Siege of Sora, 315 and 315-314 BC

Siege of Sora, 315 and 315-314 BC



We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Siege of Sora, 315 and 315-314 BC

The siege of Sora (315 and 315-314 BC) saw the Romans recapture the city after a pro-Samnite revolt (Second Samnite War). The city of Sora, on the River Liris, had been captured from the Volscians by the Romans in 345 BC, and by 315 contained a Roman colony, and an at least partly pro-Samnite population. In that year, probably during the siege of Saticula, the pro-Samnite faction rose up, killed the Roman colonists, and joined the Samnites.

At this point the Roman army, probably under the command of the consuls, finally captured Saticula. The crisis at Sora convinced the Romans to appoint a dictator, Quintus Fabius, with Quintus Aulius as his master of horse. The dictator then led his army towards Sora, and prepared for a siege.

This first siege was short-lived. Roman scouts reported the approach of a large Samnite army. The Dictator marched his army away to deal with this new threat, but was defeated at Lautulae.

Despite this defeat the Romans were soon back at Sora, and resumed their siege. The defeated dictator was replaced by the consuls for 314, M. Poetilius and C. Sulpicius, and reinforcements joined the army.

According to Livy the city was betrayed to the Romans. A Soran deserter suggested that the consuls should move their camp a few miles away from the city. This would lower the defenders guard. He would then lead a small Roman force into the citadel, and the city would fall.

The plan worked. The Soran deserter led ten men into the citadel, and then roused the city. The Romans held a very strong position, and were able to fight off a Soran attack. Panic then spread throughout the city, and the citizens opened the gates and attempted to escape. A Roman cohort was able to get in through one of the gates, and began to slaughter the crowds. Only in the early dawn, when the consuls managed to enter the city, did the massacre end. 225 scapegoats were chosen from the population, taken to Roma and beheaded, and a garrison was left in the city.

The consuls went on to win a second victory later in the year, defeated a Samnite army in the field, probably at Tarracina.

Roman Conquests: Italy, Ross Cowan. A look at the Roman conquest of the Italian Peninsula, the series of wars that saw Rome transformed from a small city state in central Italy into a power that was on the verge of conquering the ancient Mediterranean world. A lack of contemporary sources makes this a difficult period to write about, but Cowan has produced a convincing narrative without ignoring some of the complexity.

[read full review]


Structural history of the Roman military

The structural history of the Roman military concerns the major transformations in the organization and constitution of ancient Rome's armed forces, "the most effective and long-lived military institution known to history." [1] From its origins around 800 BC to its final dissolution in AD 476 with the demise of the Western Roman Empire, Rome's military organization underwent substantial structural change. At the highest level of structure, the forces were split into the Roman army and the Roman navy, although these two branches were less distinct than in many modern national defense forces. Within the top levels of both army and navy, structural changes occurred as a result of both positive military reform and organic structural evolution. These changes can be divided into four distinct phases.

Phase I The army was derived from obligatory annual military service levied on the citizenry, as part of their duty to the state. During this period, the Roman army would wage seasonal campaigns against largely local adversaries. Phase II As the extent of the territories falling under Roman control expanded and the size of the forces increased, the soldiery gradually became salaried professionals. As a consequence, military service at the lower (non-salaried) levels became progressively longer-term. Roman military units of the period were largely homogeneous and highly regulated. The army consisted of units of citizen infantry known as legions (Latin: legiones) as well as non-legionary allied troops known as auxilia. The latter were most commonly called upon to provide light infantry, logistical, or cavalry support. Phase III At the height of the Roman Empire's power, forces were tasked with manning and securing the borders of the vast provinces which had been brought under Roman control. Serious strategic threats were less common in this period and emphasis was placed on preserving gained territory. The army underwent changes in response to these new needs and became more dependent on fixed garrisons than on march-camps and continuous field operations. Phase IV As Rome began to struggle to keep control over its sprawling territories, military service continued to be salaried and professional for Rome's regular troops. However, the trend of employing allied or mercenary elements was expanded to such an extent that these troops came to represent a substantial proportion of the armed forces. At the same time, the uniformity of structure found in Rome's earlier military disappeared. Soldiery of the era ranged from lightly armed mounted archers to heavy infantry, in regiments of varying size and quality. This was accompanied by a trend in the late empire of an increasing predominance of cavalry rather than infantry troops, as well as a requirement for more mobile operations. In this period there was more focus (on all frontiers but the east) on smaller units of independently-operating troops, engaging less in set-piece battles and more in low-intensity, guerilla actions.


Siege of Sora, 315 and 315-314 BC - History

Underlined in red = refused to send troops in 209 BC

Underlined in blue = agreed to send troops in 209 BC

From the time of the Roman victory in the Latin War in 338 BC, the Romans founded a number of strategically-placed colonies in peninsular Italy, at which the colonists had Latin rights: that is, they had most of the benefits of Roman citizenship but, crucially, not the right to vote. Furthermore, like Rome’s Italian allies, they were obliged to provide soldiers for the Roman army at times of war. Obviously, this obligation became more onerous as Rome’s wars became more common and more prolonged. Matters came to a head during the Hannibalic War (218-201 BC) , with the fortunate side-effect that Livy’s account of these events provides us with a complete list of the Latin colonies that existed at this time.

In 209 BC, the Romans received intelligence to the effect that the Carthaginians were preparing to recapture Sicily. According to Livy, the consequent:

“. transfer of soldiers to Sicily, most of whom were of Latin status or allies, was the cause of [complaints from them] . that, for now the 10th year, they had been exhausted by levies of troops and their pay [and] that almost every year they fought in a disastrous defeat. . There were at that time 30 [Latin] colonies, (‘Roman History’, 27: 9 - 27:10).

✴ the 12 who informed the Senate that they could no longer furnish soldiers and money:

Alba Fucens Ardea Cales Carseoli Circeii Interamna Lirenas Narnia Nepete Setia Sora Suessa [Aurunca] and Sutrium and

✴ the 18 who confirmed that they had soldiers in readiness and would give more if more were needed:

Aesernia Ariminum Beneventum Brundisium Cosa Cremona Firmum Fregellae Hadria Luceria Norba Paestum Pontiae Placentia Saticula Signia Spoletium and Venusia.

These 30 colonies can be usefully discussed in groups, defined chronologically.

Foundations before the Latin War (338 BC)

Seven Latin colonies retained in 338 BC

From at least the start of the Republic, Rome co-operated with its Latin-speaking neighbours (who constituted the Latin League) to rid Latium of alien communities. As Edward Salmon (referenced below, at p. 41) noted:

“When an enemy was defeated and expelled from an area, the allies habitually established a colony on it, composed of both Roman and Latin settlers.”

A number of such colonies were founded, but only seven survived the Roman defeat of the Latin League in 338 BC, albeit that the Romans defined their constitutional status in terms of their obligations only to Rome.

This was the origin of the seven oldest colonies in Livy’s list of 30:

✴ five were to the south of Latium:

✴ two were on Rome’s border with Etruria:

Colonies Founded in 334 - 291 BC

Underlined in red = colonies founded before the Second Saminite war (326-304 BC):

Cales (334/3 BC) Fregellae 328 BC

Underlined in turquoise = colonies: founded in the lull in the war in 316-2 BC:

Luceria (314 BC) Suessa Aurunca (313 BC) Pontiae (313 BC) Saticula (312 BC) Interamna Lirenas (312 BC)

Underlined in brown = colonies founded after the war:

Sora (303 BC) Alba Fucens (303 BC) Narnia 299 BC

Undermined in Blue = colony founded after the Third Samnite War (298-90 BC): Carseoli (291 BC)

Rome’s decisive victory in the Latin war, almost all of the main centres of Latium were either incorporated into the Roman state or subjected as nominally-independent allies under Roman hegemony. In the decade that followed the war, the main centres of Campania and the western centres of the Volsci met a similar fate. A significant area of all three regions was confiscated and some of it was used for viritane settlement: this included the fertile ager Falernus, which was confiscated from Capua in 340 BC.

This second phase of consolidation saw the introduction of so-called Latin colonies established de novo . As Timothy Cornell (referenced below, 1995, at pp. 351-2) pointed out:

“After the [defeat of the Latin League], Latin status had ceased to have a distinct ethnic or linguistic significance . A Latin state could therefore be created simply by [the conferral] of Latin rights on it. . The new programme of Latin colonisation . gave the Romans and their allies the chance to acquire conquered land even in distant regions, . while the state was able to consolidate its conquests by planting strategic garrisons in troublesome areasThe first colony to be established under these conditions was [founded in 334/3 BC] at Cales.”

Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 1998, at p. 542) noted that:

“Though the majority of settlers in [these new colonies] seem to have been Roman, these settlements were isolated from the ager Romanus and their colonists had to excahnge their Roman citizenship for Latin rights . ”

Foundations before the Second Samnite War (326 - 304 BC)

Cales, which occupied a strategically important site on the border of Campania, belonged to a tribe known as the Ausones, who seem to have been ethnically related to the Aurunci. The first clashes of these people with Rome in the surviving sources were in 345 BC, and they fought against Rome in the Second Latin War (341 - 338 BC). The fasti Triumphales record that the consul M. Valerius Corvus was awarded a triumph after his capture of this centre in 335 BC, and Livy recorded that, in the following year:

“. the new consuls . brought in a proposal for sending out a colony to Cales, in order to anticipate the desires of the plebs by doing them a service. The Senate resolved that 2,500 men should be enrolled for it, and they appointed a commission of three (Caeso Duillius, Titus Quinctius Poenus, and Marcus Fabius [possibly Marcus Fabius Dorsuo]) to conduct the settlers to the land and to apportion it amongst them”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 16: 12-4).

Velleius Patroculus (‘Roman History’, 1: 14: 3) also dated the foundation of this colony to 334/3 BC. Thus, Cales became the first Latin colony to be added to be created de novo . Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 1998, at p. 582) observed, the site on which it was founded:

“. was a strategic one: . its territory separated the Sidicini . from [the] Samnites, and, above all, it was only 13 km northwest of Capua, which it was thus able to watch.”

Livy noted (somewhat laconically) that the following year (328 BC):

“. was not marked by any significant military or domestic event, except that a colony was sent out to Fregellae, a territory that had belonged [originally] to the people of Signia [ sic ?], and afterwards to the Volsci”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 22: 1-2).

Fregellae occupied a strategically-important site at the confluence of the Liris and the Sacco/Tolerus rivers. Although Livy claimed here that the new colony had been built on Volscian territory, this was disingenuous: when the Romans sent envoys to the Samnites in 326 BC to demand redress for their alleged transgressions before declaring war, they countered by saying ( inter alia ) that:

“. they could not disguise the chagrin of the Samnite nation that Fregellae, which they had captured from the Volsci and destroyed, should have been restored by the Roman people, and that a colony [had been] planted in the territory of the Samnites that the Roman settlers called by that name””, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 23: 6).

Fregellae fell to the Samnites at least once during the war that followed, as the Romans and Samnites fought for control of the Liris valley.

Latin Colonies during the Second Samnite War (326 - 304 BC)

Red squares = Latin colonies re-founded in 313 BC: Cales (334 BC) and Fregellae (328 BC)

Blue squares = Latin colonies founded in 314-2 BC: Luceria (314 BC)

Saticula, Suessa Aurunca and Pontiae (313 BC) and Interamna Lirenas (312 BC)

Loss of Cales and Fregellae (321 BC)

After their disastrous defeat at the Caudine Forks in 321 BC, the Romans were forced to seek peace terms from the Samnites. According to Livy, the Samnites agreed that:

“. if the Romans would evacuate the Samnite territory and withdraw their colonies, Romans and Samnites should thenceforward live by their own laws in an equal alliance”, (‘History of Rome’, 9: 4: 3-5).

According to Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 2005, at p. 76) the Romans:

“. almost certainly lost control of Fregellae [under the terms of this treaty] it is assumed by many historians that they lost control of Cales too, and the [fact that Livy referred to colonies in the plural] perhaps supports this.”

Roman Recovery (314 - 312 BC)

The so-called Caudine Peace probably lasted until 315 BC, for which point hostilities resumed and the Romans began the long road to victory. Five new colonies are known to have been founded in the crucial period of 314-3 BC:

✴ Luceria, which was probably captured from the Samnites in 315 BC, received a colony and 2,500 colonists, probably in 314 BC.

✴ three sites each received a colony in 313 BC:

• Saticula, which had probably been captured from the Samnites in 315 BC

• Suessa Aurunca and Pontiae (an island off the coast of Campania) following the confiscation of the land of the Ausones and Aurunci

✴ Interamna Lirenas was founded on a previously unoccupied site at the confluence of the Liri and Gari rivers at the start of 312 BC

Furthermore, Fregellae and Cales were probably taken back from the Samnites and re-founded in 313 BC.

As illustrated above, unlike the other colonies founded or re-founded in this period, Luceria was on the eastern side of Samnium, just beyond the Samnite’s border with the Apulani. The Samnites had probably obliterated the Roman presence in Apulia after their victory of 321 BC, but the Romans succeeded in re-establishing their presence in this region during the peace that followed. However, Luceria seems to have remained in Samnite hands until 315 BC (Diodorus Siculus, ‘Library of History’, 19: 72: 8) or 314 BC (Livy, ‘History of Rome’, 9: 26: 1-5). Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 2005, at p. 283) argued that:

“. we should accept, [following Diodorus], that there was a major [Roman] campaign in Apulia [in 315 BC] and that Luceria was indeed captured. This capture was a very significant landmark in Rome’s conquest of the area. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that Luceria was actually colonised [immediately] and, for this at least, Livy’s date [of 314 BC] is preferable.”

Livy provided important information on the founding of the colony:

“ . when the Senate was debating the dispatch of colonists to Luceria, there were many who voted to destroy the town instead, because. the remoteness of the place made them shrink from condemning fellow-citizens to an exile so far from home and surrounded by such hostile tribes. However, the proposal to send colonists prevailed, and 2,500 were sent”, (‘History of Rome’, 9: 26: 1-5).

Saticula was a Samnite settlement on the border with Campania. According to Diodorus Sicula (‘Library of History’, 19: 72: 4), the Romans took it after a siege in 315 BC. According to Festus (458 L, reproduced by Stephen Oakley, referenced below, 2005, at pp. 334-5), a colony was founded there in 313 BC by three land commissioners: M. Valerius Corvus D. Junius Brutus Scaeva and P. Fulvius Longus. Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 2005, at p. 335) suggested that this colony:

✴ “. drove a wedge into the land of the [Samnite tribe known as the] Caudini and protected the northeastern flank of Campania.”

Suessa Aurunca and Pontiae

The Ausones and Aurunci had been given unequal treaties with Rome after the Latin War,

We now learn that they had at least three other strongholds, at Ausona (now unknown), Minturnae, and Vescia, and that, after the Battle at Lautulae, they had, in effect, fallen in Samnite hands. Therefore, Sulpicius and Poetelius marched into Ausonian territory, where he was met by:

“Twelve young nobles from Ausona, Minturnae and Vescia who conspired to betray their cities [to Rome]”, (‘ History of Rome ’, 9: 25: 4).

These deserters first explained the circumstances in which the Ausones had defected:

“. their countrymen had no sooner heard of [the Roman defeat at] the battle at Lautulae than they had concluded that the Romans were vanquished and had aided the Samnites with men and arms”, (‘ History of Rome ’, 9: 25: 4-5).

They also explained that, now that the Samnites were defeated, the Ausones were unsure of how to react to the Roman advance. Finally, they suggested a strategy by which the rebel cities could be taken. This strategy worked, and

“. the three towns were taken in an hour . Because the leaders were not present when the attacks were made, there was no limit to the slaughter, and the Ausonian nation was wiped out . ”, (‘ History of Rome ’, 9: 25: 8-9).

As we have seen, the Aurunci had defected to the Samnites in 315 BC. The Romans retook Suessa Aurunca, Minturnae and Vescia in the following year, and:

“Because the [Auruncian] leaders were not present when the attacks were made, there was no limit to the slaughter, and the Ausonian nation was wiped out . ”, (‘ History of Rome ’, 9: 25: 8-9).

Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 2005, at p. 301) observed that:

“The inevitable confiscation of territory followed subjugation, and this provided land for both

✴ the Latin colony of Suessa Aurunca, founded in 313 BC and

✴ the [citizen] maritime colonies of Minturnae and Sinuessa, founded in 296 BC.”

The record of the colony founded at Pontiae is the first time that this location features in our surviving sources. Thus, we do not know when it passed from Volscian to Roman control. Stephen Oakley (referenced below, 2005, at p. 335) suggested that it:

“. protected Roman communications with Campania by sea, and [thus provided] a safeguard against the [land] route . being cut, as it had been in 315-4 BC.”

It seems to have played little part in later Roman history, albeit that, as noted above, it met its obligations to Rome in the trying circumstances of 209 BC.

Livy called this colony ‘Interamna Sucasina’, in reference to the fact that it was ‘below’ Casinum (later Montecassino), on the border of Volscian and Samnite territory. Its name of the colony is clearly Latin, which suggests that it was founded on land that had not previously been settled to any great extent. ‘Interamna’ signifies that it was between two rivers: Strabo, who called it ‘Interamnium’ and observed that it was sited on via Latina (see below), placed it:

“. at the confluence of two rivers, the Liris and another”, (‘ Geography ’, 5: 3: 9)

According to Duane Roller (referenced below, at pp. 260-1), the other river was the Scatebra (modern Gari). Given its location on the Liris, it presumably played a part in protecting the Romans’ access to Capua along Via Latina.

Finally, Livy recorded that, in 313 BC:

“The Senate . passed a resolution that a colony be sent out to Interamna [Lirenas], but it was left [to the consuls of 312 BC] to appoint the three land commissioners and to send out 4,000 settlers”, (‘History of Rome’, 9: 28: 7-8).

Livy recorded that, in 313 BC, the Roman commanders:

“. on hearing that the Samnites had [recaptured] the arx Fregellana (citadel of Fregellae) . proceeded to Fregellae. Having regained possession of the place without a struggle (for the Samnites fled from it in the night), [they] installed a strong garrison there”, (‘History of Rome’, 9: 28: 3).

This implies that the Romans had already regained the citadel of Fregellae: however, there is no surviving record of when this putative recapture took place. It is however reasonable to assume that the Romans did capture and recolonise Fregellae at this point, and (with Edward Salmon , referenced below, at p. 238 and not 4) that they also recaptured and recolonised Cales.

Three surviving sources record the foundation of new Latin colonies at this time

“Colonies were planted [in 313 BC] . at:

• Suessa [Aurunca], which had belonged to the Aurunci and

• Pontiae, an island that the Volsci had inhabited, which lay within sight of their own coast.

The Senate also passed a resolution that a colony be sent out to Interamna [Lirenas], but it was left [to the consuls of 312 BC] to appoint the three commissioners and to send out 4,000 settlers”, (‘ History of Rome ’, 9: 28: 7-8).

✴ Diodorus recorded only the foundation of the colonies of:

✴ Velleius Patroculus recorded that

“. a colony was established at Tarracina [in 329 BC, an then]:

• four years later, another at Luceria:

• [two] others three years later, at Suessa Aurunca and Saticula

• another two years after these, at Interamna.

After that the work of colonisation was suspended for ten years. (‘ Roman History ’, 1: 14: 4-5).

We might reasonably assume that Velleius had the colony at Luceria founded 14 years after that at Tarracina, so the chronologies of all three sources are broadly consistent. However, only Velleius mentioned the foundation of the colony at Saticula.

As Timothy Cornell (referenced below, 1995, at pp. 354) observed:

“The result was that, by 312 BC, Samnium was encircled by military allies of Rome and confronted in the sensitive Liris - Volturnus region by strings of Latin colonies on strategic sites . [This was] the turning point of the war . [The Romans] were no longer in any serious danger of defeat.”

Latin Colonies during the Third Samnite War (298 - 290 BC)

Colonies Founded in 289 - 218 BC

Colonies Founded on Land Taken from the Gauls

[Sena Gallica (283 BC - Citizen)]

Other Colonies Founded in Picenum

[Castrum Novum in Picenum (289 BC ? - Citizen)]

Other Colonies Founded North of Rome

Colonies Founded South of Rome

S. Roselaar, “ Public Land in the Roman Republic: A Social and Economic History of Ager Publicus in Italy, 396 - 89 BC ”, (2010) Oxford

S. Oakley, “ A Commentary on Livy, Books VI-X:Volume II: Books VII and VIII ”, (1998) Oxford

T. Cornell, “ The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (ca. 1000-264 BC) ”, (1995) London and New York


Biographical Sketches - 315

October 23, 1846, now the wife of Theophilus Holloway, of Vigo County, Indiana, and Frank, born February 6, 1848, an artist living in the city of New York. Mr. McNeill was married a second time to Mrs. Elizabeth (Rudy) Barger, a sister of his first wife, and to this union were born seven children, four sons and three daughters -- Scott, Albert, John B. and Charles G., and Josephine, wife of F. A. Walker Anna Laura, wife of Thomas J. Armsrong, and Jennie Lind living at home. In his religious belief Mr. McNeill inclines toward Unitarianism, although he has a greater respect for good deeds than for creeds. He has been a student of religious literature the greater part of his life and has found so many conflicting theories that he long ago decided to take reason for his guide. His motto is: "Do not unto others that which you would not have others do unto you." In politics he was in early life a Whig, casting his first presidential vote for Henry Clay. He now affiliates with the Republican party. Mr. McNeill is one of the active and public spirited citizens of Vermillion County, and is ever ready to aid in the promotion of whatever enterprise he believes if for the best interests of his fellow men.

JOHN WRIGHT, a worthy representative of one of the earliest pioneer families of Vermillion County, is a native of New York State, born in Ontario County, March 22, 1818, a son of George and Anna (Handy) Wright, the father born in the State of New York, and the mother a native of Massachusetts. In 1819 they came to Indiana with their family of nine children, the subject of this sketch being then a babe. After one year's residence in Terre Haute, they, in 1820, came to Vermillion County, and in the forest of Clinton Township established their future home on Lenderman Creek, five miles southwest of Clinton. The county at that time was a wilderness, containing but few families, being inhabited principally by Indians and wild animals. George Wright was a poor man, able only to secure a tract of 160 acres, and most of his children were too young to render any assistance in their struggle for a livelihood. Labor in the pioneer settlement commanded no money. There were no mills in the country, and corn when raised had to be pounded into meal in huge improvised mortars. Gradually the opening in the forest grew larger and the circumstances of the family improved, and the boys, each year added strength to the working force! Two children were added to the family in their pioneer home. Mrs. Wright did not live to see the fruition of her hopes, dying in 1827, in her forty-first year. Mr. Wright was spared to enjoy the fruits of his years of persevering toil, having a comfortable home. He died in 1844 at the age of sixty-six years. He was a hard working man, full of energy and ambition, and was kind and accommodating to all, and he is still favorably remembered by many of the old pioneers. Of his eleven children, six sons and five daughters, all have passed away but John, the subject of this sketch, and Truman who lives in Edgar County, Illinois. John Wright associates his earliest recollections of life with events in the pioneer days of Vermillion County. His educational advantages were limited, but contact with the world has enabled him to fully overcome the deficiencies of his youthful days. He was reared to the avocation of a farmer, and he has made farming his principal occupation through life, though the past six years he has lived retired from active life, in Clinton, where he owns a good residence,

Copyright ©1996 - INGenWeb Project
Material that is copyrighted by others appears with permission, or is used under the provisions of fair use. The copyrights of any contributor's material remain with the contributor.
Adapted from a template by Templates in Time


Siege of Sora, 315 and 315-314 BC - History

Distance: 135 km Grade: 2 (Slightly harder)

Hadrian's Wall Path at Sycamore Gap
cc-by-sa/2.0 - © David Purchase - geograph.org.uk/p/3535312

Description:

This Long Distance Walk is the odd one out. It is not in Scotland at all. Far from it! Hadrian's Wall however played such an important part in the history of both England and Scotland, that this world-famous Wall Walk just has to be included.

Hadrian's Wall Path, generally a 6-stage walk with an overall difficulty grading of 2 (Slightly harder) is a clearly marked walk from coast to coast, from the river Tyne to the Solway estuary, although you might consider starting out from the Solway because of the prevailing winds from the west. The wall itself was built around AD 125 and the many forts and milecastles were in constant occupation until the legions left Britain. Although throughout the ages people have used whole chunks of it to construct everything from local dwellings to churches and monasteries, there are still

ten miles of the ancient wall left. This walk should not really be a problem for most walkers. There are several towns and villages along the route and there is easy road access. The hills are generally nothing more than small humps and although there are some paved surfaces most of the time you'll walk on grass and dirt.

Just a piece of advice: For accommodation you better book before you start out!

Stages (on the map):

  1. Wallsend - Heddon-on-the Wall 29 km (Easy)
  2. Heddon-on-the-Wall - Chollerford 23 km (Easy)
  3. Chollerford - Once Brewed 20 km (Slightly harder)
  4. Once Brewed - Walton 29 km (Slightly harder)
  5. Walton - Carlisle 20 km (Easy)
  6. Carlisle - Bowness-on-Solway 24 km (Easy)

OS Explorer: Map 316, OL43, 315 & 314 ( 1:25).

Starts from: Wallsend (or Bowness-on-Solway)

Nat. Grid: NZ 301 660

Finishes at: Bowness-on-Solway (or Wallsend)

Nat. Grid: NY 223 627

This path passes through region:

This trail connects with the following trail(s):

More in-depth information?

Even more information?

Places to visit en route:

Comments? Use the Contact -page or:

Facebook doesn't work for you? Use the contact page! That does work!


British Columbia – Unit Locations

British Columbia – (French: la Colombie-Britannique, C.-B.) is the westernmost of Canada’s provinces and is known for its natural beauty, as reflected in its Latin motto, Splendor sine occasu (“Splendour without Diminishment”). Its name was chosen by Queen Victoria in 1858. In 1871, it became the sixth province of Canada.

Units:

2500 46th Avenue VERNON, BC, V1T 8S2 – Tel: (250) 542-3277

NORTH KAMLOOPS #290

#9 – 177 Tranquille Road, KAMLOOPS, BC V2B 3E8 – Tel: (250) 554-1345/2455

VICTORIA #12

C/O 3923 Shorncliffe Road S., COLDSTREAM, BC V8P 3X8

UCLUELET # 293

1708 Peninsula Road, UCLUELET, BC V0R 3A0 – Tel: (250) 726-7122

S. VANCOUVER #26

727 East 49th Avenue , VANCOUVER, BC V5W 2H3 – Tel: (604)321-4808 Tel: (604)321-3023

TAURUS # 298

3917 Main Street, VANCOUVER, BC V5V 3P3 – Tel: (604) 879-1020 Tel: (604) 568-9394

119 3rd Street East, N. VANCOUVER, BC V7L 1E5 – Tel: (604) 988-4711 Tel/Fax: (604) 988-7811

SIDNEY # 302

9831 Fourth Street, Sidney, BC – Tel: (250) 656-2051 Tel: (250) 656-3777

E. VANCOUVER #68

C/O 100-2211 Kingsway, VANCOUVER, BC V5N 2T6

CHILLIWACK # 305

46268 Yale Road, CHILLIWACK, BC V2P 2P6 – Tel: (604) 792-6370

PENTICTON #97

257 Brunswick Street, PENTICTON, BC V2A 5P9 – Tel: (250) 490-4980

POMPIER # 314

C/O 101-25 Clute Street – NEW WESTMINSTER, BC V3L 1Z6

KINGSWAY # 100

2211 Kingsway, VANCOUVER, BC V5N 2T6 – Tel: (604) 435-5711

MATSQUI #315

30346 McNeil Avenue, MOUNT LEHMAN, BC V4X 1V5 – Tel: (604) 856-3113/856-7521

PACIFIC # 280

C/O President – 2933 Phillips Ave, BURNABY, BC V5A 2W4

Chinese Canadian Military Museum, 555 Columbia Street, Vancouver, BC

KELOWNA # 376

270 Dougall Road N., KELOWNA, BC V1X 3K5 – Tel: (250) 765-1818 Tel: (250) 765-1810

STEVESTON # 284

#105-11900 No. 1 Road, Richmond, BC V7E 1S9 – Tel: (604) 277-5444 Tel: (604) 277-7350
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: www.anaf284.ca

MAPLE RIDGE # 379

22326 North Avenue, MAPLE RIDGE, BC V2X 8T2 – Tel: (604) 463-6333

Contact ANAVETS’ Dominion Headquarters by:

Telephone: (613) 744-0222
FAX: (613) 744-0208

Postal address:
6 Beechwood Ave. Suite #2
Ottawa, Ontario K1L 8B4


Siege of Sora, 315 and 315-314 BC - History

WELCOME TO THE DRHS HOME PAGE.

HELP KEEP THE 315 RUNNING.

The Durango Railroad Historical Society needs your help to keep Locomotive D&RGW 315 operational for another 15 years. The engine is required to undergo a Federal Railroad Administration 49 CFR part 230, 1472 service day inspection before May 2022 to remain operational.

The locomotive is the second oldest operating, FRA compliant, steam locomotive in Colorado or New Mexico. The locomotive was built in July of 1895 by the Baldwin Locomotive Works. The engine was delivered to the Florence and Cripple Creek Railroad on July 25, 1896. The locomotive is 125 years old this year. The engine represents a living piece of history having operated on the Florence and Cripple Creek Railroad, throughout the Denver and Rio Grande narrow gauge circle, over the Rio Grande Southern and on both remaining portions of the narrow gauge system in Colorado and New Mexico. In 2007 the volunteers of the Durango Railroad Historical Society returned the engine to operating condition after it had been sitting on display in Durango for 57 years. The 315 was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2008. The City of Durango transferred ownership of the locomotive to the Durango Railroad Historical Society in 2014.

The inspection will require removal of the cab, all appliances, inspection of the boiler shell, replacement of all the fire tubes and then reassembly of the locomotive.

The C&TS RR has agreed to perform the boiler work required for the inspection during the winter of 2021-22.

The Society’s volunteers will assist with the inspection work. The total estimated cost to keep the 315 operational for another 15 years is $70,000.

The Ryan Family of NY have challenged DRHS to raise the funds needed for the inspection. The Ryan’s are matching the donations raised over the next 45 days to ensure the 315 continues to operate. Your donation effectively is doubled through the Ryan’s generosity.

Thank you for supporting the Durango Railroad Historical Society and continued operation of the D&RGW 315. You can use this PayPal link for donations.

The Durango Railroad Historical Society is a non-profit corporation in Colorado and is a public charity under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

25% State Tax CREDIT for Colorado Residents

The inspection work to be performed by the C&TS RR is covered by the Conejos County Enterprise Zone project through the C&TS RR.

Colorado Residents who donate to the 315’s 1472 service day inspection are eligible for a 25% Colorado State Tax Credit by submitting a check for their donation to

Durango Railroad Historical Society 315 1472 Inspection P.O. Box 654 Durango CO, 81302

Please include the last 4 digits of your Social Security number, your return address, phone number along with your check to ensure we can get your Colorado State tax credit certificate to you.

WORK STARTS ON SILVERTON DISPLAY TRACKS AND CAR SHED.

It has always been within the DRHS mandate to build a permanent structure to display and preserve the narrow gauge freight and work cars that volunteers have restored since 2008. Over the years we had scoured the Animas Valley for a suitable site. Eventually the search brought us to collaboration with the San Juan County Historical Society. Their ownership of the Silverton Northern engine house in Silverton made them natural partners. In 2014 through the generosity of the Durango and Silverton Scenic Railroad we secured an easement over land next to the Shenandoah siding in Silverton but that was as far as it went. />

The agreed plan was for a 230-foot long building that would house twelve cars on two parallel tracks with a viewing platform in between. It would be built between the SN engine house and the D&S and former SN depots.

In 2014 we obtained quotes for a two-track, open shed to protect the cars from Silverton’s harsh mountain elements. Quite apart from the beating the cars were getting from a 9300-foot climate we were also running out of space for all the cars! We could not pursue the project at this time because of lack of enough funds for it as well as ongoing car restoration projects.

The commitment never went away. In 2019 we put the design out to for bids. The most favourable quote was from National Barn who agreed to start work in August of this year. At the start of the year we had no idea how we were going to fund the project. We already had the commitment of D&RGW 315’s major inspection, the 1472, next year so we had to account for that as well.

Track bed graded, track laid. D&S Shenandoah siding on the left.

We decided to have a special fund raising campaign for the car shed starting early this year and for the 315 later in the year. We also applied for grants from some foundations. But the pandemic stopped everything dead and our income prospects fell from barely adequate to nearly zero! We had some donations but it was clear that it was going to be a slow process raising the money to pay the contractor. Then something amazing happened: two donors came forward and between them covered the majority of the cost of the car shed. Other individuals have also contributed many thousands of dollars so we have enough to have a contingency fund.

The Car shed and occupants. The SN engine noise and oil shed are on the right. Jeff Ellingson, Curator of the D&SSRR Museum, drew this visualisation for us.

It means that erection work of the car shed will commence at the start of August. The track bed has already been graded, rail laid and ballasted, it just remains for the contractor to do his bit.

D&RGW REEFER 39, ITS HISTORY AND RESTORATION. Reefer 39 completed and awaiting trucking to Silverton.

DRHS Board member Duane Danielson recently gave a lecture on the history of refrigeration and the railroads use of reefers to bring fresh food to more remote part of the United States. The D&RGW was no exception both on the narrow and standard gauges. Duane went in search of a surviving narrow gauge reefer for the DRHS to buy and restore. It formed part of the DRHS’s commitment to preserve as many different types of D&RGW freight and work cars that were once common sights on the railroads in South West Colorado. He found two suitable cars, one of which, #39, has been fully restored and is now on display in Silverton


Notes

inherent obscured text
contains dirt

Access-restricted-item true Addeddate 2019-03-20 10:07:10 Associated-names Walker, Susan, editor Higgs, Peter (Museum curator), editor Boxid IA1141814 Camera Sony Alpha-A6300 (Control) Collection_set printdisabled External-identifier urn:oclc:record:1148207179 Foldoutcount 0 Identifier cleopatraofegypt0000unse Identifier-ark ark:/13960/t16n0st6n Invoice 1652 Isbn 0691088357
9780691088358 Lccn 00111971 Ocr ABBYY FineReader 11.0 (Extended OCR) Old_pallet IA11155 Openlibrary_edition OL7758000M Openlibrary_work OL18381766W Pages 394 Ppi 300 Republisher_date 20190321162557 Republisher_operator [email protected] Republisher_time 1101 Scandate 20190320174553 Scanner station18.cebu.archive.org Scanningcenter cebu Tts_version 1.64-initial-45-g1252243

Intended Student

This course will be of interest to those who want to broaden their understanding about the biological functionings of Earth’s ocean environment. This course is suitable for the non-science student who wants a survey of the marine ecosystem.

Students need not have any previous scientific background. The course is generally not open to first year students. This course provides a 3-credit senior science elective that may fulfill certain Arts degree program requirements.


Siege of Sora, 315 and 315-314 BC - History

by Gollywomper » Tue Oct 20, 2015 3:53 pm

Re: Chevy 350 cam

by Gollywomper » Tue Oct 20, 2015 5:05 pm

Re: Chevy 350 cam

by tommycraft » Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:04 pm

Re: Chevy 350 cam

by Gollywomper » Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:36 pm

Re: Chevy 350 cam

by whiteriverrambo » Mon Oct 26, 2015 6:53 pm

I don't know a whole lot man but upgrading the cam and not spending a little extra on a good set of heads is just throwing time and money away. Getting a good cam is only half the battle, this is also a good opportunity to loose some weight. I don't know your boat or your situation but if your disassembling your ride id like to see you put it back together as strong as the bottom end will allow.

something like this will let what ever cam you choose shine. http://www.ebay.com/itm/NKB-200-ALUMINU . SwQM9UY

K6 Just my .02 man, just seems like it would mean quite a few more ponies for not a lot of $ after the cam swap. its all about moving air and something like these are much cheaper than they would have cost 10yrs ago.

Re: Chevy 350 cam

by HaxbySpeed » Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:09 pm

Re: Chevy 350 cam

by Gollywomper » Mon Oct 26, 2015 10:31 pm

Re: Chevy 350 cam

by whiteriverrambo » Tue Oct 27, 2015 5:09 am

Re: Chevy 350 cam

by akhunter67 » Tue Oct 27, 2015 7:26 am

Re: Chevy 350 cam

by akhunter67 » Tue Oct 27, 2015 7:35 am

RPM Stock Vortec Edelbrock Summit Speedway Jegs Dart Patriot
3,600 270 270 264 268 270 275 272 275
3,800 270 289 285 287 289 296 295 292
4,000 288 307 308 311 309 317 315 314
4,200 303 325 327 331 327 336 333 333
4,400 317 341 341 348 340 351 347 348
4,600 329 351 354 361 352 362 362 362
4,800 336 362 366 374 362 374 374 376
5,000 343 371 375 384 370 383 384 387
5,200 350 376 382 392 378 391 395 398
5,400 354 378 386 399 381 399 406 406
5,600 356 376 390 402 380 403 411 412
5,800 358 370 394 405 380 407 413 418
6,000 355 360 395 403 381 408 419 420
6,200 -- -- -- -- -- -- 417 --
Avg. 325.5 345.7 352.3 359.7 348.5 362.7 364.4 365.4
Peak 358 378 395 405 381 408 419 420
Here are some tests done a while ago on heads under 1000.00

Re: Chevy 350 cam

by HaxbySpeed » Tue Oct 27, 2015 7:48 am

Are you going to run regular 89 octane marine gas, or do you boat where they have 87? I always run non ethanol premium, even in engines that don't require that octane, just to get away from the potential damage caused by the ethanol fuel. Are your pistons a true flat top, or do they have a small dish? Two valve reliefs, or four? Also, dynamic compression is as much, or more, of a factor then static. What rpm you impeller for and how close to max engine load/rpm you regularly run at will also be a factor. Generally speaking though, with the cam you selected and an efficient chamber like the vortec, 9.5 to 1 will be fine on 89 octane, and 9 to 1 will be fine on 87.


Watch the video: BATTLE OF CANNAE l 216 BC Rome vs Carthage l One of Hannibals Greatest Victories l Cinematic