title: Will Ospreay

text: Following his G1 loss, Ospreay continued to defend his IWGP United States Heavyweight Championship, avenging a D-Block G1 loss to David Finlay and defeating him at NJPW Burning Spirit in September. In October at Royal Quest II, Ospreay defeated Shota Umino. At Battle Autumn in November, Ospreay again retained the title, defeating Tetsuya Naito once more. After his defence against Naito, Ospreay was confronted by Umino, who made his return to Japan and was struck down by him. Umino challenged Ospreay for the US Championship at Historic X-Over, where at the event Ospreay defeated him. After the match, Kenny Omega of All Elite Wrestling appeared on the titantron belittling Ospreay and challenged him to an IWGP United States Heavyweight Championship match at Wrestle Kingdom 17, a challenge which Ospreay accepted.


title: Will Ospreay

text: On 8 November 2016, Ring of Honor (ROH) announced that Ospreay had signed a contract with the promotion, which went into effect on 1 December. On 18 November, Ospreay defeated Bobby Fish in his ROH debut match in Liverpool to become the new ROH World Television Champion. He lost the title to Marty Scurll two days later, during the final day of ROH's three-day tour of the United Kingdom. Ospreay had been given another opportunity to regain the title in a four corners match at ROH's December pay-per-view, Final Battle 2016, but Scurll retained his title. At Final Battle 2017, Ospreay was defeated by Matt Taven.


title: Will Ospreay

text: On ROH TV, on 15 September 2018, Jay Lethal issued an open challenge and it was answered by Ospreay, who said: "I Need the World Title". The Match was signed for ROH Death Before Dishonor later that month in which Ospreay lost.


title: Will Ospreay

text: In 2018, Ospreay announced that he would be starting his own promotion, Frontline Wrestling. He said that Frontline would be a British Puroresu style company and that wants to take wrestling in England back to being seen as a sport. On 28 June 2018 they ran their first event, "Build Me An Empire". Upon the one year anniversary of the promotion, Ospreay sold Frontline to move to Japan and pursue a full time schedule in New Japan Pro Wrestling.


title: Will Ospreay

text: Two weeks after United Empire teammates Great-O-Khan and Jeff Cobb debuted on AEW Dynamite, by attacking Roppongi Vice and FTR, Ospreay made his surprise debut for the All Elite Wrestling on the June 8 2022 episode of AEW Dynamite, where along with other stablemates Aaron Henare and Kyle Fletcher and Mark Davis of Aussie Open, he attacked Trent Beretta and FTR. On June 10 2022 edition of AEW Rampage, Beretta and FTR picked up a victory against United Empire's Ospreay and Aussie Open's Davis and Fletcher. Ospreay competed in his first singles match at the June 15th special episode of "Dynamite", Road Rager, where he defeated Dax Harwood. After the match Ospreay and United Empire stablemates attacked FTR and Roppongi Vice once more, only to be interrupted by Orange Cassidy, who stared down Ospreay. Soon after a singles match between both men was scheduled for , for Ospreay's newly won IWGP United States Heavyweight Championship.At , Ospreay successfully defended the IWGP US Heavyweight Title against Orange Cassidy. After the match, Ospreay and Aussie Open attacked Cassidy and Roppongi Vice, only to be stopped by Katsuyori Shibata, who attacked the trio.


title: Will Ospreay

text: On July 27, the AEW World Trios Championship was revealed, with Ospreay and Aussie Open being named as participants in the inaugural tournament. On August 24, Ospreay and Aussie Open defeated Death Triangle to progress to the semifinals, where they were defeated by The Elite on August 31. After the match, United Empire attacked The Elite.


title: Will Ospreay

text: Hailed as one of the greatest wrestlers in the world today, Opsreay was known for his high-flying, high-risk style of wrestling, being nicknamed "The Aerial Assassin". As a junior heavyweight, Ospreay used a springboard cutter named the "OsCutter" as his finishing manoeuvre. This high-risk style has caused concern about Ospreay's health and length of his career. This included a neck injury he suffered against Marty Scurll on 1 April 2018.


title: Will Ospreay

text: After his match against Kota Ibushi at Wrestle Kingdom 13, Ospreay shortened his nickname to "The Assassin" and debuted a new finisher, a swinging back elbow he later named the "Hidden Blade". Since his transition to the Heavyweight division in 2020, Ospreay bulked up in size and muscle. This led to him changing his in-ring style, as he continued to use some high-flying offence but also utilized a range of technical skill as well as lifting moves like backbreakers, which includes his current finisher named "Stormbreaker".


title: Will Ospreay

text: From 2017, Ospreay was in a relationship with fellow professional wrestler Bea Priestley. In 2019, the couple revealed they were planning on moving to Japan due to both of their wrestling schedules there. As of 2021, the two have split.


title: Will Ospreay

text: As part of the Speaking Out movement, Ospreay was accused of blacklisting Pollyanna, a former wrestler, after she made allegations towards Ospreay's friend and Swords of Essex teammate Scott Wainwright. Independent wrestling promotion International Wrestling League (IWL) stated on Twitter that a venue asked them to remove Pollyanna from a show at the request of Ospreay. However, it was later revealed by IWL that the venue, rather than Ospreay, had requested her removal. The person running the IWL Twitter account later revealed that the supposed evidence was really their opinion on an "unclear situation".


title: Jonathan Cain

text: Jonathan Leonard Friga (born February 26, 1950), known professionally as Jonathan Cain, is an American musician and songwriter best known as the keyboardist for Journey. He has also worked with the Babys and Bad English. Cain was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame as a member of Journey in 2017. He also maintains a solo career as a contemporary Christian artist.


title: Jonathan Cain

text: Cain was born in Chicago, Illinois, to Leonard and Nancy Friga. At the age of eight, Cain began accordion lessons, and by the time he was in his teens, he was playing accordion and piano at parties and in clubs. He also plays guitar, bass, and harmonica. Cain is a survivor of the Our Lady of the Angels school fire of 1958, in which 92 students and 3 nuns died. In 1968, Cain graduated from East Leyden High School in the Chicago suburb of Franklin Park, Illinois, and later attended the Chicago Conservatory of Music.


title: Jonathan Cain

text: In 1976, Cain released his first record as the Jonathan Cain Band, "Windy City Breakdown", on Bearsville Records. In 1979, he joined the Babys, appearing on their albums "Union Jacks" and "On the Edge". In 1980, Cain left The Babys to join the rock band Journey, taking Gregg Rolie's place on keyboards. Cain aided Journey's rise to the top of the charts with his first collaborations on the album "Escape", composing and playing the piano on songs such as "Don't Stop Believin'", described by AllMusic as "one of the best opening keyboard riffs in rock". Perhaps his most notable contribution was as sole author of the Journey ballad "Faithfully", a song about life on the road while in a band. Cain would go on to appear on at least 13 other Journey albums and compilations.


title: Jonathan Cain

text: The song "Working Class Man" sung by Jimmy Barnes is one of Cain's compositions and is considered to be Barnes' signature song.


title: Jonathan Cain

text: Cain reunited with former Babys bandmates John Waite and Ricky Phillips, fellow Journey bandmate Neal Schon, and future Journey drummer Deen Castronovo to form the band Bad English. The band released two albums before disbanding in the early 1990s.


title: Jonathan Cain

text: In 1996, the Journey lineup from the album "Escape" was reunited. They reformed and recorded the album "Trial by Fire". Steve Perry then left the band again in 1998, after suffering a hip injury, while hiking in Hawaii, that required surgery. Journey has continued on with three subsequent lead singers, Steve Augeri from 1998 to 2006, Jeff Scott Soto from 2006 to 2007, and Arnel Pineda from 2007 to the present.


title: Jonathan Cain

text: Cain is known to perform a piano solo at every Journey concert, usually right before the band performs "Open Arms." He started this tradition when he first joined the band in 1980.


title: Jonathan Cain

text: In addition to his work with Journey, Cain has released eight solo albums and contributed to solo albums by fellow Journey member Neal Schon. His solo work includes a move to making Christian music since 2016.


title: Jonathan Cain

text: In May 2018, Cain became a published author with the release of his memoir, "Don't Stop Believin': The Man, the Band, and the Song That Inspired Generations."


title: Jonathan Cain

text: Cain has married three times. His first wife was singer Tané McClure for whom he wrote the 1983 hit song "Faithfully".


title: Jonathan Cain

text: In 1989, he married his second wife, Elizabeth Yvette Fullerton, with whom he has three children: Madison (1993) and twins Liza and Weston (1996). He and Elizabeth divorced at the end of 2014. Madison is married to Trev Lukather, Steve Lukather's son.


title: Jonathan Cain

text: In April 2015, he married minister Paula White. This is the third marriage for both. They reside in Apopka, Florida.


title: Jonathan Cain

text: Cain is a devout Christian and his beliefs are seen in his work creating and sharing Christian music.


title: Jonathan Cain

text: The music video for his song "Oh Lord Lead Us" debuted in July 2021, it was the first track to be released for his Album entitled "Arise" (2022). It was directed by Nik Tizekker.


title: Jonathan Cain

text: He has received two BMI songwriter awards, both for songs co-written with Steve Perry, "Open Arms" and "Who's Crying Now". The Journey song, "When You Love a Woman", which he co-wrote with Perry and Schon, was nominated for a Grammy Award in 1997.


title: Pterodactylus

text: Pterodactylus (from Greek () meaning 'winged finger') is an extinct genus of pterosaurs. It is thought to contain only a single species, Pterodactylus antiquus, which was the first pterosaur to be named and identified as a flying reptile.


title: Pterodactylus

text: Fossil remains of "Pterodactylus" have primarily been found in the Solnhofen limestone of Bavaria, Germany, which dates from the Late Jurassic period (early Tithonian stage), about 150.8 to 148.5 million years ago. More fragmentary remains of "Pterodactylus" have tentatively been identified from elsewhere in Europe and in Africa.


title: Pterodactylus

text: "Pterodactylus" was a generalist carnivore that probably fed on a variety of invertebrates and vertebrates. Like all pterosaurs, "Pterodactylus" had wings formed by a skin and muscle membrane stretching from its elongated fourth finger to its hind limbs. It was supported internally by collagen fibres and externally by keratinous ridges. "Pterodactylus" was a small pterosaur compared to other famous genera such as "Pteranodon" and "Quetzalcoatlus", and it also lived earlier, during the Late Jurassic period, while both "Pteranodon" and "Quetzalcoatlus" lived during the Late Cretaceous. "Pterodactylus" lived alongside other small pterosaurs such as the well-known "Rhamphorhynchus", as well as other genera such as "Scaphognathus", "Anurognathus" and "Ctenochasma". "Pterodactylus" is classified as an early-branching member of the ctenochasmatid lineage, within the pterosaur clade Pterodactyloidea.


title: Pterodactylus

text: The type specimen of the animal now known as "Pterodactylus antiquus" was the first pterosaur fossil ever to be identified. The first "Pterodactylus" specimen was described by the Italian scientist in 1784, based on a fossil skeleton that had been unearthed from the Solnhofen limestone of Bavaria. Collini was the curator of the , or nature cabinet of curiosities (a precursor to the modern concept of the natural history museum), in the palace of Charles Theodore, Elector of Bavaria at Mannheim. The specimen had been given to the collection by Count around 1780, having been recovered from a lithographic limestone quarry in . The actual date of the specimen's discovery and entry into the collection is unknown however, and it was not mentioned in a catalogue of the collection taken in 1767, so it must have been acquired at some point between that date and its 1784 description by Collini. This makes it potentially the earliest documented pterosaur find; the "Pester Exemplar" of the genus "Aurorazhdarcho" was described in 1779 and possibly discovered earlier than the Mannheim specimen, but it was at first considered to be a fossilized crustacean, and it was not until 1856 that this species was properly described as a pterosaur by German paleontologist .


title: Pterodactylus

text: In his first description of the Mannheim specimen, Collini did not conclude that it was a flying animal. In fact, Collini could not fathom what kind of animal it might have been, rejecting affinities with the birds or the bats. He speculated that it may have been a sea creature, not for any anatomical reason, but because he thought the ocean depths were more likely to have housed unknown types of animals. The idea that pterosaurs were aquatic animals persisted among a minority of scientists as late as 1830, when the German zoologist Johann Georg Wagler published a text on "amphibians" which included an illustration of "Pterodactylus" using its wings as flippers. Wagler went so far as to classify "Pterodactylus", along with other aquatic vertebrates (namely plesiosaurs, ichthyosaurs, and monotremes), in the class Gryphi, between birds and mammals.


title: Pterodactylus

text: The German/French scientist Johann Hermann was the one who first stated that "Pterodactylus" used its long fourth finger to support a wing membrane. Back in March 1800, Hermann alerted the prominent French scientist Georges Cuvier to the existence of Collini's fossil, believing that it had been captured by the occupying armies of Napoleon and sent to the French collections in Paris (and perhaps to Cuvier himself) as war booty; at the time special French political commissars systematically seized art treasures and objects of scientific interest. Hermann sent Cuvier a letter containing his own interpretation of the specimen (though he had not examined it personally), which he believed to be a mammal, including the first known life restoration of a pterosaur. Hermann restored the animal with wing membranes extending from the long fourth finger to the ankle and a covering of fur (neither wing membranes nor fur had been preserved in the specimen). Hermann also added a membrane between the neck and wrist, as is the condition in bats. Cuvier agreed with this interpretation, and at Hermann's suggestion, Cuvier became the first to publish these ideas in December 1800 in a very short description. However, contrary to Hermann, Cuvier was convinced the animal was a reptile. The specimen had not in fact been seized by the French. Rather, in 1802, following the death of Charles Theodore, it was brought to Munich, where Baron Johann Paul Carl von Moll had obtained a general exemption of confiscation for the Bavarian collections. Cuvier asked von Moll to study the fossil but was informed it could not be found. In 1809 Cuvier published a somewhat longer description, in which he named the animal "Petro-Dactyle", this was a typographical error however, and was later corrected by him to "Ptéro-Dactyle". He also refuted a hypothesis by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach that it would have been a shore bird. Cuvier remarked: "It is not possible to doubt that the long finger served to support a membrane that, by lengthening the anterior extremity of this animal, formed a good wing."


title: Pterodactylus

text: Contrary to von Moll's report, the fossil was not missing; it was being studied by Samuel Thomas von Sömmerring, who gave a public lecture about it on December 27, 1810. In January 1811, von Sömmerring wrote a letter to Cuvier deploring the fact that he had only recently been informed of Cuvier's request for information. His lecture was published in 1812, and in it von Sömmerring named the species Ornithocephalus antiquus. The animal was described as being both a bat, and a form in between mammals and birds, i.e. not intermediate in descent but in "affinity" or archetype. Cuvier disagreed, and the same year in his "Ossemens fossiles" provided a lengthy description in which he restated that the animal was a reptile. It was not until 1817 that a second specimen of "Pterodactylus" came to light, again from Solnhofen. This tiny specimen was that year described by von Sömmerring as "Ornithocephalus brevirostris", named for its short snout, now understood to be a juvenile character (this specimen is now thought to represent a juvenile specimen of a different genus, probably "Ctenochasma"). He provided a restoration of the skeleton, the first one published for any pterosaur. This restoration was very inaccurate, von Sömmerring mistaking the long metacarpals for the bones of the lower arm, the lower arm for the humerus, this upper arm for the breast bone and this sternum again for the shoulder blades. Sömmerring did not change his opinion that these forms were bats and this "bat model" for interpreting pterosaurs would remain influential long after a consensus had been reached around 1860 that they were reptiles. The standard assumptions were that pterosaurs were quadrupedal, clumsy on the ground, furred, warmblooded and had a wing membrane reaching the ankle. Some of these elements have been confirmed, some refuted by modern research, while others remain disputed.


title: Pterodactylus

text: In 1815, the generic name "Ptéro-Dactyle" was latinized to "Pterodactylus" by Constantine Samuel Rafinesque. Unaware of Rafinesque's publication however, Cuvier himself in 1819 latinized the name "Ptéro-Dactyle" again to "Pterodactylus", but the specific name he then gave, "longirostris", has to give precedence to von Sömmerring's "antiquus". In 1888, English naturalist Richard Lydekker designated "Pterodactylus antiquus" as the type species of "Pterodactylus", and considered "Ornithocephalus antiquus" a synonym. He also designated specimen BSP AS.I.739 as the holotype of the genus.


title: Pterodactylus

text: "Pterodactylus" is known from over 30 fossil specimens, and though most belong to juveniles, many preserve complete skeletons. "Pterodactylus antiquus" was a relatively small pterosaur, with an estimated adult wingspan of about , based on the only known adult specimen, which is represented by an isolated skull. Other "species" were once thought to have been smaller. However, these smaller specimens have been shown to represent juveniles of "Pterodactylus", as well as its contemporary relatives including "Ctenochasma", "Germanodactylus", "Aurorazhdarcho", "Gnathosaurus", and hypothetically "Aerodactylus" if this genus is truly valid.


title: Pterodactylus

text: The skulls of adult "Pterodactylus" were long and thin, with about 90 narrow and conical teeth. The teeth extended back from the tips of both jaws, and became smaller farther away from the jaw tips, this was unlike the ones seen in most relatives, where teeth were absent in the upper jaw tip, and were relatively uniform in size. The teeth of "Pterodactylus" also extended farther back into the jaw compared to close relatives, and some were present below the front of the "nasoantorbital fenestra", which is the largest opening in the skull. Another autapomorphy that "Pterodactylus" has is that the skull and jaws were straight, which are unlike the upwardly curved jaws seen in the related ctenochasmatids.


title: Pterodactylus

text: "Pterodactylus", like related pterosaurs, had a crest on its skull composed mainly of soft tissues. In adult "Pterodactylus", this crest extended between the back edge of the antorbital fenestra and the back of the skull. In at least one specimen, the crest had a short bony base, also seen in related pterosaurs like "Germanodactylus". Solid crests have only been found on large, fully adult specimens of "Pterodactylus", indicating that this was a display structure that became larger and more well developed as individuals reached maturity. In 2013, pterosaur researcher S. Christopher Bennett noted that other authors claimed that the soft tissue crest of "Pterodactylus" extended backward behind the skull; Bennett himself, however, didn't find any evidence for the crest extending past the back of the skull. Two specimens of "P. antiquus" (the holotype specimen BSP AS I 739 and the incomplete skull BMMS 7, the largest known skull of "P. antiquus") have a low bony crest on their skulls; in BMMS 7 it is 47.5 mm long (1.87 inches, more or less 24% of the estimated total length of its skull) and has a maximum height of 0.9 mm (0.035 inches) above the orbit. Several specimens previously referred to "P. antiquus" preserved evidence of the soft tissue extensions of these crests, including an "occipital lappet", a flexible, tab-like structure extending from the back of the skull. Most of these specimens have been reclassified in the related species "Aerodactylus scolopaciceps", which may however be nothing more than a junior synonym. Even if "Aerodactylus" were valid, at least one specimen with these features is still considered to belong to "Pterodactylus", BSP 1929 I 18, which has an occipital lappet similar to the proposed "Aerodactylus" definition, and also possesses a small triangular soft tissue crest with the peak of the crest positioned above the eyes.


title: Pterodactylus

text: Like other pterosaurs (most notably "Rhamphorhynchus"), "Pterodactylus" specimens can vary considerably based on age or level of maturity. Both the proportions of the limb bones, size and shape of the skull, and size and number of teeth changed as the animals grew. Historically, this has led to various growth stages (including growth stages of related pterosaurs) being mistaken for new species of "Pterodactylus". Several detailed studies using various methods to measure growth curves among known specimens have suggested that there is actually only one valid species of "Pterodactylus", "P. antiquus".


title: Pterodactylus

text: The youngest immature specimens of "Pterodactylus antiquus" (alternately interpreted as young specimens of the distinct species "P. kochi") have a small number of teeth, as few as 15 in some, and the teeth have a relatively broad base. The teeth of other "P. antiquus" specimens are both narrower and more numerous (up to 90 teeth are present in several specimens).


title: Pterodactylus

text: "Pterodactylus" specimens can be divided into two distinct year classes. In the first year class, the skulls are only in length. The second year class is characterized by skulls of around long, but are still immature however. These first two size groups were once classified as juveniles and adults of the species "P. kochi", until further study showed that even the supposed "adults" were immature, and possibly belong to a distinct genus. A third year class is represented by specimens of the "traditional" "P. antiquus", as well as a few isolated, large specimens once assigned to "P. kochi" that overlap "P. antiquus" in size. However, all specimens in this third year class also show sign of immaturity. Fully mature "Pterodactylus" specimens remain unknown, or may have been mistakenly classified as a different genus.


title: Pterodactylus

text: The distinct year classes of "Pterodactylus antiquus" specimens show that this species, like the contemporary "Rhamphorhynchus muensteri", likely bred seasonally and grew consistently during its lifetime. A new generation of 1st year class "P. antiquus" would have been produced seasonally, and reached 2nd-year size by the time the next generation hatched, creating distinct 'clumps' of similarly-sized and aged individuals in the fossil record. The smallest size class probably consisted of individuals that had just begun to fly and were less than one year old. The second year class represents individuals one to two years old, and the rare third year class is composed of specimens over two years old. This growth pattern is similar to modern crocodilians, rather than the rapid growth of modern birds.


title: Pterodactylus

text: Comparisons between the scleral rings of "Pterodactylus antiquus" and modern birds and reptiles suggest that it may have been diurnal. This may also indicate niche partitioning with contemporary pterosaurs inferred to be nocturnal, such as "Ctenochasma" and "Rhamphorhynchus".


title: Pterodactylus

text: Based on the shape, size, and arrangement of its teeth, "Pterodactylus" has long been recognized as a carnivore specializing in small animals. A 2020 study of pterosaur tooth wear supported the hypothesis that "Pterodactylus" preyed mainly on invertebrates and had a generalist feeding strategy, indicated by a relatively high bite force.


title: Pterodactylus

text: Specimens of "Pterodactylus" have been found mainly in the Solnhofen limestone (geologically known as the Altmühltal Formation) of Bavaria, Germany. The main composition of this formation is fine-grained limestone that originated mainly from the nearby towns Solnhofen and Eichstätt, which is formed by mud silt deposits. The Solnhofen Limestone is a diverse Lagerstätte that contains a wide range of different creatures, including highly detailed fossilized imprints of soft bodied organisms such as jellyfishes. Abundant specimens of pterosaurs similar to "Pterodactylus" were also found within the formation, these include the rhamphorhynchids "Rhamphorhynchus" and "Scaphognathus", several gallodactylids such as "Aerodactylus", "Ardeadactylus", "Aurorazhdarcho" and "Cycnorhamphus", the ctenochasmatids "Ctenochasma" and "Gnathosaurus", the anurognathid "Anurognathus", the germanodactylid "Germanodactylus", as well as the basal euctenochasmatian "Diopecephalus". Fossil remains of the dinosaurs "Archaeopteryx" and "Compsognathus" were also found within the limestone, these specimens were related to early evolution of feathers, since they were some of the only ones that had them during the Jurassic period. Various lizard remains were also found alongside those of "Pterodactylus", with several specimens assigned to "Ardeosaurus", "Bavarisaurus" and "Eichstaettisaurus". Crocodylomorph specimens were widely distributed within the fossil site, most were assigned to the metriorhynchid genera "Cricosaurus", "Dakosaurus", "Geosaurus" and "Rhacheosaurus". These genera are colloquially called as marine or sea crocodiles due to their similar built. The turtle genera "Eurysternum" and "Paleomedusa" were also found within the formation. Fossils of the ichthyosaur "Aegirosaurus" also appeared to be present in the site, as well as fish remains, with many specimens assigned to ray-finned fishes such as the halecomorphs "Lepidotes", "Propterus", "Gyrodus", "Mesturus", "Proscinetes", "Caturus", "Ophiopsis" and "Ophiopsiella", the pachycormids "Asthenocormus", "Hypsocormus" and "Orthocormus", as well as the aspidorhynchid "Aspidorhynchus", and the ichthyodectid "Thrissops".


title: Pterodactylus

text: Initial classifications for "Pterodactylus" started when paleontologist Hermann von Meyer used the name Pterodactyli to contain "Pterodactylus" and other pterosaurs known at the time. This was emended to the family Pterodactylidae by Prince Charles Lucien Bonaparte in 1838. However, this group has more recently been given several competing definitions.


title: Pterodactylus

text: Beginning in 2014, researchers Steven Vidovic and David Martill constructed an analysis in which several pterosaurs traditionally thought of as archaeopterodactyloids closely related to the ctenochasmatoids may have been more closely related to the more advanced dsungaripteroids, or in some cases, fall outside both groups. Their conclusion was published in 2017, in which they placed "Pterodactylus" as a basal member of the suborder Pterodactyloidea.


title: Pterodactylus

text: As illustrated below, the results of a different topology are based on a phylogenetic analysis made by Longrich, Martill, and Andres in 2018. Unlike the previous results above, they placed "Pterodactylus" within the clade Euctenochasmatia, resulting in a more derived position.


title: Pterodactylus

text: Numerous species have been assigned to "Pterodactylus" in the years since its discovery. In the first half of the 19th century any new pterosaur species would be named "Pterodactylus", which thus became a "wastebasket taxon". Even after clearly different forms had later been given their own generic name, new species would be created from the very productive sites, throughout Europe and North America, often based on only slightly different material.


title: Pterodactylus

text: The earliest reassignments of pterosaur species to "Pterodactylus" started in 1825, with the description of "Rhamphorhynchus"; fossil collector Georg Graf zu Münster alerted the German paleontologist Samuel Thomas von Sömmerring about several distinct fossil specimens, Sömmerring thought that they belonged to an ancient bird. Further fossil preparations had uncovered teeth, to which Graf zu Münster created a skull cast. He later sent the cast to Professor Georg August Goldfuss, who recognized it as a pterosaur, specifically a species of "Pterodactylus". At the time however, most paleontologists incorrectly consider the genus "Ornithocephalus" () to be the valid name for "Pterodactylus", and therefore the specimen found was named as "Ornithocephalus Münsteri", which was first mentioned by Graf zu Münster himself. Another specimen was found and described by Graf zu Münster in 1839, he assigned this specimen to a new separate species called "Ornithocephalus longicaudus"; the specific name means 'long tail', in reference to the animal's tail size. German paleontologist Hermann von Meyer in 1845 officially emended that the genus "Pterodactylus" had priority over "Ornithocephalus", so he reassigned the species "O. münsteri" and "O. longicaudus" into "Pterodactylus münsteri" and "Pterodactylus longicaudus". In 1846, von Meyer created the new species "Pterodactylus gemmingi" based on long-tailed remains; the specific name honors the fossil collector Carl Eming von Gemming. Later, in 1847, von Meyer finally erected the generic name "Rhamphorhynchus" () due to the distinctively long tails seen in the specimens found, which are much longer than those seen in "Pterodactylus". He assigned the species "P. longicaudus" as the type species of "Rhamphorhynchus", which resulted in a new combination called "Rhamphorhynchus longicaudus". The species "R. münsteri" was later changed to "R. muensteri" by Lydekker in 1888, due to the ICZN rule that prohibits non-standard Latin characters, such as "ü", in scientific names.


title: Pterodactylus

text: Beginning in 1846, many pterosaur specimens were found near the village of Burham in Kent, England by British paleontologists James Scott Bowerbank and Sir Richard Owen. Bowerbank had assigned fossil remains to two new species; the first was named in 1846 as "Pterodactylus giganteus"; the specific name means 'the gigantic one' in Latin, in reference to the large size of the remains, and the second species was named in 1851 as "Pterodactylus cuvieri", in honor of the French scientist Georges Cuvier. Later in 1851, Owen named and described new pterosaur specimens that have been found yet again in England. He assigned these specimens to a new species called "Pterodactylus compressirostris". In 1914 however, paleontologist Reginald Hooley redescribed "P. compressirostris", to which he erected the genus "Lonchodectes" (), and therefore made "P. compressirostris" the type species, and created the new combination "L. compressirostris". In a 2013 review, "P. giganteus" and "P. cuvieri" were reassigned to new genera; "P. giganteus" was reassigned to a genus called "Lonchodraco" ('lance dragon'), which resulted in a new combination called "L. giganteus", and "P. cuvieri" was reassigned to the new genus "Cimoliopterus" ('chalk wing'), creating "C. cuvieri". Back in 1859, Owen had found remains the front part of a snout in the Cambridge Greensand, and assigned it into the species "Pterodactylus segwickii"; in honor of Adam Sedgwick, a British geologist. This species however, was reassigned to the genus "Camposipterus" in 2013, therefore creating the new combination "Camposipterus segwickii". Later, in 1861, Owen had uncovered multiple distinctively looking fossil remains yet again in the Cambridge Greensand, these were assigned to a new species named "Pterodactylus simus", though the British paleontologist Harry Govier Seeley had created a separate generic name called "Ornithocheirus", and reassigned "P. simus" as the type species, which created the combination "Ornithocheirus simus". Between the years 1869 and 1870, Seeley had reassigned many pterosaur species into "Ornithocheirus", while also creating several new species. Many of these species however, are now reclassified to other genera, or considered . In 1874, further specimens were found in England, again by Owen, these ones were assigned to a new species called "Pterodactylus sagittirostris", this species however, was reassigned to the genus "Lonchodectes" in 1914 by Hooley, which resulted in an "L. sagittirostris". This conclusion was revised by Rigal "et al." in 2017, who disagreed with Hooley's reassignment, and therefore created the genus "Serradraco", which afterwards resulted in a new combination called "S. sagittirostris".


title: Pterodactylus

text: Assigning new pterosaur species to "Pterodactylus" was not only common in Europe, but also in North America; paleontologists such as Othniel Charles Marsh in 1871 for example, described several toothless pterosaur specimens, which were accompanied by teeth that belonged to the fish "Xiphactinus", which Marsh assumed that these teeth belonged to the pterosaur specimens he found, since all pterosaurs discovered at the time had teeth. He then assigned these specimens to a new species called ""Pterodactylus oweni"", but this was changed to "Pterodactylus occidentalis" because ""P. oweni"" was found to have been preoccupied by a pterosaur species described with the same name back in 1864 by Seeley. In 1872, American paleontologist Edward Drinker Cope also found various pterosaur specimens in North America, he assigned these to two new species known as "Ornithochirus umbrosus" and "Ornithochirus harpyia", Cope attempted to assign the specimens he found to the genus "Ornithocheirus", but misspelled forgetting the 'e'. In 1875 however, Cope reassigned the species "O. umbrosus" and "O. harpyia" into "Pterodactylus umbrosus" and "Pterodactylus harpyia", though these species had been considered ever since. Paleontologist Samuel Wendell Williston unearthed the first skull of the pterosaur, and found that the animal was toothless, this made Marsh create the genus "Pteranodon" (lit. 'toothless wing'), and therefore reassigned all the American pterosaur species, including the ones that he named, from "Pterodactylus" to "Pteranodon".


title: Pterodactylus

text: Later, in the 1980s, subsequent revisions by Peter Wellnhofer had reduced the number of recognized species to about half a dozen. Many species assigned to "Pterodactylus" had been based on juvenile specimens, and subsequently been recognized as immature individuals of other species or genera. By the 1990s it was understood that this was even true for part of the remaining species. "P. elegans", for example, was found by numerous studies to be an immature "Ctenochasma". Another species of "Pterodactylus" originally based on small, immature specimens was "P. micronyx". However, it has been difficult to determine exactly of what genus and species "P. micronyx" might be the juvenile form. Stéphane Jouve, Christopher Bennett and others had once suggested that it probably belonged either to "Gnathosaurus subulatus" or one of the species belonging to "Ctenochasma", though after additional research Bennett assigned it to the genus "Aurorazhdarcho". Another species with a complex history is "P. longicollum", named by von Meyer in 1854, based on a large specimen with a long neck and fewer teeth. Many researchers, including David Unwin, have found "P. longicollum" to be distinct from "P. kochi" and "P. antiquus". Unwin found "P. longicollum" to be closer to "Germanodactylus" and therefore requiring a new genus name. It has sometimes been placed in the genus "Diopecephalus" because Harry Govier Seeley based this genus partly on the "P. longicollum" material. However, it was shown by Bennett that the type specimen later designated for "Diopecephalus" was a fossil belonging to "P. kochi", and no longer thought to be separate from "Pterodactylus". "Diopecephalus" is therefore a synonym of "Pterodactylus", and as such is unavailable for use as a new genus for ""P." longicollum". ""P." longicollum" was eventually made the type species of a separate genus "Ardeadactylus".


title: Pterodactylus

text: The only well-known and well-supported species left by the first decades of the 21st century were "P. antiquus" and "P. kochi". However, most studies between 1995 and 2010 found little reason to separate even these two species, and treated them as synonymous. More recent studies of pterosaur relationships have found anurognathids and pterodactyloids to be sister groups, which would limit the more inclusive group Caelidracones to just two clades. In 1996, Bennett suggested that the differences between specimens of "P. kochi" and "P. antiquus" could be explained by differences in age, with "P. kochi" (including specimens alternately classified in the species "P. scolopaciceps") representing an immature growth stage of "P. antiquus". In a 2004 paper, Jouve used a different method of analysis and recovered the same result, showing that the "distinctive" features of "P. kochi" were age-related, and using mathematical comparison to show that the two forms are different growth stages of the same species. An additional review of the specimens published in 2013 demonstrated that some of the supposed differences between "P. kochi" and "P. antiquus" were due to measurement errors, further supporting their synonymy.


title: Pterodactylus

text: By the 2010s, a large body of research had been developed based on the idea that "P. kochi" and "P. scolopaciceps" were early growth stages of "P. antiquus". However, in 2014, two scientists began publishing research that challenged this paradigm. Steven Vidovic and David Martill concluded that differences between specimens of "P. kochi", "P. scolopaciceps", and "P. antiquus", such as different lengths of neck vertebrae, thinner or thicker teeth, more rounded skulls, and how far the teeth extended back in the jaws, were significant enough to separate them into three distinct species. Vidovic and Martill also performed a phylogenetic analysis which treated all relevant specimens as distinct units, and found that the "P. kochi" type specimen did not form a natural group with that of "P. antiquus". They concluded that the genus "Diopecephalus" could be returned to use to distinguish ""P". kochi" from "P. antiquus". They named the new genus "Aerodactylus" for "P. scolopaciceps" as well. So, what Bennett considered early growth stages of one species, Vidovic and Martill considered representatives of new species.


title: Pterodactylus

text: In 2017, Bennett challenged this hypothesis, he claimed that while Vidovic and Martill had identified real differences between these three groups of specimens, they had not provided any rationale that the differences were enough to distinguish them as species, rather than just individual variation, growth changes, or simply due to crushing and distortion during the fossilization process. Bennett pointed in particular to the data used to distinguish "Aerodactylus", which was so different from the data for related species, it might be due to an unnatural assemblage of specimens. As a result, Bennett continued to consider "Diopecephalus" and "Aerodactylus" simply as year-classes of immature "Pterodactylus antiquus".


title: Pterodactylus

text: During its over-200-year history, the various species of "Pterodactylus" have gone through a number of changes in classification and thus have acquired a large number of synonyms. Additionally, a number of species assigned to "Pterodactylus" are based on poor remains that have proven difficult to assign to one species or another and are therefore considered (). The following list includes names that were used to identify new pterosaur species that now have been reclassified, or until recently thought to be pertaining to "Pterodactylus" proper, and names based on other material that has as yet not been assigned to other genera. This list also includes species that are ('naked names'), which are species that were not published formally. Species that are ('forgotten names') are the ones that have been disused, and species that are ('rejected names') are the ones that have been rejected because a more preferable name had been accepted instead.


title: Pterodactylus

text: "Pterodactylus" is regarded as one of the most iconic prehistoric creatures, with multiple appearances in books, movies, as well as television series and several videogames. The informal name "pterodactyl" is sometimes used to refer to any kind of animal belonging to the order Pterosauria, though most of the times to "Pterodactylus", as it's the most well-known member of the group. The popular aspect of "Pterodactylus" consists of an elongated head crest, and potentially large wings. Studies of "Pterodactylus" however, conclude that it may even lack a bony cranial crest, though several analysis have proven that "Pterodactylus" may in fact have a crest made up of soft tissue instead of bone.


title: Pterodactylus

text: "Pterodactylus" is the star character of the 2005 horror film "Pterodactyl", where it is identified with the informal name "pterodactyl", hence the name of the film. In the film, the "pterodactyls" resemble the aspect of the distantly related genus "Pteranodon" due to the elongated bony cranial crest, and their enormous size. One peculiar feature that "Pterodactylus" had in the film is the possession of teeth, while this is generally accurate for "Pterodactylus", the overall appearance of the creatures in the film is similar to that of "Pteranodon", as well as the large size, this makes them resemble some kind of pterosaur identical to "Pteranodon", but with the possession of teeth.


title: Pterodactylus

text: Another appearance of "Pterodactylus"-like creatures is in J. R. R. Tolkien's Middle-earth legendarium. In this novel, the Nazgûl, introduced as the Black Riders, are nine characters who rode flying monsters that looked similarly built to "Pterodactylus". Christopher Tolkien, the son of the author, described the flying monsters as "Nazgûl-birds"; his father described the appearance of the steeds as somewhat "pterodactylic", and acknowledged that these were obviously "new mythology".


title: Onychomycosis

text: Onychomycosis, also known as tinea unguium, is a fungal infection of the nail. Symptoms may include white or yellow nail discoloration, thickening of the nail, and separation of the nail from the nail bed. Toenails or fingernails may be affected, but it is more common for toenails. Complications may include cellulitis of the lower leg.


title: Onychomycosis

text: A number of different types of fungus can cause onychomycosis, including dermatophytes and "Fusarium". Risk factors include athlete's foot, other nail diseases, exposure to someone with the condition, peripheral vascular disease, and poor immune function. The diagnosis is generally suspected based on the appearance and confirmed by laboratory testing.


title: Onychomycosis

text: Onychomycosis does not necessarily require treatment. The antifungal medication terbinafine taken by mouth appears to be the most effective but is associated with liver problems. Trimming the affected nails when on treatment also appears useful.


title: Onychomycosis

text: There is a ciclopirox-containing nail polish, but there is no evidence that it works. The condition returns in up to half of cases following treatment. Not using old shoes after treatment may decrease the risk of recurrence.


title: Onychomycosis

text: Onychomycosis occurs in about 10 percent of the adult population, with older people more frequently affected. Males are affected more often than females. Onychomycosis represents about half of nail disease. It was first determined to be the result of a fungal infection in 1853 by Georg Meissner.


title: Onychomycosis

text: The most common symptom of a fungal nail infection is the nail becoming thickened and discoloured: white, black, yellow or green. As the infection progresses the nail can become brittle, with pieces breaking off or coming away from the toe or finger completely. If left untreated, the skin underneath and around the nail can become inflamed and painful. There may also be white or yellow patches on the nailbed or scaly skin next to the nail, and a foul smell. There is usually no pain or other bodily symptoms, unless the disease is severe. People with onychomycosis may experience significant psychosocial problems due to the appearance of the nail, particularly when fingers – which are always visible – rather than toenails are affected.


title: Onychomycosis

text: Dermatophytids are fungus-free skin lesions that sometimes form as a result of a fungus infection in another part of the body. This could take the form of a rash or itch in an area of the body that is not infected with the fungus. Dermatophytids can be thought of as an allergic reaction to the fungus.


title: Onychomycosis

text: The causative pathogens of onychomycosis are all in the fungus kingdom and include dermatophytes, "Candida" (yeasts), and nondermatophytic molds. Dermatophytes are the fungi most commonly responsible for onychomycosis in the temperate western countries; while "Candida" and nondermatophytic molds are more frequently involved in the tropics and subtropics with a hot and humid climate.


title: Onychomycosis

text: When onychomycosis is due to a dermatophyte infection, it is termed tinea unguium. "Trichophyton rubrum" is the most common dermatophyte involved in onychomycosis. Other dermatophytes that may be involved are "T. interdigitale", "Epidermophyton floccosum", "T. violaceum", "Microsporum gypseum", "T. tonsurans", and "T. soudanense". A common outdated name that may still be reported by medical laboratories is "Trichophyton mentagrophytes" for "T. interdigitale". The name "T. mentagrophytes" is now restricted to the agent of favus skin infection of the mouse; though this fungus may be transmitted from mice and their danders to humans, it generally infects skin and not nails.


title: Onychomycosis

text: Other causative pathogens include "Candida" and nondermatophytic molds, in particular members of the mold genus "Scytalidium" (name recently changed to "Neoscytalidium"), "Scopulariopsis", and "Aspergillus".


title: Onychomycosis

text: "Candida" species mainly cause fingernail onychomycosis in people whose hands are often submerged in water. "Scytalidium" mainly affects people in the tropics, though it persists if they later move to areas of temperate climate.


title: Onychomycosis

text: Other molds more commonly affect people older than 60 years, and their presence in the nail reflects a slight weakening in the nail's ability to defend itself against fungal invasion.


title: Onychomycosis

text: Advancing age (usually over the age of 60) is the most common risk factor for onychomycosis due to diminished blood circulation, longer exposure to fungi, nails which grow more slowly and thicken, and reduced immune function increasing susceptibility to infection.<ref name="Frazier AAFP 10/2021"></ref> Nail fungus tends to affect men more often than women and is associated with a family history of this infection.


title: Onychomycosis

text: Other risk factors include perspiring heavily, being in a humid or moist environment, psoriasis, wearing socks and shoes that hinder ventilation and do not absorb perspiration, going barefoot in damp public places such as swimming pools, gyms and shower rooms, having athlete's foot (tinea pedis), minor skin or nail injury, damaged nail, or other infection, and having diabetes, circulation problems, which may also lead to lower peripheral temperatures on hands and feet, or a weakened immune system.


title: Onychomycosis

text: The diagnosis is generally suspected based on the appearance and confirmed by laboratory testing. The four main tests are a potassium hydroxide smear, culture, histology examination, and polymerase chain reaction. The sample examined is generally nail scrapings or clippings. These being from as far up the nail as possible.


title: Onychomycosis

text: Nail plate biopsy with periodic acid-Schiff stain appear more useful than culture or direct KOH examination. To reliably identify nondermatophyte molds, several samples may be necessary.


title: Onychomycosis

text: In many cases of suspected nail fungus there is actually no fungal infection, but only nail deformity.


title: Onychomycosis

text: To avoid misdiagnosis as nail psoriasis, lichen planus, contact dermatitis, nail bed tumors such as melanoma, trauma, or yellow nail syndrome, laboratory confirmation may be necessary.


title: Onychomycosis

text: Other conditions that may appear similar to onychomycosis include: psoriasis, normal aging, yellow nail syndrome, and chronic paronychia.


title: Onychomycosis

text: Most treatments are with antifungal medications, either topically or by mouth. Avoiding use of antifungal therapy by mouth (e.g., terbinafine) in persons without a confirmed infection is recommended, because of the possible side effects of that treatment.


title: Onychomycosis

text: Medications that may be taken by mouth include terbinafine (76% effective), itraconazole (60% effective), and fluconazole (48% effective). They share characteristics that enhance their effectiveness: prompt penetration of the nail and nail bed, and persistence in the nail for months after discontinuation of therapy. Ketoconazole by mouth is not recommended due to side effects. Oral terbinafine is better tolerated than itraconazole. For superficial white onychomycosis, systemic rather than topical antifungal therapy is advised.


title: Onychomycosis

text: Topical agents include ciclopirox nail paint, amorolfine, and efinaconazole. Some topical treatments need to be applied daily for prolonged periods (at least one year). Topical amorolfine is applied weekly.


title: Onychomycosis

text: Efinaconazole, a topical azole antifungal, led to cure rates two or three times better than the next-best topical treatment, ciclopirox. In trials, about 17% of people were cured using efinaconazole, as opposed to 4% of people using placebo.


title: Onychomycosis

text: Topical ciclopirox results in a cure in 6% to 9% of cases. Ciclopirox when used with terbinafine appears to be better than either agent alone. Although eficonazole, P-3051 (ciclopirox 8% hydrolacquer), and tavaborole are effective at treating fungal infection of toenails, complete cure rates are low.


title: Onychomycosis

text: As of 2014 evidence for laser treatment is unclear as the evidence is of low quality and varies by type of laser.


title: Onychomycosis

text: Tea tree oil is not recommended as a treatment, since it is not effective and can irritate the surrounding skin.


title: Onychomycosis

text: According to a 2015 study, the cost in the United States of testing with the periodic acid–Schiff stain (PAS) was about $148. Even if the cheaper KOH test is used first and the PAS test is used only if the KOH test is negative, there is a good chance that the PAS will be done (because of either a true or a false negative with the KOH test). But the terbinafine treatment costs only $10 (plus an additional $43 for liver function tests). In conclusion the authors say that terbinafine has a relatively benign adverse effect profile, with liver damage very rare, so it makes more sense cost-wise for the dermatologist to prescribe the treatment without doing the PAS test. (Another option would be to prescribe the treatment only if the potassium hydroxide test is positive, but it gives a false negative in about 20% of cases of fungal infection.) On the other hand, as of 2015 the price of topical (non-oral) treatment with efinaconazole was $2307 per nail, so testing is recommended before prescribing it.


title: Onychomycosis

text: The cost of efinaconazole treatment can be reduced to $65 per 1-month dose using drug coupons, bringing the treatment cost to $715 per nail.


title: Onychomycosis

text: In 2019, a study by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health found the cost for a 48-week efinaconazole course to be $178 for a big toe, and $89 for an other toe.


title: Onychomycosis

text: Recurrence may occur following treatment, with a 20-25% relapse rate within 2 years of successful treatment. Nail fungus can be painful and cause permanent damage to nails. It may lead to other serious infections if the immune system is suppressed due to medication, diabetes or other conditions. The risk is most serious for people with diabetes and with immune systems weakened by leukemia or AIDS, or medication after organ transplant. Diabetics have vascular and nerve impairment, and are at risk of cellulitis, a potentially serious bacterial infection; any relatively minor injury to feet, including a nail fungal infection, can lead to more serious complications. Infection of the bone is another rare complication.


title: Onychomycosis

text: A 2003 survey of diseases of the foot in 16 European countries found onychomycosis to be the most frequent fungal foot infection and estimated its prevalence at 27%. Prevalence was observed to increase with age. In Canada, the prevalence was estimated to be 6.48%. Onychomycosis affects approximately one-third of diabetics and is 56% more frequent in people with psoriasis.


title: Onychomycosis

text: Research suggests that fungi are sensitive to heat, typically . The basis of laser treatment is to try to heat the nail bed to these temperatures in order to disrupt fungal growth. As of 2013 research into laser treatment seemed promising. There is also ongoing development in photodynamic therapy, which uses laser or LED light to activate photosensitisers that eradicate fungi.


title: John Carter Cash

text: John Carter Cash (born March 3, 1970) is an American country singer-songwriter and musician. He is the only child of Johnny Cash and June Carter Cash, and the grandson of Maybelle Carter.


title: John Carter Cash

text: For several years after his birth, his father altered the conclusion of "A Boy Named Sue" to mention him by name; in 1972 his parents recorded the duet "I Got a Boy (And His Name is John)" about their son; and in 1975 a photograph of him with his father was on the sleeve of the album "Look at Them Beans".


title: John Carter Cash

text: He worked as a music producer on his mother's albums "Press On" and "Wildwood Flower", which won a Grammy Award for Best Traditional Folk album.


title: John Carter Cash

text: He was the associate Producer his father's and . In the early 1990s he toured with his father as a rhythm guitarist. He has produced recordings for many artists like: Sheryl Crow, Loretta Lynn, Willie Nelson, Elvis Costello, Kris Kristofferson, Emmylou Harris, and Vince Gill. He owns and operates Cash Cabin Enterprises, LLC., a music production company in the Cash Cabin Studio.


title: John Carter Cash

text: He married Ana Cristina Cash, a singer, in 2016 in Charleston, South Carolina. They have two children, Grace June and James Kristoffer. Cash has three older children, Joseph John, Anna Maybelle and Jack Ezra from two previous marriages.


title: Gaius Marius

text: Gaius Marius (; – 13 January 86 BC) was a Roman general and statesman. Victor of the Cimbric and Jugurthine wars, he held the office of consul an unprecedented seven times during his career. He was also noted for his important reforms of Roman armies. He set the precedent for the shift from the militia levies of the middle Republic to the professional soldiery of the late Republic; he also improved the "pilum", a javelin, and made large-scale changes to the logistical structure of the Roman army.


title: Gaius Marius

text: Rising from a well-off provincial Italian family in Arpinum, Marius acquired his initial military experience serving with Scipio Aemilianus at the Siege of Numantia in 134 BC. He won election as tribune of the plebs in 119 BC and passed a law limiting aristocratic interference in elections. Barely elected praetor in 115 BC, he next became the governor of Further Spain where he campaigned against bandits. On his return from Spain he married Julia, the aunt of Julius Caesar.


title: Gaius Marius

text: Marius attained his first consulship in 107 BC and became the commander of Roman forces in Numidia, where he brought an end to the Jugurthine War. By 105 BC Rome faced an invasion by the Cimbri and Teutones, and the "comitia centuriata" elected Marius consul for a second time to face this new threat. Marius was consul every year from 104–100 BC, and he defeated the Teutones at Aqua Sextiae and the Cimbri at Vercellae. For his victories he was hailed as "the third founder of Rome" (the first two being Romulus and Camillus). However, Marius suffered political setbacks during his sixth consulship in 100 BC and afterwards entered a period of semi-retirement from public life.


title: Gaius Marius

text: The Republic fell into crisis with the outbreak of the Social War in 91 BC, in which Marius fought with limited success. He then became embroiled in a conflict with the Roman general Sulla which resulted in him being exiled to Africa in 88 BC. Marius returned to Italy during the War of Octavius, seized Rome, and began a bloody reign of terror in the city which culminated in him being elected consul a seventh time and then dying at the beginning of his consulship, in 86 BC. His life and career, by breaking with many of the precedents that bound the ambitious upper class of the Roman republic together and instituting a soldiery loyal not to the republic but to their commanders, contributed to Rome's transformation from republic to empire.


title: Gaius Marius

text: Marius was born in Cereatae in 157 BC, a small village near the town of Arpinum in south-east Latium. The town had been conquered by the Romans in the late 4th century BC and was initially given Roman citizenship without voting rights ("civitas sine suffragio"). Only in 188 BC, thirty years before his birth, did the town receive full citizenship. Although Plutarch claims that Marius's father was a labourer, this is almost certainly false since Marius had connections with the nobility in Rome, he ran for local office in Arpinum, and he had marriage relations with the local nobility in Arpinum, all of which when taken together indicate that he was born into a locally important family of equestrian status. While many of the problems he faced during his early career in Rome show the difficulties that faced a "new man" ("novus homo") in being accepted into the stratified upper echelons of Roman society, Marius – even as a young man – was not poor or even middle-class; he was most assuredly born into inherited wealth, gained most likely from large land holdings. In fact, his family's resources were definitely large enough to support not just one member of the family in Roman politics, but two: Marius's younger brother, Marcus Marius, also entered Roman public life.


title: Gaius Marius

text: In 134 BC, Marius joined the personal legion of Scipio Aemilianus as an officer for the expedition to Numantia. It is unclear whether or not Marius was already present and serving in Numantia with the previous commander when Aemilianus arrived. While serving with the army at Numantia, his military aptitude brought him to the attention of Scipio Aemilianus. According to Plutarch, during a conversation after dinner, when the conversation turned to generals and someone asked Scipio Aemilianus where the Roman people would find a worthy successor to him, the younger Scipio gently tapped on Marius's shoulder, saying "Perhaps this is the man".


title: Gaius Marius

text: It would seem that even at this early stage of his military career, Marius had ambitions for a political career in Rome. According to Plutarch, as a hereditary client of the Caecilii Metelli, one of the noble families which was then emerging as the dominant faction in Rome, Marius ran for election as one of the twenty-four special military tribunes of the first four legions who were elected (the rest were appointed by the magistrate who raised the legion). Sallust tells us that he was unknown by sight to the electors but was returned by all the tribes on the basis of his accomplishments. After election, he likely served Quintus Caecilius Metellus Balearicus on the Balearic Islands, helping him win a triumph.


title: Gaius Marius

text: Next, Marius possibly ran for the quaestorship after losing an election for local office in Arpinum. He may have run for local office as a means of gaining support back home, and lost to a local competitor. It is possible, however, that Marius never ran for the quaestorship at all, jumping directly to plebeian tribune. He likely participated in the major Roman victory of 121 BC which permanently cemented Roman control over southern Gaul.


title: Gaius Marius

text: In 120 BC, Marius was returned as a plebeian tribune for the following year. He won with the support of the Metelli, specifically Lucius Caecilius Metellus Dalmaticus. While Plutarch says the Metelli were one of his family's hereditary patrons, this may be a latter-day exaggeration. It was not uncommon for prospective consuls to campaign for their candidates for the tribunate and lower the possibility of opposition tribunes exercising their vetoes.


title: Gaius Marius

text: Plutarch relates that against the wishes of his patrons, he pushed through a law that restricted the interference of the wealthy in elections. In the 130s, voting by ballot had been introduced in elections for choosing magistrates, passing laws and deciding legal cases, replacing the earlier system of oral voting. The wealthy continued to try to influence the voting by inspecting ballots, and Marius passed a law narrowing the passages down which voters passed to cast their votes in order to prevent outsiders from harassing the electors or seeing who was voted for. It is not clear, however, whether Plutarch's narrative history properly reflects how controversial this proposal in fact was; Cicero, writing during the Republic, describes this as quite straightforward and uncontroversial. While the election procedures were supported by the plebs in Rome, Marius shortly thereafter alienated them by vetoing a bill for the expansion of the ever-popular grain dole, citing high cost.


title: Gaius Marius

text: Soon thereafter, in 117 BC, Marius stood for the aedileship and lost. It seems clear that by this time, due to the enormous financial difficulties that any prospective aedile would have to shoulder, Marius had either amassed or was availed of significant financial resources. This loss was at least in part due to the enmity of the Metelli. In 116 BC he barely won election as praetor for the following year, coming in last, and was promptly accused of (electoral corruption). Being accused of electoral corruption was common during the middle and late Republic and details of the trial are sketchy or apocryphal. Marius, however, was able to win acquittal on this charge, and spent an uneventful year as praetor in Rome, likely as either or as president of the corruption court. In 114 BC, Marius's imperium was prorogued and, as a propraetor, he was sent to govern the highly sought-after province of Further Spain (), where he engaged in some sort of minor military operation to clear brigands from untapped mining areas. Due to his success in Spain, Marius almost certainly returned to Rome in 113 BC with his personal wealth greatly enlarged.


title: Gaius Marius

text: He received no triumph on his return, but he did marry Julia, the aunt of Julius Caesar. The Julii Caesares were a patrician family, but at this period seem to have found it hard to advance beyond the praetorship into the consulship. The Julii had done so only once in the 2nd century, in 157 BC. The match was advantageous to both sides: Marius gained respectability by marrying into a patrician family and the Julii received a great injection of energy and money. Sources are unclear on whether Marius joined the annual race of former praetors for the consulship, but it is likely that he failed to be elected at least once.


title: Gaius Marius

text: The Jugurthine War started in 112 BC due to "Roman exasperation with the ambitions of Jugurtha", a Numidian king who had killed his half-brothers, massacred Italians in his civil war against them, and bribed many prominent Romans to support him in the Senate. After the start of hostilities, the first army sent to Numidia was apparently bribed to withdraw and the second army was defeated and forced to pass under the yoke in humiliation. These debacles eroded trust in the ability of the aristocracy to adequately manage foreign affairs.


title: Gaius Marius

text: While Marius had seemingly broken with the Caecilii Metelli during his time as tribune and praetor, the Metelli did not seem to hold this rupture against him so much as to pass over him for selection as legate in the opening phases of the Jugurthine War. In 109 BC, likely to improve his chances for the consulship, Marius joined then-consul Quintus Caecilius Metellus in his campaign against Jugurtha. In Sallust's long account of Metellus's campaign, no other legates are mentioned, so Marius was probably Metellus's senior subordinate and right-hand man. Metellus was using Marius's strong military experience, while Marius was strengthening his position to run for the consulship.


title: Gaius Marius

text: During the Battle of the Muthul, Marius's actions probably saved the army of Metellus from annihilation. Jugurtha had cut the Romans off from the River Muthul where they wanted to refill their water reserves. The Romans had to fight Jugurtha in the desert where the Numidian light cavalry had an advantage. The Numidian cavalry scattered the Romans into small detachments and soon had control of the battlefield. Each group of Romans was fighting for survival independently. At this point Marius re-organized a few detachments and led a column of 2,000 men through the Numidians to link up with Metellus. Together they led their men against the Numidian infantry who occupied a hill. After gaining control of the hill Marius and Metellus led their men against the rear of the Numidian cavalry. The Romans gained the initiative and the Numidians had no choice but to withdraw.


title: Gaius Marius

text: By 108 BC, Marius expressed his desire to run for the consulship. Metellus did not give Marius his blessing to return to Rome, allegedly advising Marius to wait and run with Metellus's son (who was at the time only twenty, signifying a campaign decades in the future). Undeterred, Marius began to campaign for the consulship. Sallust claims that this was catalyzed, in part, by a fortune-teller in Utica who "declared that a great and marvellous career awaited him; the seer accordingly advised him, trusting in the gods, to carry out what he had in mind and put his fortune to the test as often as possible, predicting that all his undertakings would have a happy issue".


title: Gaius Marius

text: Marius soon earned the respect of the troops by his conduct towards them, eating his meals with them and proving he was not afraid to share in any of their labours. He also won over the Italian traders by claiming that he could capture Jugurtha in a few days with half of Metellus's troops. Both groups wrote home in praise of him, suggesting that he could end the war quickly, unlike Metellus, who was pursuing a policy of methodically subduing the countryside.


title: Gaius Marius

text: During the winter of 109 and 108 BC, a detachment of Roman soldiers serving as the garrison of Vaga was ambushed and cut down almost to a man. The garrison commander, one Titus Turpilius Silanus, a client of Metellus, escaped unharmed. Marius allegedly urged Metellus to sentence Silanus to death on charges of cowardice, but then turned on Metellus, arguing that the sentence was disproportionate and overly harsh. Marius also sent letters back to Rome claiming that Metellus had become enamoured with the unlimited powers associated with his "imperium". Metellus, wary of an increasingly disgruntled and resentful subordinate, permitted Marius to return to Rome. According to Plutarch, he returned with barely enough time to make it back for the consular elections; but according to Sallust, with enough time to effectively canvass for votes.


title: Gaius Marius

text: With growing political pressure towards a quick and decisive victory over Jugurtha, Marius was elected consul for 107 BC, campaigning against Metellus's apparent lack of swift action against Jugurtha, with Lucius Cassius Longinus as his colleague. The Senate prorogued Metellus's command in Numidia, thereby preventing Marius from assuming command. Marius got around this by inducing an ally of his, then-tribune Titus Manlius Mancinus, to have the "concilium plebis" override the Senate's decision and appoint him in command. Metellus refused to personally hand over command to Marius and returned to Rome. Upon his return, the Senate voted Metellus a triumph and the "agnomen" "Numidicus".


title: Gaius Marius

text: Seeking troops to bolster the forces in Numidia and win his promised quick victory, Marius found it difficult to recruit from Rome's traditional source of manpower, property-holding men. Except in emergencies, normal practice in the middle republic was only to allow property-owning citizens to enlist in the legions; this may have been related to Tiberius Gracchus's reforms which would have, by giving more people more land, made more men eligible to serve in the legions. While the senate allowed Marius to conscript men normally, he preferred instead to request volunteers, especially among discharged veterans (), with promises of victory and plunder. He also recruited volunteers from men without property, the . With more troops mustering in southern Italy, Marius sailed for Africa, leaving his cavalry in the hands of his newly elected quaestor, Lucius Cornelius Sulla.


title: Gaius Marius

text: Marius found that ending the war was more difficult than he had previously boasted. Jugurtha was fighting a guerrilla war, and it appeared that no strategy would work better than Metellus's strategy of denying Jugurtha local reinforcement and support. Marius arrived comparatively late in 107 BC but still fought and won a battle near Cirta (modern Constantine, Algeria). At the end of 107 he surprised Jugurtha by a dangerous desert march to Capsa in the far south where, after the town surrendered, he killed all the adult males, enslaved the remaining survivors, and razed the town, distributing the loot to his soldiers. Keeping up the pressure, he drove Jugurtha's forces southwards and westwards into Mauretania. Marius had been supposedly unhappy at receiving the dissolute and libertine Lucius Cornelius Sulla as his quaestor, but Sulla proved a highly competent officer and was well liked by the men.


title: Gaius Marius

text: Meanwhile, Jugurtha was trying to get his father-in-law king Bocchus of Mauretania to join him in the war against the Romans. In 106, Marius marched his army far to the west, capturing a fortress near the river Molochath. Unfortunately, this advance brought him near the dominions of Bocchus, finally provoking the Mauretanian into action; in the deserts just west of Serif, Marius was taken by surprise by a combined army of Numidians and Mauretanians under the command of the two enemy kings. For once, Marius was unprepared for action and in the melee all he could do was form defensive circles. The attack was pressed by Mauretanian and Gaetulian horsemen and for a time Marius and his main force found themselves besieged on a hill, while Sulla and his men were on the defensive on another hill nearby. The Romans managed to hold off the enemy until evening and the Africans retired. The next morning at dawn the Romans surprised the Africans' insufficiently guarded camp and completely routed the Numidian–Mauretanian army. Marius then marched east to winter quarters in Cirta. The African kings harried the retreat with light cavalry, but were beaten back by Sulla, whom Marius had put in command of the cavalry. It was by now evident that Rome would not defeat Jugurtha's guerrilla tactics through military means. Therefore, Marius resumed negotiations with Bocchus, who, though he had joined in the fighting, had not yet declared war.


title: Gaius Marius

text: Ultimately, Marius reached a deal with Bocchus whereby Sulla, who was friendly with members of Bocchus's court, would enter Bocchus's camp to receive Jugurtha as a hostage. In spite of the possibility of treachery on the Mauritanian's part, Sulla agreed; Jugurtha's remaining followers were massacred, and he himself was handed over in chains to Sulla by Bocchus. In the aftermath, Bocchus annexed the western part of Jugurtha's kingdom and was recognised as an ally of Rome. Jugurtha was thrown into an underground prison (the Tullianum) in Rome, and ultimately died after gracing Marius's triumph in 104 BC.


title: Gaius Marius

text: Sulla and Marius, after the triumph, disputed who received credit for capturing Jugurtha. As Sulla was acting as Marius's subordinate, under Roman tradition, the credit was Marius's; Sulla and his noble allies, however, focused on Sulla's direct responsibility to discredit Marius's victory. According to Plutarch, this was "the first seed" of their "incurable hatred".


title: Gaius Marius

text: In 109 BC a migrating Germanic tribe called the Cimbri appeared in Gaul and routed the Roman army there under Marcus Junius Silanus. This defeat reduced Roman prestige and resulted in unrest among the Celtic tribes recently conquered by the Romans in southern Gaul. In 107 the consul Lucius Cassius Longinus was completely defeated by the Tigurini, and the senior surviving officer (one Gaius Popillius, son of the consul of 132) had saved what was left only by surrendering half the baggage and suffering the humiliation of having his army "pass under the yoke". The next year, 106 BC, another consul, Quintus Servilius Caepio, marched to Gaul with a new army to salvage the situation. Caepio was prorogued into the next year and the new consul for 105 BC, Gnaeus Mallius Maximus, was also assigned to southern Gaul with another army. Caepio's disdain for Mallius – a new man like Marius with a hunger for glory – made it impossible for them to cooperate.


title: Gaius Marius

text: The Cimbri and another tribe called the Teutones appeared on the Rhône, and while Caepio was on the west bank he refused to come to the aid of Mallius on the east. The Senate was unable to induce Caepio to cooperate with Mallius, which proved both generals' undoing. At the Battle of Arausio (modern Orange), the Cimbri overran Caepio's legions with massively overwhelming numbers. Caepio's routed men crashed into Mallius's troops, which led to both armies being pinned against the Rhône and annihilated by the numerically dominant Cimbrian warriors.


title: Gaius Marius

text: The Republic, altogether lacking generals who had recently concluded military campaigns successfully, took the illegal step of electing Marius "in absentia" for a second consulship in three years. While his election was not unprecedented, as Quintus Fabius Maximus had been elected for consecutive consulships and it was not unheard of for consuls to be elected "in absentia", the precedent was certainly not recent. Yet, since the Assembly had the ability to overturn any law, it simply set aside the requirements and made Marius consul.


title: Gaius Marius

text: Marius was still in Africa when the Assembly elected him consul for 104 BC. At the start of his consulship, Marius returned from Africa in spectacular triumph, bringing Jugurtha and the riches of North Africa to awe the citizenry. Jugurtha, who had prophesied the purchase and destruction of Rome, met his end in a Roman prison after having been led through the streets of the city in chains. Marius was assigned (it is unclear whether by the Assembly or by sortition) the province of Gaul to deal with the Cimbric threat.


title: Gaius Marius

text: The Cimbri, after their decisive victory at Arausio, marched west into Hispania. Marius was tasked with rebuilding, effectively from scratch, the Gallic legions. Building his army around a core of trained legionaries from the last year, Marius again secured exemption from the property requirements and with his newly minted reputation for victory, raised an army of some thirty thousand Romans and forty thousand Italian allies and auxiliaries. He established a base around the town of Aquae Sextiae (modern Aix-en-Provence) and trained his men.


title: Gaius Marius

text: One of his legates was his old quaestor, Sulla, which shows that at this time there was no ill will between them. In 104 BC, Marius was returned as consul again for 103 BC. Though he could have continued to operate as proconsul, it is likely that the people re-elected him as consul so as to avoid another incident of disputed command à la Caepio and Mallius. While Plutarch – possibly referencing the memoirs of Rutilius Rufus – jibed that Marius's consular colleagues were his servants, Evans dismisses this.


title: Gaius Marius

text: In 103 BC, the Germans still did not emerge from Hispania, and Marius's colleague died, requiring Marius to return to Rome to call elections. Lacking a decisive conclusion to the Cimbrian conflict over the last two years, it was not a foregone conclusion that Marius would win reelection. An appeal by a young tribune, Lucius Appuleius Saturninus, in a public meeting before the vote – along with a field of candidates without great name recognition – allowed Marius to be returned as consul again in 102 BC. His colleague was Quintus Lutatius Catulus. Over his successive consulships, Marius was not idle. He trained his troops, built his intelligence network, and conducted diplomacy with the Gallic tribes on the provincial frontiers. He also executed significant and wide-ranging reforms to the legions.


title: Gaius Marius

text: Rome's military manpower shortage was a persistent problem of the second century BC. Due to the reappearance of the Cimbri and the need for manpower, in 109 BC the senate proposed to extend the duration of the military service by the repeal of Gaius Gracchus's restrictions thereof. In 107 BC, Marius was granted authorisation to ignore property qualifications altogether for the war against Jugurtha. While enrollment of volunteers without property provoked disapproval, none had been enrolled against their will, so legal action could not be taken. Modern historians view this enrollment in near-sighted political terms: forcing men with property to serve would have made Marius unpopular, so he resorted to recruiting among the poor; J. W. Rich adds that Marius may have broken with tradition not to avoid backlash, but to indulge the eagerness of those willing to serve. With the threat of the Cimbri from 105 to 101, he was granted another exemption.


title: Gaius Marius

text: After the repeated disasters of the Cimbrian War, the need for men became ever more acute. Marius and his contemporaries' need for soldiers cemented a paradigmatic shift away from the levy-based armies of the middle Republic towards open recruitment. It may have taken some time, however, for recruitment of the urban poor to become common, perhaps only becoming common practice by the Social War. Recruitment of the urban poor by itself did not change the social background of the legions: "the abandonment of the property qualification may not have greatly changed the social composition of the legion... a high proportion of those impoverished peasants who stayed in the country... may still have had enough property to qualify". The armies of the late Republic still were predominantly rural. But the need for men and recruitment of the rural and urban poor found soldiers strongly loyal not to the Republic, but to their generals, who would be perceived as comrades, benefactors, and patrons.


title: Gaius Marius

text: Marius, however, in his successive consulships, also overhauled the training and logistical organisation of his men. Instead of baggage trains, Marius had his troops carry all their weapons, blankets, clothes, and rations. This led to Roman soldiers of the time being referred to as Marius's mules. He also improved the "pilum", a javelin which (after improvement) when thrown and impacting the enemy, would bend so as to be unusable. While Marius is credited for many of the reforms in his period, there is no evidence to support the claim that it was Marius who changed the tactical unit of the army from the "maniple" to the "cohort".


title: Gaius Marius

text: The decision to re-elect Marius as consul for 102 BC was vindicated when the Cimbri returned from Hispania and, with a number of other tribes, moved on Italy. The Teutones and their allies the Ambrones were to head south and advance toward Italy from the west along the coast; the Cimbri were to attempt to cross the Alps into Italy from the north by the Brenner Pass; and the Tigurini (the allied Celtic tribe who had defeated Longinus in 107) were to cross the Alps from the northeast. The two consuls divided their forces, with Marius heading west into Gaul and Catulus holding the Italian Alps.


title: Gaius Marius

text: In the west, Marius denied the Teutones and Ambrones battle, staying inside a fortified camp and fighting off their attempts to storm it. Failing to take his camp, the Teutones and their allies moved on. Marius shadowed them, waiting for an opportune moment to attack. Near Aquae Sextiae (modern Aix-en-Provence), an accidental skirmish between Roman camp servants, getting water, and bathing Ambrones turned into a spontaneous battle between Marius's army and the Ambrones in which the Romans defeated some 30 thousand Ambrones. The next day, the Teutones and the Ambrones counterattacked up a hill against the Roman position. Marcus Claudius Marcellus flanked their advance with a column of three thousand men, turning the battle into a slaughter: estimates vary from 100,000 to 200,000 being slain or captured. Marius sent Manius Aquillius with a report to Rome that said 37,000 superbly trained Romans had succeeded in defeating over 100,000 Germans in two engagements.


title: Gaius Marius

text: Marius's consular colleague in 102 BC, Quintus Lutatius Catulus, who Marius may have expected to "spend a fruitless year employed in garrison duty", did not fare so well. He suffered some casualties in a minor engagement up in one of the mountain valleys near Tridentum. Catulus then withdrew and the Cimbri entered northern Italy. The Cimbri paused in northern Italy to regroup and await expected reinforcements from the other Alpine passes.


title: Gaius Marius

text: Shortly after Marius had vanquished the western invaders at Aquae Sextiae, Marius received news that he had been re-elected to his fourth consecutive consulship (and fifth consulship as a whole) as consul for 101 BC. His colleague would be his friend Manius Aquillius. After election, he returned to Rome to announce his victory at Aquae Sextiae, deferred a triumph, and promptly marched north with his army to join Catulus, whose command was prorogued since Marius's consular colleague was dispatched to defeat a slave revolt in Sicily.


title: Gaius Marius

text: In late July 101 BC, during a meeting with the Cimbri, the invading tribesmen threatened the Romans with the advance of the Teutones and Ambrones. After informing the Cimbri of their allies's destruction, both sides prepared for battle. In the ensuing battle – the Battle of Vercellae (or the Raudine Plain) – Rome decisively defeated the Cimbri. Caught off guard by Sulla's cavalry, pinned down by Catulus's infantry and flanked by Marius, the Cimbri were slaughtered and the survivors enslaved. Upwards of 120,000 Cimbri perished. The Tigurini gave up their efforts to enter Italy from the northeast and went home.


title: Gaius Marius

text: After fifteen days of thanksgiving, Catulus and Marius celebrated a joint triumph, but it was Marius who was hailed as "the third founder of Rome". In the popular imagination, it was Marius who "deserved to be the sole beneficiary of the two triumphs awarded for the decisive conclusion of the war". At the same time, Marius's consular colleague, Manius Aquillius, defeated the Sicilian slave revolt in the Second Servile War. Having saved the Republic from destruction and at the height of his political powers, Marius desired another consulship to secure land grants for his veteran volunteers and to ensure he received appropriate credit for his military successes. Marius was duly returned as consul for 100 BC with Lucius Valerius Flaccus; according to Plutarch, he also campaigned on behalf of his colleague so to prevent his rival Metellus Numidicus from securing a seat.


title: Gaius Marius

text: During the year of Marius's sixth consulship (100 BC), Lucius Appuleius Saturninus was tribune of the plebs for the second time and advocated reforms like those earlier put forth by the Gracchi. Saturninus, after assassinating one of his political opponents to the tribunate, pushed for bills that would drive Marius's former commanding officer Metellus Numidicus into exile, lower the price of wheat distributed by the state, and give colonial lands to the veterans of Marius's recent war. Saturninus's bill gave lands to all veterans of the Cimbric wars, including those of Italian allies, which was resented by some of the "plebs urbana". At the same time, Marius, an Italian, was supportive of the allies' rights, granting citizenship for acts of valour.


title: Gaius Marius

text: Marius worked with Saturninus and Saturninus's ally Glaucia to pass the land bill and banish Metellus Numidicus, but then distanced himself from them and their more radical policies. Around the start of the annual campaign season for the consulship, Marius attempted to disqualify Glaucia from standing for consul. Because other candidates would lower the chances of Glaucia's victory, Saturninus and Glaucia had an opponent – Gaius Memmius – killed during the consular elections for 99 BC. The elections then were delayed. The Senate responded to Saturninus's attempt to force through Glaucia's candidacy, regardless of Marius's disqualification, with armed force, issuing a "senatus consultum ultimum", and – for the first time – ordered the magistrates to take whatever actions they felt necessary to end unrest generated by other Roman magistrates.


title: Gaius Marius

text: Rallying volunteers from the urban plebs and his veterans, Marius cut the water supply to the Capitoline hill and put Saturninus's barricades under a short and decisive siege. After Saturninus and Glaucia surrendered, Marius attempted to keep Saturninus and his followers alive by locking them safely inside the senate house, where they would await prosecution. Possibly with Marius's implied consent, an angry mob broke into the building and, by dislodging the roof tiles and throwing them at the prisoners below, lynched those inside. Glaucia too was dragged from his house and killed.


title: Gaius Marius

text: In complying with the Senate's wishes, Marius tried to show the Senate, who had always been suspicious of his motives, that he was one of them instead of the outsider that Quintus Metellus said he was in 108 BC. Marius's overall concern was always how to maintain the Senate's esteem: in the words of the scholar A.N. Sherwin-White, Marius "wanted to end his days as "vir censorius", like the other great worthies among the "novi homines" of the second century".


title: Gaius Marius

text: At the end of his consulship, Plutarch states that Marius's had alienated both senators and the people. It is, however, unlikely that Marius was abandoned by his clients and peers, as Plutarch also claims. Evans tells us that Marius entered a semi-retirement as an elder statesman, a role which "precluded a more active participation in public life".


title: Gaius Marius

text: After the events of 100 BC, Marius at first tried to oppose the recall of Metellus Numidicus, who had been exiled by Saturninus in 103. However, seeing that opposition was impossible, Marius decided to travel to the east to Galatia in 98 BC, ostensibly to fulfill a vow he had made to the goddess "Magna Mater".


title: Gaius Marius

text: Plutarch portrays this voluntary exile as a great humiliation for the six-time consul: "considered obnoxious to the nobles and to the people alike", he was even forced to abandon his candidature for the censorship of 97. Plutarch also reports that while in the East, Marius attempted to goad Mithridates VI of Pontus into declaring war on Rome – telling Mithridates to either become stronger than Rome or obey her commands – so that the Roman people might be forced to rely on Marius's military leadership once more. This anecdote, however, is discounted by Evans, who dismisses it as "nothing more than a malicious rumour" perhaps created by Rutilius Rufus or Sulla. Other scholars have argued that the mission was instead planned by the Senate with the support of the "princeps senatus" Marcus Aemilius Scaurus for the purpose of investigating Mithridates' campaigns in Cappadocia without arousing too much suspicion.


title: Gaius Marius

text: However, scholars have pointed out that Marius's supposed "humiliation" cannot have been too long-lasting. In c. 98–97 BC, he was given the unprecedented honour of being elected "in absentia" to the college of priestly augurs whilst away in Asia Minor. Furthermore, Marius's mere presence at the trial of Manius Aquillius in 98 BC, his friend and former colleague as consul in 101 BC, was enough to secure acquittal for the accused, even though he was apparently guilty. Marius also successfully acted as sole defence for T. Matrinius in 95 BC, an Italian from Spoletium who had been granted Roman citizenship by Marius and who was now being prosecuted under a new citizenship law.


title: Gaius Marius

text: While Marius was away in the east and after he returned, Rome had several years of relative peace. But in 95 BC, Rome passed a decree, the "lex Licinia Mucia", expelling from the city all residents who were not Roman citizens. In 91 BC, Marcus Livius Drusus was elected tribune; he proposed a wide-ranging reform programme to support the plebs with land reform and grain distribution laws, grant citizenship to the Italians to compensate for land reform's infringement on Italian property rights, and enlarge the senate with equestrians. Marius seemed not to have an opinion on Drusus's Italian question. However, after Drusus was assassinated, many of the Italian states revolted against Rome in the Social War of 91–87 BC, named after the Latin word for allies, "socii".


title: Gaius Marius

text: Marius was recalled to serve as a legate with his nephew, the consul Publius Rutilius Lupus. After Lupus died in a Marsic ambush on the River Tolenus, Marius, who was leading another column of men, crossed the river at a different location and captured the Marsic camp. He then marched on the Marsi while they were busy stripping the corpses and dealt with them accordingly. With Marius in control of their camp and supplies the Marsi had to withdraw. Marius then sent the corpses of Lupus and his officers back to Rome. Following this, Marius took command of and regrouped Lupus's army. The Senate then decided to give joint command to Marius and the praetor Quintus Servilius Caepio the Younger. Marius had expected sole command and he did not get along with Caepio, with disastrous results. After having dealt with a raiding legion of Marsi at Varnia, Caepio attempted to give Marius instructions, but Marius ignored them. Caepio left on his own and was then obliged to move his legions back towards Caeoli. Once they reached the Arno at Sublaqueum they were attacked by the Marsi. Caepio's column perished to the last man. It is said he was killed by Quintus Poppaedius Silo, who was a veteran of Arausio and one of the Marsi generals.


title: Gaius Marius

text: Marius, now in sole command, continued the fight against the Marsi and their allies. After a lot of maneuvering the Marsi and Marruncini were defeated in a battle where Marius worked in tandem with Lucius Cornelius Sulla, his old subordinate from the Jugurthine and Cimbrian wars. Together they killed 6,000 rebels, including the Marruncini general Herius Asinus, and captured 7,000. Marius failed to follow up on this success for unknown reasons (probably because he did not trust his men's morale), and he steadfastly refused to engage the enemy. This led Poppaedius Silo to challenge him: "So if you are such a great general, Marius, why not come down [from your fortifications] and fight it out?" To this Marius retorted, "Well, if you think you are any good a general, why don't you try to make me?"


title: Gaius Marius

text: By 89 BC Marius had withdrawn or had been retired from the war. Either he had withdrawn under the pretext of ill health because he felt he was being underappreciated or he was genuinely ill. There is also the possibility that when his command lapsed at the end of 90 BC the government simply did not renew it – due to a lack of success – or they may have offered him a face-saving deal: retire and claim infirmities.


title: Gaius Marius

text: The Italian war for citizenship was hard-fought. In 90 BC the Assembly carried a law, the to grant citizenship to Italians not yet under arms. In early 89 BC, with the expansion of the war slowing, the Senate dispatched Lucius Porcius Cato to take over the troops under Marius's command. Shortly after arriving, he forced Marius to resign his legateship by claiming he was in poor health.


title: Gaius Marius

text: Marius's efforts in the conflict brought him few honours, though he served at a senior level and won at least a few victories. In all likelihood, this experience rekindled his desire for further commands and glory, embarking him upon a path towards seeking command in the east.


title: Gaius Marius

text: During the Social War, one of Marius's clients and friends, Manius Aquillius, had apparently encouraged the kingdoms of Nicomedia and Bithynia to invade Pontus. In response King Mithridates of Pontus invaded both kingdoms as well as the Roman holdings in Asia (in present-day western Turkey). Defeating the meagre forces at Aquillius's disposal, Mithridates marched across the Bosphorus and Aquillius retreated to Lesbos. With the Social War concluded and with the prospects of a glorious and fabulously rich conquest, there was significant competition in the consular elections for 88 BC. Eventually, Lucius Cornelius Sulla was elected consul, and received command of the army being sent to Pontus.


title: Gaius Marius

text: After news of Mithridates' actions reached Rome, Marius may have considered a seventh term as consul. A tribune, Publius Sulpicius Rufus, was also working on proposals to distribute the new Italian citizens into the thirty-five voting tribes. Marius was likely the one pushing for this most, while also positioning himself for a seventh consulship and – when bundled with Sulpicius's other voting reforms – a long-lasting political base. Sulpicius's proposals raised a furore in the forum, leading to a riot in which the consul – Sulla – was forced to shelter in Marius's house, where a compromise was reached allowing the voting bill to pass through and for Sulla to prepare to go east.


title: Gaius Marius

text: After Sulla left Rome to prepare for his army in Nola to depart for the east, Sulpicius had his measures passed into law, and tacked on a rider which unprecedentedly appointed Marius – now a private citizen lacking any office in the Republic – to the command in Pontus. Marius then sent two of his legates to take the command from Sulla. These moves were foolish: Evans notes "Marius's political ingenuity seems to have deserted him" and calls his actions rash. Sulla refused to relinquish his post, even though all but one of his own subordinates opposed Sulla's course of action. After killing Marius's legates, Sulla rallied his troops to his personal banner and called upon them to defend him against the insults of the Marian faction. The ancient sources say that Sulla's soldiers pledged their loyalty because they were worried that they would be kept in Italy while Marius raised troops from his own veterans who would then proceed to plunder great riches. Marius's faction sent two tribunes to Sulla's legions in eastern Italy, but the tribunes were promptly murdered by Sulla's troops.


title: Gaius Marius

text: Sulla then ordered his troops to begin a slow march on Rome. This was a momentous event, unforeseen by Marius, as no Roman army had ever marched upon Rome: it was forbidden by law and ancient tradition. Once it became obvious that Sulla was going to defy the law and seize Rome by force, Marius attempted to organize a defence of the city with gladiators. Unsurprisingly, Marius's ad hoc force was no match for Sulla's legions. Marius was defeated and fled the city. He narrowly escaped capture and death on several occasions and eventually found safety with his veterans in Africa. Sulla and his supporters in the Senate proscribed twelve men, and passed a death sentence on Marius, Marius's son, Sulpicius and a few other allies. Sulpicius was executed but, according to Plutarch, many Romans disapproved of Sulla's actions.


title: Gaius Marius

text: Some who opposed Sulla were elected to office in 87 BC – Gnaeus Octavius, a supporter of Sulla, and Lucius Cornelius Cinna, a supporter of Marius and member of Sulla's extended family, were elected consuls – as Sulla wanted to demonstrate his republican "bona fides". Regardless, Sulla was again confirmed as the commander of the campaign against Mithridates, so he took his legions out of Rome and marched east to war.