminated among the Slovaks, providing the basis for a future link between the Czechs and their Slovak neighbors.

When Sigismund died in 1437, the Bohemian estates elected Albert of Austria as his successor. Albert died and his son, Ladislaus the Posthumous – so called because he was born after his father's death – was acknowledged as king. During Ladislaus' minority, Bohemia was ruled by a regency composed of moderate reform nobles who were Utraquists. Internal dissension among the Czechs provided the primary challenge to the regency. A part of the Czech nobility remained Catholic and loyal to the pope. A Utraquist delegation to the Council of Basel in 1433 had negotiated a seeming reconciliation with the Catholic Church. The Compacts of Basel accepted the basic tenets of Hussitism expressed in the Four Articles of Prague: communion under both kinds free preaching of the Gospels expropriation of church land and exposure and punishment of public sinners. The pope, however, rejected the compact, thus preventing the reconciliation of Czech Catholics with the Utraquists.

George of Poděbrady, later to become the "national" king of Bohemia, emerged as leader of the Utraquist regency. George installed another Utraquist, John of Rokycan, as archbishop of Prague and succeeded in uniting the more radical Taborites with the Czech Reformed Church. The Catholic party was driven out of Prague. After Ladislaus died of leukemia in 1457, the following year the Bohemian estates elected George of Poděbrady as king. Although George was noble-born, he was not a successor of royal dynasty his election to the monarchy was not recognised by the Pope, or any other European monarchs.

George sought to establish a "Charter of a Universal Peace Union." He believed that all monarchs should work for a sustainable peace on the principle of national sovereignty of states, principles of non-interference, and solving problems and disputes before an International Tribunal. Also, Europe should unite to fight the Turks. States would have one vote each, with a leading role for France. George did not see a specific role for Papal authority. [ citation needed ]

Czech Catholic nobles joined in the League of Zelena Hora in 1465, challenging the authority of George of Poděbrady the next year, Pope Paul II excommunicated George. The Bohemian War (1468-1478) pitted Bohemia against Matthias Corvinus and Frederick III of Habsburg, and the Hungarian forces occupied most of Moravia. George of Poděbrady died in 1471.


Hugues II de PONTHIEU

  • Married about 1032, Aumale, 76390, Seine Maritime, Haute-Normandie, FRANCE, to Berthe d'AUMALE, , born about 1015 - Aumale, 76390, Seine Maritime, Haute-Normandie, FRANCE, deceased about 1068 - St Riquier, 80135, Somme, Picardie, FRANCE aged about 53 years old (Parents : Guérinfrid d'AUMALE, Seigneur d'Aumale ca 990-1050 & Jehanne de SAINT-VALÉRY 1002-1044 ) with
    • Enguerrand II de PONTHIEU ca 1033-1053 WithAdélaïde de NORMANDIE ca 1029- with
    • Adeliza of NOTTINGHAM-PEVEREL ca 1070-1156/
    • William of NOTTINGHAM-PEVEREL 1080-1150
    • />Gisèle de MONTCAVREL 1050-1103 Married in 1065 toBernard II de SAINT-VALÉRY 1044-1107
    • />Berthe de MONTCAVREL, Dame de Beaumerle 1052-1106 Married in 1071 toHugues 1er de ROLLANCOURT 1040- with :
    • Hugues II de ROLLANCOURT 1072-1125
    • Marie de ROLLANCOURT 1073-1135
    • Gaucher de MONTCAVREL, Ecuyer sgr de Montcavrel et Beussent 1080-1142
    • Sainte de MONTCAVREL 1084-1129
    • Baudouin de MONTCAVREL 1090-1149
    • Blanche de MONTCAVREL 1093-1146
    • Louise de MONTCAVREL 1095-1151
    • Guillaume 1er Talvas de PONTHIEU, Comte de Ponthieu et d'Alençon ca 1095-1171
    • Marie de MONTGOMERY ca 1100-
    • Mabel Sybil de MONTGOMERY

    • Hugues III de SAINT-POL CANDAVÈNE, Comte de Saint-Pol et d'Hesdin 1096-1145/ WithBéatrix de ROLLANCOURT, Dame de Rollancourt , Wavrin, et de Blingel en partie 1102-1130 with :
    • Ide de SAINT-POL ca 1120-ca 1179
    • Anselme 1er de SAINT-POL, Comte de Saint-Pol , sgr d'Encre et de Lucheux, de Tarentefort, Dartford ca 1125-1174
    • Adélaïde Ädelise de SAINT-POL †1175/

    Hugues III de SAINT-POL CANDAVÈNE, Comte de Saint-Pol et d'Hesdin 1096-1145/ Married in 1128 to Marguerite de CLERMONT-BEAUVAISIS 1103-1178 with :
    • Béatrix de SAINT-POL CANDAVÈNE 1130-1170
    • Gui de SAINT-POL, Sgr de Beauval , Ransart, Frévent et Cercamp (62) †1186/

    Bagratid kingdom of Armenia [ edit | edit source ]

    Bagratunis of Taron [ edit | edit source ]

    Sasuntzi Davith, the hero of Armenian еpic poetry. According to one version, Ashot II and David Arkayik are the personages of creating him

    Taron (Turuberan) became a part of Bagratunis' domain in the beginning of 9th century, when Ashot Msaker was Prince of Armenia (790-826). As a prince of Taron, he is counted as Ashot I (804-826). After his death, prince of princes, Bagrat, inherited Taron, the south of the domain, and Smbat, Ayrarat, which was the northern part. Bagrat was the second in the dynasty. Bagrat I was an aspet in 4th century. However, in Taron, he was the first Bagrat, so he ruled as Bagrat I of Taron (826-851), because there were no Bagrats before him. His sons and grandsons ruled until 966. After, Taron became a part of Byzantine Empire. Script error: No such module "Unsubst".

    Previous seniors, princes of Taron, of the Mamikonian family, were strong in the region, even during the ruling of the last prince, Ashot III. They became relatives with the Bagratunis, and as a result of that, there were two more princes in Taron in his last days. They were Bagrat II and Grigor II, who were half-Mamikonians and half-Bagratunis. Later, the Tronite branch of the Bagratunis and Mamikonians became one family. Some of them ruled in Sasun (Tornikians) and the others in Moush (Taronites). Script error: No such module "Unsubst".

    Bagrat I
    (826-851)
    Ashot II
    (855-878)
    David Arkayik
    (878-895)
    Tornik
    Gurgen
    (895-895)
    Ashot Grigor I
    (895-936)
    Apoganem
    Bagrat II
    (936-987)
    Ashot III
    (936-966)
    Tornikian family
    Grigor II
    (936-987)
    Bagrat III
    (998-1020)
    Taronites

    Kings of Armenia [ edit | edit source ]

    After the death of Ashot Msaker (826) and Bagrat II Bagratuni (851), Smbat VIII became the prince of Armenia. His family was the ruling royal family for 200 years, in Armenia, Georgia and Albania. Because of this long rule, they were called king of kings (shahnshah).

    The son of Smbat VIII, Ashot, became the first Bagratuni king. He had four sons and three daughters, whom he married to Artsruni and Syuni princes. Thus, the strongest families of Armenia became one family and began to rule the country. Ashot's brother, Shapuh, became sparapet, the constable of the Armenian army. The capital was Bagaran, which was throne-city of Ashot Msaker (790-826). Ashot 's son, Smbat (890-914), moved the capital to Yerazgavors. It was the capital for about forty years until King Abas moved it to Kars.

    Ashot III the Merciful, king of Armenia (953-977), built a new capital around the fortress of Ani. It was the last capital of the Armenian kingdom, so it is also called Kingdom of Ani. His brother, Mushegh, stayed in Kars and founded Kingdom of Kars (963-1065) under the sovereignty of Ashot III. Later, the king of Armenia, Smbat II, allowed his brother Gurgen to organize a new kingdom in north which became the Kingdom of Tashir-Dzoraget (978-1113). Smbat Syuni did the same in the east creating the Kingdom of Syunik-Baghk.

    The third son of Ashot III, Gagik, was the last powerful king of Armenia (990-1020). After his death, the kingdom was divided into two parts, between the brothers, Hovhannes-Smbat and Ashot. The last king was Gagik II (1042-1045), son of Ashot.

    In 1079, Gagik II was killed. In 1080, Gagik of Kars and his sons, Hovhannes and David, also died. The son of Hovhannes, Ashot, was also killed in Ani. As a result, the royal branch of the Bagratunis ended with Ani and Kars. The last royal branch, the Kiurikian family, remained in Lori.

    Armenian prince Ruben killed the murderers of Gagik II and inherited the throne from him. In 1080, he founded the Armenian principality of Cilicia (1080-1198), which became a kingdom (1198-1375).

    Consequently, the royal heritage of the Armenian Bagratuni family is either Georgian Bagrationis, or Rubinians, Hetumids and Lusignans in Cilicia, or the Kiurikians. Non-royal or princely branches have many more than these three royal branches. Script error: No such module "Unsubst". Template:OR

    Smbat VIII
    40px
    (852-855)
    Hripsime
    Katranide I
    33px
    Ashot I
    40px
    (855-885)
    40px
    (885-890)
    Smbat Shapuh Mushegh Abas two daughters
    Smbat the Martyr
    40px
    (890-914)
    Sahak David Shapuh sparapet
    Sofya Grigor Artsruni
    40px
    Vaspurakan
    (857-887)
    daughter Vahan Artsruni Mariam Vasak Syuni
    40px
    Syunik
    (855-859)
    Ashot
    40px
    Vaspurakan
    (898-904)
    Gagik
    prince and king of Vaspurakan
    (904-908, 908-943)
    Gurgen
    40pxParskahayk
    (904-925)
    Grigor
    40px
    Syunik
    (859-913)
    Sahak Vasak
    Ashot the Iron
    40px
    (914-928)
    Sahakanuysh Sevada
    33px
    Abas I
    40px
    (928-953)
    Gagik
    40px
    Vaspurakan
    (897-898)
    son Ashot sparapet
    Khosrovanuysh
    33px
    Ashot III
    (953-977)
    40px
    Mushegh I
    40px
    Kars
    (963-984)
    daughter of Sevada II
    Smbat II
    40px
    (977-990)
    Gagik I
    40px
    (990-1020)
    Katranide II
    33px
    Gurgen
    40px
    Lori
    (978-989)
    Abas I
    40px
    Kars
    (984-1029)
    Gourandukht Rubinyan
    Senekerim Artsruni
    40px
    Vaspurakan
    (1003-1021)
    Khushush Hovhannes-Smbat
    40px
    (1022-1041)
    Ashot
    the Brave
    40px
    (1022-1040)
    Abas Kiurikians Gagik I
    40px
    Kars
    (1029-1065)
    daughter of David Artsruni Gagik II
    40px
    Mariam
    Hovhannes David daughter of
    Ablgarib Artsruni
    Ashot
    ( 1080)

    Kiurikians [ edit | edit source ]

    The Kiurikians were a royal and princely family from Armenia from the 10th through 14th centuries. The founder is Gurgen or Kiurike, son of Ashot III the Merciful (953-977). At first, they ruled only in Tashir-Dzoraget (Lori Province) but later in Tavush as well. Grandsons of Gurgen-Kiurike were kings of Tashir-Dzoraget and eastern Georgia (Kingdom of Kakheti).

    In the 12th century, Kakhety and Lori annexed to Georgia. The Kiurikians remained in Tavush. Later they divided into Matsnaberd and Nor-berd branches. The last prince, Sargis of Matsnaberd, ruled in the 13th century. Nothing is known about him, his parents (probably Aghsartan), or their offspring.


    4 Conclusion

    As discussed in M2014, the band-o-gram developed therein could be extrapolated linearly out in time. The linear extrapolation of the solar activity bands outward in time was verified in McIntosh et al. ( 2017 ) by updating the original observational analysis and comparing to the earlier band-o-gram. M2014 projected that sunspot cycle 25 spots would start to appear in 2019 and swell in number following the terminator in mid-2020. Six years later, we are seeing these predictions come true with the first numbered active regions and low level (C-class) flaring activity. Based on the mSEA of the past 60 years, an enduring warm pool in the central and western Pacific at solar minimum (ONI has been consistently positive since early 2018, even though it never got so warm to become a fully fledged strong El Niño event) was not unexpected, and we expect a rapid transition into La Niña conditions later in 2020 following the sunspot cycle 24 terminator. Given the warm waters, we project a particularly active Atlantic hurricane season in 2021, and maybe even 2020, depending on exactly when the terminator and ENSO transition occurs this year.

    In conclusion, we have presented clear evidence in Figure 5 of a recurring empirical relationship between ENSO and the end of solar cycles. We have tried to avoid discussion of causation, which, due to its controversial nature could lead to dismissal of the empirical relationship, and we want open a broader scientific discussion of solar coupling to the Earth and its environment. Nevertheless, independent of the exact coupling mechanisms, the question must be asked, why has the pattern occurred and reoccurred regularly for the past five solar cycles, or 60 years? We have only a few months at most to wait to see if this Terminator-ENSO relation continues at the onset of the coming solar cycle 25. Should this next terminator be associated with a swing to La Niña then we must seriously consider the capability of coupled global terrestrial modeling efforts to capture “step-function” events, and assess how complex the Sun-Earth connection is, with particular attention to the relationship between incoming cosmic rays and clouds and precipitation over our oceans. ENSO is the largest mode of atmospheric variability driving extreme weather events with large costs and so any improvement in prediction of that would be of societal benefit.


    Taft–Hartley Act

    Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

    Taft–Hartley Act, formally Labor–Management Relations Act, (1947), in U.S. history, law—enacted over the veto of Pres. Harry S. Truman—amending much of the pro-union Wagner Act of 1935. A variety of factors, including the fear of Communist infiltration of labour unions, the tremendous growth in both membership and power of unions, and a series of large-scale strikes, contributed to an anti-union climate in the United States after World War II. Republican majorities in both houses of Congress—the first since 1930—sought to remedy the union abuses seen as permitted under the Wagner Act.

    The Labor–Management Relations Act of 1947, sponsored by Sen. Robert A. Taft (Ohio) and Rep. Fred A. Hartley, Jr. (New Jersey), while preserving the rights of labour to organize and to bargain collectively, additionally guaranteed employees the right not to join unions (outlawing the closed shop) permitted union shops only where state law allowed and where a majority of workers voted for them required unions to give 60 days’ advance notification of a strike authorized 80-day federal injunctions when a strike threatened to imperil national health or safety narrowed the definition of unfair labour practices specified unfair union practices restricted union political contributions and required union officers to deny under oath any Communist affiliations.

    The Landrum–Griffin Act of 1959 set further union restrictions, barring secondary boycotts and limiting the right to picket.


    Traditional Human Resource Management (Late 20th Century)

    The post-World War II and post-Korean War era marked a distinct change in human resource management history. This era witnessed well educated baby boomers influenced by ideas such as human rights and self-actualization, taking the various behavioral oriented management philosophies to heart and adopting management philosophies that encouraged incorporation of worker ideas and initiatives.

    The changes manifested as a spate of labor legislations such as the Equal Pay Act (1963), the Civil Rights Act (1964), Occupational Safety and Health Act (1970), and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (1974). The need to comply with such legislation increased the importance of the human resource function.

    The Michigan Model or “Hard HRM” proposed by Fombrun, Tichy, and Devanna in 1984 encapsulated the spirit of the age and become the basis for a traditional human resource approach. This model held employees as a valuable resource, to be obtained cost effectively, used sparingly, and developed and exploited to the maximum to further corporate interests.


    Sommaire

    L'USS Hartley [ 2 ] a été construit par la New York Shipbuilding Corporation à Camden (New Jersey), le 31 octobre 1955 lancé le 24 novembre 1956 parrainé par Mme Henry Hartley, veuve de l'amiral Hartley et mis en service le 26 juin 1957 à Philadelphie .

    Il a été vendu le 8 juillet 1972 à la Colombie et rebaptisé Boyaca, portant la désignation de coque DE-16. Aprèssa mise hors service il devait être conservé comme navire-musée à Guatapé.

    Le navire a été démantelé et transporté par camion vers un emplacement de montagne sur les rives du lac Guatape en prévision d'être réassemblé en tant que navire terrestre. En raison des limites de financement, le projet est suspendu depuis. Depuis le 28 septembre 2015, les restes du Boyaca ont été enlevés et des maisons sont en construction sur le site.


    7. Discussion and Conclusions

    [30] It has long been known that pelagic sediments are usually continuous, thus allowing substantially complete retrieval of the preserved paleoclimatic signals. This unique characteristic is mainly attributable to the relative “simplicity” of the sediment accumulation processes in the open oceans. In general, pelagic sediments consist essentially of far-traveled atmospheric dust and biogenic detritus, with few materials transported by rivers and with few turbulent flows being involved. Sedimentological processes tend to be more complicated in the case of terrestrial sediments such as lacustrines, because of the influence of water level fluctuations, shifting transport channels and so on. Such processes tend to cause depositional hiatuses, so complicating the development of age models and reconstruction of long-term paleoclimatic history. Among terrestrial deposits, however, the loess of China may be regarded as an exception. Several studies [ Liu, 1985 Kukla and An, 1989 Rutter et al., 1991 Ding et al., 1993 ] have demonstrated the almost continuous nature of the loess-paleosol accumulation in some classic sections including Luochuan, Xifeng, and Baoji (Figure 1). The results presented here tend to fortify this view in that the grain size records from five quite widely dispersed sections correlate closely, strongly suggesting that the atmospheric dust deposited in the Quaternary has been well preserved.

    [31] While the general completeness and continuity of the Chiloparts record is confirmed, questions might reasonably be raised concerning its spatial representativeness and its temporal resolution. It has been reported that dust sedimentation rates in the northwestern part of the Loess Plateau are several times higher than in the southern part [ Burbank and Li, 1985 ]. Figure 13 shows the median grain size records above S2 at Lijiayuan and Xinzhuangyuan in the northwestern part of the Plateau (Figure 1). The thickness of the S0-S2 portion in the two sections is about 43 m and 63 m, respectively, being about 3 times thicker than in the southern and central Loess Plateau. Samples from both sections have been taken at 2-cm intervals and analyzed [ Ding et al., 1998b , 1999a ]. Both records clearly show three individual soils (S1-1, S1-3 and S1-5) and two loess units (S1-2 and S1-4) within the last interglacial soil of S1. It is noteworthy, however, that such a stratigraphic sequence is not evident in the grain size records from Baoji or the other sections (Figure 2). This strongly suggests that while the Chiloparts grain size time series evidently displays climatic signals on orbital timescales, parts of the signals (particularly in the soils) have been damped. Within the glacial loess horizons of L1 and L2, the general trend of grain size variability in the Lijiayuan and Xinzhuangyuan sections is similar to that in sections in the central and southern Loess Plateau (Figure 2). For example, there are two grain size lows and three highs in L2, which is readily explained as a response to orbital precessional forcing. However, superimposed on this trend, there are numerous grain size oscillations on millennial timescales (Figure 13) within both L1 and L2. An earlier study showed that the millennial scale grain size oscillations of L1 in the loess sections from the northern and northwestern Loess Plateau generally correlate with the GISP2 record of the Greenland ice sheet [ Ding et al., 1998b ]. It thus appears highly likely that climate records with a temporal resolution higher than orbital timescales will be reconstructed for the northern and northwestern Loess Plateau in future. In this context, the Chiloparts time series should be seen as representative of orbital scale climatic changes recorded only in the southern and central Loess Plateau.

    [32] Correlation between the Chiloparts and the composite δ 18 O records (Figure 12) demonstrates that in the past 1.8 Ma, the two records can be correlated cycle by cycle and that both records document a major shift in the dominant climatic periodicity from 41 ka to 100 ka at about 1–0.8 Ma. This may have an important bearing on the forcing mechanisms for loess-soil alternations on the Loess Plateau. Spectral analyses of long-term climatic records long ago identified the periodicity shift at about 1–0.8 Ma [ Pisias and Moore, 1981 Prell, 1982 Ruddiman et al., 1986 , 1989 Ding et al., 1994 ]. However, the cause of this mid-Pleistocene climatic transition remains a puzzle in paleoclimatology [ Raymo et al., 1997 Clark et al., 1999 ]. Although variation in the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit has a distinct 100 ka periodicity, it plays only a minor role in modulating changes in the Earth’s incoming insolation [ Berger and Loutre, 1991 ]. It must also be taken into account that even when the 100 ka climatic rhythms are detected in a climatic record prior to about 1.0 Ma, they show no clear phase relationship with the theoretical eccentricity record. Therefore, the mid-Pleistocene climatic transition is most likely attributable to changes in internal forcing factors within the climate system, such as bedrock types beneath the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets and atmospheric carbon chemistry [ Raymo et al., 1997 Clark et al., 1999 ]. Thus the close agreement between the Chiloparts and the composite δ 18 O records both in the climatic oscillations throughout the Pleistocene and the mid-Pleistocene climatic transition strongly suggests that the loess-soil alternation found in the Loess Plateau may well have been forced by variations in global ice volume.

    [33] Our previous work has suggested that the forcing mechanism for loess-soil alternations in China may have operated by way of the influence exerted upon the Siberian High Pressure Cell by growth and decay of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets [ Ding et al., 1995 ]. During glacial periods, expanded continental ice-sheets and greater sea-ice cover in the Northern Hemisphere greatly strengthened the Siberian High because of a downstream cooling effect. Such an enhanced Siberian High would have ensured the dominance of colder, drier, stronger winter monsoon winds over Mongolia and northern China, resulting in dryland expansion and higher depositional rates of coarser-grained loess. It becomes evident that another important mechanism, namely the continental shelf to the east of China, was involved in this dryland expansion during the glacials. During glacial periods, as huge volumes of water became stored in the continental ice sheets and in the polar sea ice, sea levels were depressed by more than 100 m, exposing vast areas of this broad, gently sloping continental shelf [ Wang, 1998 ]. The eastward retreat of the coastline led to an increase in the continentality of the climate over eastern Asia, further enhancing expansion of arid and semi-arid regions. Paleodata compiled by Sun et al. [1998] along the modern loess-desert transitional region and from within the deserts of northern China clearly show that the desert margins advanced several hundred kilometers eastward and southward of the Holocene optimum margin. These related processes were reversed during interglacial periods. In this context, the coupling of the climate in northern China with the Northern Hemisphere polar regional changes must have been intensified at about 1.8 Ma because, before that time, the Chiloparts record shows rather poor correlation with the composite δ 18 O record (Figure 12).

    [34] It is clear that the prominence of the precessional signals within the thick loess units of L2, L5, L6 and L9 and the deposition of the exceptionally coarse-grained L9, L15 and L33 cannot be explained by a global ice volume forcing mechanism. The causes of these phenomena thus remain unknown. A direct insolation-forcing model may be worth exploring in explanation of the strong precessional signals, since the Loess Plateau is located in lower middle latitudes where precession forcing is stronger than in polar regions [ Berger and Loutre, 1991 ].

    [35] The marked coarsening of loess grain size in units L9, L15 and L33 is pervasive on the Loess Plateau [ Liu, 1985 ], thus excluding a local explanation by influxes from local sand sources. Some authors have speculated that deposition of these loess beds may have been linked to tectonic uplift of mountains in Asia [ Kukla, 1987 Sun and Liu, 2000b ]. Mountain uplift implies profound changes in boundary conditions for the regional climate system, the effect of which would probably be sustained in subsequent loess deposits. However, this effect is singularly lacking in the loess grain size record, thus challenging the tectonic explanation. For these and other reasons, the evident discrepancies between the Chiloparts and composite δ 18 O records merit further investigation.


    Watch the video: USNM Interview of Sal Pintavalle Part Two Memories of the USS Hartley DE 1029 in 1965