Peloneustes

Peloneustes (meaning "mud swimmer") is a genus of pliosaurid plesiosaur from the Middle Jurassic of England. Its remains are known from the Peterborough Member of the Oxford Clay Formation, which is Callovian in age. It was originally described as a species of "Plesiosaurus" by palaeontologist Harry Govier Seeley in 1896, before being given its own genus by naturalist Richard Lydekker in 1889. While many species have been assigned to "Peloneustes", "P. philarchus" is currently the only one still considered valid, with the others moved to different genera, considered "nomina dubia", or synonymised with "P. philarchus". Some of the material formerly assigned to "P. evansi" have since been reassigned to ""Pliosaurus" andrewsi". "Peloneustes" is known from many specimens, including some very complete material.
With a total length of , "Peloneustes" is not a large pliosaurid. It had a large, triangular skull, which occupied about a fifth of its body length. The front of the skull is elongated into a narrow rostrum (snout). The mandibular symphysis, where the front ends of each side of the mandible (lower jaw) fuse, is elongate in "Peloneustes", and helped strengthen the jaw. An elevated ridge is located between the tooth rows on the mandibular symphysis. The teeth of "Peloneustes" are conical and have circular cross-sections, bearing vertical ridges on all sides. The front teeth are larger than the back teeth. With only 19 to 21 cervical (neck) vertebrae, "Peloneustes" had a short neck for a plesiosaur. The limbs of "Peloneustes" were modified into flippers, with the back pair larger than the front.
"Peloneustes" has been interpreted as both a close relative of "Pliosaurus" or as a more basal (early-diverging) pliosaurid within Thalassophonea, with the latter interpretation finding more support. Like other plesiosaurs, "Peloneustes" was well-adapted to aquatic life, using its flippers for a method of swimming known as subaqueous flight. Pliosaurid skulls were reinforced to better withstand the stresses of feeding. The long, narrow snout of "Peloneustes" could have been swung quickly through the water to catch fish, which it pierced with its numerous sharp teeth. "Peloneustes" would have inhabited an epicontinental (inland) sea that was around deep. It shared its habitat with a variety of other animals, including invertebrates, fish, thalattosuchians, ichthyosaurs, and other plesiosaurs. Five other pliosaurids are known from the Peterborough Member, but they were quite varied in anatomy, indicating that they would have eaten different food sources, thereby avoiding competition.
History of research.
The strata of the Peterborough Member of the Oxford Clay Formation have long been mined for brickmaking. Ever since the late 19th century, when these operations began, the fossils of many marine animals have been excavated from the rocks. Among these was the specimen which would become the holotype of "Peloneustes philarchus", discovered by Henry Porter in a clay pit close to Peterborough, England. The specimen includes a mandible, the front part of the upper jaw, various vertebrae from throughout the body, elements from the shoulder girdle and pelvis, humeri (upper arm bones), femora (upper leg bones), and various other limb bones. In 1866, geologist Adam Sedgwick purchased the specimen for the University of Cambridge's Woodwardian Museum (now the Sedgwick Museum of Earth Sciences, Cambridge), with the specimen being catalogued as CAMSM J.46913 and stored in the university's lecture room within cabinet D. Palaeontologist Harry Govier Seeley described the specimen as a new species of the preexisting genus "Plesiosaurus", "Plesiosaurus philarchus", in 1869. The specific names means "power-loving", possibly due to its large, powerful skull. Seeley did not describe this specimen in detail, mainly just giving a list of the known material. While later publications would further describe these remains, CAMSM J.16913 remains poorly described.
Alfred Leeds and his brother Charles Leeds had been collecting fossils from the Oxford Clay since around 1867, encouraged by geologist John Phillips of the University of Oxford, assembling what became known as the Leeds Collection. While Charles eventually left, Alfred, who collected the majority of the specimens, continued to gather fossils until 1917. Eventually, after a visit by Henry Woodward of the British Museum of Natural History (now the Natural History Museum in London) to Leeds' collection in Eyebury in 1885, the museum bought around of fossils in 1890. This brought Leeds' collection to wider renown, and he would later sell specimens to museums throughout Europe, and even some in the United States. The carefully prepared material was usually in good condition, although it quite frequently had been crushed and broken by geological processes. Skulls were particularly vulnerable to this.
Naturalist Richard Lydekker was informed of a plesiosaur skeleton in the British Museum of Natural History by geologist George Charles Crick, who worked there. The specimen, catalogued under NHMUK R1253, had been discovered in the Oxford Clay Formation in Green End, Kempston, near Bedford. While Lydekker speculated that the skeleton was once complete, it was damaged during excavation. The limb girdles had been heavily fragmented when the specimen arrived at the museum, but a worker named Lingard in the Geology Department managed to restore much of them. In addition to the limb girdles, the specimen also consists of a partial mandible, teeth, multiple vertebrae (although none from the neck), and much of the limbs. Lydekker identified this specimen as an individual of "Plesiosaurus philarchus" and published a description of it in 1889. After studying this and other specimens in the Leeds Collection, he concluded that plesiosaurs with shortened necks and large heads could not be classified as species of "Plesiosaurus", meaning that ""P." philarchus" belonged to a different genus. He initially assigned it to "Thaumatosaurus" in 1888, but later decided that it was different enough to warrant its own genus, which he named "Peloneustes" in his 1889 publication. The name "Peloneustes" comes from the Greek words , meaning "mud" or "clay", in reference to the Oxford Clay Formation, and , meaning "swimmer". Seeley, however, lumped "Peloneustes" into "Pliosaurus" in 1892, claiming that the two were insufficiently different to warrant separate genera. Seeley and Lydekker could not agree on which genus to classify "P. philarchus" in, representing part of a feud between the two scientists. However, "Peloneustes" has since become the accepted name.
The Leeds Collection contained multiple "Peloneustes" specimens. In 1895, palaeontologist Charles William Andrews described the anatomy of the skull of "Peloneustes" based on four partial skulls in the Leeds Collection. In 1907, geologist Frédéric Jaccard published a description of two "Peloneustes" specimens from the Oxford Clay near Peterborough, housed in the Musée Paléontologique de Lausanne, Switzerland. The more complete of the two specimens includes a complete skull preserving both jaws; multiple isolated teeth; 13 cervical (neck), 5 pectoral (shoulder), and 7 caudal (tail) vertebrae; ribs; both scapulae, a coracoid; a partial interclavicale; a complete pelvis save for an ischium; and all four limbs, which were nearly complete. The other specimen preserved 33 vertebrae and some associated ribs. Since the specimen Lydekker described was in some need of restoration, and missing information was filled in with data from other specimens in his publication, Jaccard found it pertinent to publish a description containing photographs of the more complete specimen in Lausanne to better illustrate the anatomy of "Peloneustes".
In 1913, naturalist Hermann Linder described multiple specimens of "Peloneustes philarchus" housed in the Institut für Geowissenschaften, University of Tübingen and State Museum of Natural History Stuttgart, Germany. These specimens had also come from the Leeds Collection. Among the specimens he described from the former institution was a nearly complete mounted skeleton, lacking two cervical vertebrae, some caudal vertebrae from the end of the tail, and some distal phalanges. Only the rear part of the cranium was in good condition, but the mandible was mostly undamaged. Another of the specimens Linder described was a well-preserved skull (GPIT RE/3409), also from the University of Tübingen, preserving a sclerotic ring (the set of small bones that support the eye), only the fourth time these bones had been reported in a plesiosaur.
Andrews later described the marine reptile specimens of the Leeds Collection that were in the British Museum of Natural History, publishing two volumes, one in 1910 and the other in 1913. The anatomy of the "Peloneustes" specimens was described in the second volume, based primarily on the well-preserved skulls NHMUK R2679 and NHMUK R3808 and NHMUK R3318, an almost complete skeleton. NHMUK R3318 was so well preserved that it could be rearticulated and mounted, although the missing parts of the pelvis and limbs had to be filled in. The mounted skeleton was put on display in the museum's Gallery of Fossil Reptiles. Andrews had described this mount in 1910, remarking that it was the first skeletal mount of a pliosaurid, thus providing important information about the overall anatomy of the group.
In 1960, palaeontologist Lambert Beverly Tarlo published a review of pliosaurid species that had been reported from the Upper Jurassic. Many pliosaurids species had been named based on isolated fragments, creating confusion. Tarlo also found that inaccurate descriptions of the material and palaeontologists ignoring each other's work only made this confusion worse. Of the 36 species he reviewed, he only found nine of them to be valid, including "Peloneustes philarchus". In 2011, palaeontologists Hilary Ketchum and Roger Benson described the anatomy of the skull of "Peloneustes". Since the previous anatomical studies of Andrews and Linder, more specimens had been found, including NHMUK R4058, a skull preserved in three dimensions, providing a better idea of the skull's shape.
Other assigned species.
Many species have been assigned to "Peloneustes" throughout its history, but besides "P. philarchus", they have all since been reassigned to different genera or considered invalid. In the same publication in which he named "P. philarchus", Seeley also named another species of "Plesiosaurus", "P. sterrodeirus" based on seven specimens in the Woodwardian Museum consisting of cranial and vertebral material. When Lydekker erected the genus "Peloneustes" for "P. philarchus", he also reclassified ""Plesiosaurus" sterrodeirus" and ""Pleiosaurus" aequalis" (a species named by John Phillips in 1871) as members of this genus. In his 1960 review of pliosaurid taxonomy, Tarlo considered "P. aequalis" to be invalid, since it was based on propodials (upper limb bones), which cannot be used to differentiate different pliosaurid species. He considered "Peloneustes sterrodeirus" to instead belong to "Pliosaurus", possibly within "P. brachydeirus".
Another of the species described by Seeley in 1869 was "Pliosaurus evansi", based on specimens in the Woodwardian Museum. These consisted of cervical and dorsal (back) vertebrae, ribs, and a coracoid. Due to it being a smaller species of "Pliosaurus" and its similarity to "Peloneustes philarchus", Lydekker reassigned it to "Peloneustes" in 1890, noting that it was larger than "Peloneustes philarchus". He also thought that a large mandible and paddle attributed to "Pleiosaurus ?grandis" by Phillips in 1871 belonged to this species instead. In 1913, Andrews assigned a partial skeleton of another large pliosaur found by Leeds to "Peloneustes evansi", noting that while the mandible and vertebrae were similar to other "Peloneustes evansi" specimens, they were quite different from those of "Peloneustes philarchus". Consequently, Andrews considered it possible that "P. evansi" really belonged to a separate genus that was morphologically intermediate between "Peloneustes" and "Pliosaurus". In his 1960 review of pliosaurids, Tarlo synonymised "Peloneustes evansi" with "Peloneustes philarchus" due to their cervical vertebrae being identical (save for a difference in size). He considered the larger specimens of "Peloneustes evansi" distinct, and assigned them to a new species of "Pliosaurus", "P. andrewsi" (although this species is no longer considered to belong in "Pliosaurus"). Hilary F. Ketchum and Roger B. J. Benson disagreed with this synonymy, and in 2011 considered that since the holotype of "Peloneustes evansi" is nondiagnostic (lacking distinguishing features), "P. evansi" is a "nomen dubium" and therefore an indeterminate pliosaurid.
Palaeontologist E. Koken described another species of "Peloneustes", "P. kanzleri", in 1905, from the Cretaceous of Germany. In 1960, Tarlo reidentified this species as an elasmosaurid. In 1913, Linder created a subspecies of "Peloneustes", "P. philarchus" var. "spathyrhynchus", differentiating it based on its spatulate mandibular symphysis (where the two sides of the mandible meet and fuse). Tarlo considered it to be a synonym of "Peloneustes philarchus" in 1960, and the mandibular symphysis of "Peloneustes" is proportionately wider in larger specimens, making this trait more likely to be due to intraspecific variation (variation within species). Crushing makes accurate measurement of these proportions difficult. In 1948, palaeontologist Nestor Novozhilov named a new species of "Peloneustes", "P. irgisensis", based on PIN 426, a partial skeleton consisting of a large, incomplete skull, vertebrae, and a partial hind limb, with stomach contents preserved. The specimen was unearthed in the Lower Volga Basin in Russia. In his 1960 review, Tarlo considered this species to be too different from "Peloneustes philarchus" to belong to "Peloneustes", tentatively placing it in "Pliosaurus". He speculated that Novozhilov had incorrectly thought "Peloneustes" to be the sole long-snouted pliosaurid, hence the initial assignment. In 1964 Novozhilov erected a new genus, "Strongylokrotaphus", for this species, but further studies concurred with Tarlo and reassigned the species to "Pliosaurus", possibly a synonym of "Pliosaurus rossicus". By then, PIN 426 had suffered from heavy damage.
In 1998, palaeontologist Frank Robin O'Keefe proposed that a pliosaurid specimen from the Lower Jurassic Posidonia Shale of Germany might represent a new species of "Peloneustes". In 2001, he considered it to belong to a separate genus, naming it "Hauffiosaurus zanoni". Palaeontologists Zulma Gasparini and Manuel A. Iturralde-Vinent assigned a pliosaurid from the Upper Jurassic Jagua Formation of Cuba to "Peloneustes" sp. in 2006. In 2009, Gasparini redescribed it as "Gallardosaurus iturraldei". In 2011, Ketchum and Benson considered "Peloneustes" to contain only one species, "P. philarchus". They recognised twenty one definite specimens of "Peloneustes philarchus", all from the Peterborough Member of the Oxford Clay Formation. They considered some specimens from the Peterborough Member and Marquise, France previously assigned to "Peloneustes" to belong to different, currently unnamed pliosaurids.
Description.
"Peloneustes" is a small- to medium-sized member of Pliosauridae. NHMUK R3318, the mounted skeleton in the Natural History Museum in London, is long, while the mounted skeleton in the Institut für Geowissenschaften, University of Tübingen measures in length. Plesiosaurs typically can be described as being of the small-headed, long-necked "plesiosauromorph" morphotype or the large-headed, short-necked "pliosauromorph" morphotype. "Peloneustes" is of the latter morphotype, with its skull making up a little less than a fifth of the animal's total length. "Peloneustes", like all plesiosaurs, had a short tail, massive torso, and all of its limbs modified into large flippers.
Skull.
While the holotype of "Peloneustes" lacks the rear portion of its cranium, many additional well-preserved specimens, including one that has not been crushed from top to bottom, have been assigned to this genus. These crania vary in size, measuring in length. The cranium of "Peloneustes" is elongated and slopes upwards towards its back end. Viewed from above, the cranium is shaped like an isoceles triangle, with the back of the cranium broad and the front elongated into a narrow rostrum. The rearmost part of the cranium has roughly parallel sides, unlike the tapering front regions. The external nares (openings for the nostrils) are small and located about halfway along the length of the cranium. The kidney-shaped orbits (openings for the eyes) face forwards and outwards and are located on the back half of the cranium. The temporal fenestrae (openings in the back of the cranium) are enlarged, elliptical, and located on the cranium's rearmost quarter.
The premaxilla (front upper tooth-bearing bone) of "Peloneustes" bears six teeth, and the diastemata (gaps between teeth) of the upper jaw are narrow; these are characteristic features of this pliosaurid. While it has been stated that "Peloneustes" had nasals (bones bordering the external nares), well-preserved specimens indicate that this is not the case. The frontals (bones bordering the orbit) of "Peloneustes" contact both the orbit and the external nares, a distinctive trait of "Peloneustes". There has been some contention as to whether or not "Peloneustes" had lacrimals (bones bordering the lower front edge of the orbit), due to poor preservation. However, well preserved specimens indicate that the lacrimals are distinct bones as in other pliosaurids, as opposed to extensions of the jugals (bones bordering the lower rear edge of the orbit). The palate of "Peloneustes" is flat and bears many openings, including the internal nares (the opening of the nasal passage into the mouth). These openings are contacted by palatal bones known as palatines, a configuration used to identify this genus. The parasphenoid (a bone that articulates with the lower front part of the braincase) bears a long cultriform process (a frontwards projection of the braincase) that is visible when the palate is viewed from below, another distinctive characteristic of "Peloneustes". The occiput (rear part of the cranium) of "Peloneustes" is open, bearing large fenestrae.
"Peloneustes" is known from many mandibles, some of which are well-preserved. The longest of these measures . The mandibular symphysis is elongated, making up about a third of the total mandibular length. Behind the symphysis, the rami (sides of the mandible) diverge before gently curving back inwards near the hind end. Each dentary (the tooth-bearing bone in the mandible) has between 36 and 44 teeth, 13 to 15 of which are located on the symphysis. The second to seventh alveoli (tooth sockets) are larger than those located further back, and the symphysis is the widest around the fifth and sixth. In addition to the characteristics of its mandibular teeth, "Peloneustes" can also be identified by its coronoids (upper inner mandibular bones), which contribute to the mandibular symphysis. Between the tooth rows, the mandibular symphysis bears an elevated ridge where the dentaries meet. No other plesiosaurs display this feature, making it an autapomorphy (unique feature) of "Peloneustes". The mandibular glenoid (socket of the jaw joint) is broad, kidney-shaped, and angled upwards and inwards.
The teeth of "Peloneustes" have circular cross sections, as seen in other pliosaurids of its age. The teeth have the shape of recurved cones. The enamel of the crowns bears regularly-spaced vertical ridges of varying length on all sides. These ridges are more concentrated on the concave edge of the teeth. Most of the ridges extend to one half to two thirds of the total crown height, with few actually reaching the tooth's apex. The dentition of "Peloneustes" is heterodont, that is, it has teeth of different shapes. The larger teeth are caniniform and located at the front of the jaws, while the smaller teeth are more sharply recurved, stouter, and located further back.
Postcranial skeleton.
In 1913, Andrews reported that "Peloneustes" had 21 to 22 cervical, two to three pectoral, and around twenty dorsal vertebrae, with the exact number of sacral (hip) and caudal vertebrae unknown, based on specimens in the Leeds Collection. However, in the same year, Linder reported 19 cervical, 5 pectoral, 20 dorsal, 2 sacral, and at least 17 caudal vertebrae in "Peloneustes", based on a specimen in the Institut für Geowissenschaften, University of Tübingen. The first two cervical vertebrae, the atlas and axis, are fused in adults, but in juveniles they are present as several unfused elements. The intercentrum (part of the vertebral body) of the axis is roughly rectangular, extending beneath the centrum (vertebral body) of the atlas. The cervical vertebrae bear tall neural spines that are compressed from side to side. The cervical centra are about half as long as wide. They bear strongly concave articular surfaces, with a prominent rim around the lower edge in the vertebrae located towards the front of the series. Each cervical centrum has a strong keel along the midline of its underside. Most of the cervical ribs bear two heads that are separated by a notch.
The pectoral vertebrae bear articulations for their respective ribs partially on both their centra and neural arches. Following these vertebrae are the dorsal vertebrae, which are more elongated than the cervical vertebrae and have shorter neural spines. The sacral and caudal vertebrae both have less elongated centra that are wider than tall. Many of the ribs from the hip and the base of the tail bear enlarged outer ends that seem to articulate with each other. Andrews hypothesised in 1913 that this configuration would have stiffened the tail, possibly to support the large hind limbs. The terminal (last) caudal vertebrae sharply decrease in size and would have supported proportionately larger chevrons than the caudal vertebrae located further forwards. In 1913, Andrews speculated that this morphology may have been present to support a small tail fin. Other plesiosaurs have also been hypothesised to have caudal fins, with impressions of such a structure possibly known in one species.
The shoulder girdle of "Peloneustes" was large, although not as heavily built as in some other plesiosaurs. The coracoids are the largest bones in the shoulder girdle, and are plate-like in form. The shoulder joint is formed by both the scapula (shoulder balde) and the coracoid, with the two bones forming a 70° angle with each other. The scapula is typical in form for a pliosaurid and triradiate, bearing three prominent projections, or rami. The dorsal (upper) ramus is directed outwards, upwards, and backwards. The underside of each scapula bears a ridge directed towards the front edge of its ventral (lower) ramus. The ventral rami of the two scapulae were separated from each other by a triangular bone known as the interclavicle. As seen in other pliosaurs, the pelvis of "Peloneustes" bears very large and flat ischia and pubes. The third pelvic bone, the ilium, is smaller and elongated, articulating with the ischium. The upper end of the ilium shows a large amount of variation within "P. philarchus", with two forms known, one with a rounded upper edge, the other with a flat upper edge and more angular shape.
The hind limbs of "Peloneustes" are longer than its forelimbs, with the femur being longer than the humerus, although the humerus is the more robust of the two elements. The radius (one of the lower forelimb bones) is approximately as wide as it is long, unlike the ulna (the other lower forelimb bone), which is wider than long. The radius is the larger of these two elements. The tibia is larger than the fibula (lower hindlimb bones) and longer than wide, while the fibula is wider than long in some specimens. The metacarpals, metatarsals, and the proximal manual phalanges (some of the bones making up the outer part of the paddle) are flattened. Most of the phalanges in both limbs have rounded cross-sections, and all of them have prominent constrictions in their middles. The number of phalanges in each digit is unknown in both the fore- and hind limbs.
Classification.
Seeley initially described "Peloneustes" as a species of "Plesiosaurus", a rather common practice (at the time, the scope of genera was similar to what is currently used for families). In 1874, Seeley named a new family of plesiosaurs, Pliosauridae, to contain forms similar to "Pliosaurus". In 1890, Lydekker placed "Peloneustes" in this family, to which it has been consistently assigned since. Exactly how pliosaurids are related to other plesiosaurs is uncertain. In 1940, palaeontologist Theodore E. White considered pliosaurids to be close relatives of Elasmosauridae based on shoulder anatomy. Palaeontologist Samuel P. Welles, however, thought that pliosaurids were more similar to Polycotylidae, as they both had large skulls and short necks, among other characteristics. He grouped these two families into the superfamily Pliosauroidea, with other plesiosaurs forming the superfamily Plesiosauroidea. Another plesiosaur family, Rhomaleosauridae, has since been assigned to Pliosauroidea, while Polycotylidae has been reassigned to Plesiosauroidea. However, in 2012, Benson and colleagues recovered a different topology, with Pliosauridae being more closely related to Plesiosauroidea than Rhomaleosauridae. This pliosaurid-plesiosauroid clade was termed Neoplesiosauria.
Within Pliosauridae, the exact phylogenetic position of "Peloneustes" is uncertain. In 1889, Lydekker considered "Peloneustes" to represent a transitional form between "Pliosaurus" and earlier plesiosaurs, although he found it unlikely that "Peloneustes" was ancestral to "Pliosaurus". In 1960, Tarlo considered "Peloneustes" to be a close relative of "Pliosaurus", since both taxa had elongated mandibular symphyses. In 2001, O'Keefe and colleagues recovered it as a basal (early-diverging) member of this family, outside of a group including "Liopleurodon", "Pliosaurus", and "Brachauchenius". However, in 2008, palaeontologists Adam S. Smith and Gareth J. Dyke found "Peloneustes" to be the sister taxon of "Pliosaurus". In 2013, Benson and palaeontologist Patrick S. Druckenmiller named a new clade within Pliosauridae, Thalassophonea. This clade included the "classic", short-necked pliosaurids while excluding the earlier, long-necked, more gracile forms. "Peloneustes" was found to be the most basal thalassophonean. Subsequent studies have uncovered a similar position for "Peloneustes".
The following cladogram follows Fischer and colleagues, 2017.
Palaeobiology.
Plesiosaurs were well-adapted to marine life. They grew at rates comparable to those of birds and had high metabolisms, indicating homeothermy or even endothermy. The bony labyrinth, a hollow within the skull which held a sensory organ associated with balance and orientation, of "Peloneustes" and other plesiosaurs is similar in shape to that of sea turtles. Palaeontologist James Neenan and colleagues hypothesised in 2017 that this shape probably evolved alongside the flapping motions used by plesiosaurs to swim. "Peloneustes" and other short-necked plesiosaurs also had smaller labyrinths than plesiosaurs with longer necks, a pattern also seen in cetaceans. Additionally, "Peloneustes" probably had salt glands in its head to cope with excess amount of salt within its body. However, "Peloneustes" appears to have been a predator of vertebrates, which contain less salt than invertebrates, therefore leading palaeontologist Leslie Noè to suggest in a 2001 dissertation that these glands would not have had to be especially large. "Peloneustes", like many other pliosaurs, displayed a reduced level of ossification of its bones. Palaeontologist Arthur Cruickshank and colleagues in 1966 proposed that this may have helped "Peloneustes" maintain its buoyancy or improved its maneuverability. A 2019 study by palaeontologist Corinna Fleischle and colleagues found that plesiosaurs had enlarged red blood cells, based on the morphology of their vascular canals, which would have aided them while diving.
Plesiosaurs such as "Peloneustes" employed a method of swimming known as subaqueous flight, using their flippers as hydrofoils. Plesiosaurs are unusual among marine reptiles in that they utilised all four of their limbs, but not movements of the vertebral column, for propulsion. The short tail, while unlikely to have been used for swimming, could have helped stabilize or steer the plesiosaur. The front flippers of "Peloneustes" have aspect ratios of 6.36, while the rear flippers have aspect ratios of 8.32. These ratios are similar to those of the wings of modern falcons. In 2001, O'Keefe proposed that, much like falcons, pliosauromorph plesiosaurs such as "Peloneustes" probably were capable of moving quickly and nimbly, abeit inefficiently, in order to capture prey. The shorter, deeper bodies of plesiosaurs helped reduce drag, leading palaeontologist Judy Massare in 1988 to propose that they could actively search for and pursue their food instead of having to lie in wait for it.
Feeding mechanics.
In a 2001 dissertation, Noè noted many adaptations in pliosaurid skulls for predation. To avoid damage while feeding, the skulls of pliosaurids like "Peloneustes" are highly akinetic, where the bones of the cranium and mandible were largely locked in place to prevent movement. The snout contains elongated bones that helped to prevent bending and bears a reinforced junction with the facial region to better resist the stresses of feeding. When viewed from the side, little tapering is visible in the mandible, strengthening it. The mandibular symphysis would have helped deliver an even bite and prevent the mandibles from moving independently. The enlarged coronoid eminence provides a large, strong region for the anchorage of the jaw muscles, although this structure is not as large in "Peloneustes" as it is in other contemporary pliosaurids. The regions where the jaw muscles were anchored are located further back on the skull to avoid interference with feeding. The kidney-shaped mandibular glenoid would have made the jaw joint steadier and stopped the mandible from dislocating. Pliosaurid teeth are firmly rooted and interlocking, which strengthens the edges of the jaws. This configuration also works well with the simple rotational movements that pliosaurid jaws were limited to and strengthens the teeth against the struggles of prey. The larger front teeth would have been used to impale prey while the smaller rear teeth crushed and guided the prey backwards toward the throat. With their wide gapes, pliosaurids would not have processed their food very much before swallowing.
The numerous teeth of "Peloneustes" rarely are broken, but often show signs of wear at their tips. Their sharp points, slightly curved, gracile shape, and prominent spacing indicate that they were built for piercing. The slender, elongated snout is similar in shape to that of a dolphin. Both the snout and tooth morphologies led Noè to suggest that "Peloneustes" was a piscivore (fish eater). To catch its prey, "Peloneustes" would have quickly swung its head to the side. The gracile snout's roughly circular cross-section would have minimised drag, while the long jaws were suited for quickly snapping up mobile prey. The flat, enlarged palate and reinforced braincase of "Peloneustes" would have reduced the torsion, flexing, and shearing caused by the long snout. The reinforced braincase would have reduced the shock absorption in the area of the brain. Since the tip of the snout was further away from the jaw joint, it would have exerted a weaker bite force than the regions further back. The front regions of the jaws of "Peloneustes" are elongate, indicating that they would have been used to quickly strike at and apprehend prey. These adaptations indicate a preference for smaller prey that, while agile, would have been easier to incapacitate and less powerful. However, "Peloneustes" would still have been capable of attacking fish of moderate size. While a skeleton, catalogued as NHMUK R3317, with belemnite remains in its stomach was assigned to "Peloneustes" by Andrews in 1910, it is very incomplete and may actually belong to the contemporaneous pliosaurid "Simolestes" instead, as suggested by Noè. "Peloneustes" has also been suggested to have inflicted bite marks upon a specimen of "Cryptoclidus" by Bruce Rothschild and colleagues in 2018.
Palaeoenvironment.
"Peloneustes" is known from the Peterborough Member (formerly known as the Lower Oxford Clay) of the Oxford Clay Formation. While "Peloneustes" has been listed as coming from the Oxfordian stage of the Upper Jurassic, the Peterborough Member actually dates to the Callovian stage of the Middle Jurassic. The Peterborough Member spans from the late lower Callovian to the early upper Callovian, occupying the entirety of the Middle Callovian. It overlays the Kellaways Formation and is overlain by the Stewartby Member of the Oxford Clay Formation. The Peterborough Member is primarily composed of grey bituminous (asphalt-containing) shale and clay rich in organic matter. These rocks are sometimes fissile (splittable into thin, flat slabs). The member is about thick, stretching from Dorset to Humber.
The Peterborough Member represents an epicontinental sea during a time of rising sea levels. When it was deposited, it would have been located at a latitude of 35°N. This sea, known as the Oxford Clay sea, was largely encircled by islands and continents, which provided the seaway with sediment. Its proximity to land is demonstrated by the preservation of terrestrial fossils such as driftwood in the Oxford Clay, in addition to a clastic dike in the lower levels of the Peterborough Member, with the dike's formation being facilitated by rainwater. The southern region of the Oxford Clay Sea was connected to the Tethys Ocean, while it was connected to more boreal regions on its northern side. This allowed for faunal interchange to occur between the Tethyan and boreal regions. This sea was approximately deep within of the shoreline.
The surrounding land would have had a chaparral climate, with dry summers and wet winters, though it was becoming increasingly arid. Based on information from δ18O isotopes in bivalves, the water temperature of the seabed of the Peterborough Member varied from due to seasonal variation, with an average temperature of . Belemnite fossils provide similar results, giving a water temperature range with a minimum to a maximum between or , with an average temperature of . While traces of green sulphur bacteria indicate euxinic water, with low oxygen and high hydrogen sulfide levels, abundant traces of benthic (bottom-dwelling) organisms suggest that the bottom waters were not anoxic. Oxygen levels appear to have varied, with some deposits laid down in more aerated conditions than others.
Contemporaneous biota.
There are many kinds of invertebrates preserved in the Peterborough Member. Among these are cephalopods, which include ammonites, belemnites, and nautiloids. Bivalves are another abundant group, while gastropods and annelids are less so but still quite common. Arthropods are also present. Brachiopods and echinoderms are rare. Despite not being known from fossils, polychaetes probably would have been present in this ecosystem, due to their abundance in similar modern environments and burrows similar to ones produced by these worms. Microfossils pertaining to foraminiferans, coccolithophoroids, and dinoflagellates are abundant in the Peterborough Member.
A wide variety of fish are known from the Peterborough Member. These include the chondrichthyans "Asteracanthus", "Brachymylus", "Heterodontus" (or "Paracestracion"), "Hybodus", "Ischyodus", "Palaeobrachaelurus", "Pachymylus", "Protospinax", "Leptacanthus", "Notidanus", "Orectoloboides", "Spathobathis", and "Sphenodus". Actinopterygians were also present, represented by "Aspidorhynchus", "Asthenocormus", "Caturus", "Coccolepis", "Heterostrophus", "Hypsocormus", "Leedsichthys", "Lepidotes", "Leptolepis", "Mesturus", "Osteorachis", "Pachycormus", "Pholidophorus", and "Sauropsis". These fish include surface-dwelling, midwater, and benthic varieties of various sizes, some of which could get quite large. They filled a variety of niches, including invertebrate eaters, piscivores, and, in the case of "Leedsichthys", giant filter feeders.
Plesiosaurs are common in the Peterborough Member, and besides pliosaurids, are represented by cryptoclidids, including "Cryptoclidus", "Muraenosaurus", "Tricleidus", and "Picrocleidus". They were smaller plesiosaurs with thin teeth and long necks, and, unlike pliosaurids such as "Peloneustes", would have mainly eaten small animals. The ichthyosaur "Ophthalmosaurus" also inhabited the Oxford Clay Formation. "Ophthalmosaurus" was well adapted for deep diving, thanks to its streamlined, porpoise-like body and gigantic eyes, and probably fed on cephalopods. Many genera of crocodilians are also known from the Peterborough Member. These include the gavial-like teleosauroids "Charitomenosuchus", "Lemmysuchus", "Mycterosuchus", and "Neosteneosaurus" and the mosasaur-like metriorhynchids "Gracilineustes", "Suchodus", "Thalattosuchus", and "Tyrannoneustes". While uncommon, the small piscivorous pterosaur "Rhamphorhynchus" was also part of this marine ecosystem.
More pliosaurid species are known from the Peterborough Member than any other assemblage. These pliosaurids include "Liopleurodon ferox", "Simolestes vorax", ""Pliosaurus" andrewsi", "Pachycostasaurus dawni", and "Marmornectes candrewi" in addition to some forms yet to receive names. However, there is considerable variation in the anatomy of these species, indicating that they fed on different prey, thereby avoiding competition (niche partitioning). The large, powerful pliosaurid "Liopleurodon ferox" appears to have been adapted to take on large prey, including other marine reptiles and large fish. "Simolestes vorax", with its wide, deep skull and powerful bite, appears to have been a predator of large cephalopods. ""Pliosaurus" andrewsi", like "Peloneustes", possesses an elongated snout, an adaptation for feeding upon small, agile animals. However, its teeth are suited for cutting, indicating a preference for larger prey, while those of "Peloneustes" are better adapted for piercing. ""Pliosaurus" andrewsi" is also larger than "Peloneustes". "Marmornectes candrewi" is also similar to "Peloneustes", bearing a long snout, and perhaps also fed on fish. "Pachycostasaurus dawni" is a small, heavily-built pliosaur that probably fed on benthic prey. It has a weaker skull than other pliosaurids and was more stable, so it probably used different feeding methods to avoid competition. Unlike the other pliosaurids of the Oxford Clay, "Pachycostasaurus" was rather rare, perhaps mainly living outside of the depositional area of the Oxford Clay Formation, possibly inhabiting coastal regions, deep water, or even rivers instead. While several different types of pliosaurids were present in the Middle Jurassic, the long-snouted piscovorous forms such as "Peloneustes" died out at the Middle-Upper Jurassic boundary.


Timeline of Bari

The following is a timeline of the history of the city of Bari in the Apulia region of Italy.
See also.
Other cities in the macroregion of South Italy:()
References.
"This article incorporates information from the Italian Wikipedia."


List of years in Germany

This is a list of years in Germany. See also the timeline of German history. For only articles about years in Germany that have been written, see .


Arthur Villettes

Arthur Villettes was a British diplomat who played an important role in diplomatic negotiations of the 18th century often serving as an envoy of the long-standing controller of British foreign policy the Duke of Newcastle. This reached a height during the War of the Austrian Succession when he served as the British Resident in Sardinia, and was given enormous discretion over negotiations with Britain's Allies and opponents until he caused serious offence to Austria following the Siege of Genoa in 1746.
Between 1750 and 1765, he served as British Ambassador to Switzerland.


Francesco Corbetta

Francesco Corbetta (ca. 1615 – 1681, in French also Francisque Corbette) was an Italian guitar virtuoso, teacher and composer. Along with his compatriots Giovanni Paolo Foscarini and Angelo Michele Bartolotti, He was a pioneer and exponent of the combination of strummed and plucked textures referred to today as "mixed" style.
Biography.
Early life and education.
Corbetta's obituary, probably written by his fellow guitarist Rémy Médard, says that he showed a strong inclination for the guitar at an early age, and pursued it over the strong objections of his parents. In the Italian preface to his 1671 "La Guitarre Royalle," he claims that he was self-taught on the guitar, and also that he had never played the lute (unlike most celebrated guitarists of his day).
Professional career.
Corbetta spent his early career in Italy. He seems to have worked as a teacher in Bologna where the guitarist and composer Giovanni Battista Granata was one of his pupils.[2] He was then attached to the Court of Carlo II, Duke of Mantua in various capacities. He was however frequently granted leave of absence and traveled abroad to Spain probably between 1644-1647 where he amazed the Court in Madrid with his virtuosity; to Germany where he was in the employ of the dukes of Hanover and the Spanish Netherlands, dedicating his fourth book, "Varii scherzi di sonate" to the governor, the Archduke Leopold Wilhelm. According to his obituary, the Duke of Mantua recommended him to Louis XIV; although some sources claim that he taught Louis the guitar this is unlikely as the post is known to have been held by Bernard Jourdan de La Salle from 1650 when Louis was 12 years of age until 1695. Although Corbetta may have visited Paris earlier he probably did not settle there before 1654. In 1656 he took part in the ballet "La galanterie du temps" by Jean-Baptiste Lully. He came to the attention of the English King Charles II in exile and at the Restoration accompanied him to London. During the last 20 years of his life he divided his time between London and Paris. He is regarded as one of the greatest virtuosos of the Baroque guitar.
Gambling activities.
While living in England, Corbetta supplemented his income as a musician with his activities as a professional gambler, particularly by operating a game called “L’accia di Catalonia,” which was similar to roulette. He may have exploited his friendship with Charles II to get started in this business; in 1661 the king awarded him a monopoly on the game. A number of other gamblers attempted to infringe on his monopoly, and he eventually ceded his rights to the game to certain of them in return for a share of their profits, but he was later accused of continuing to operate the game without a license. Partly as a result of the ensuing and conflicting claims, Charles revoked almost all licenses for games of chance in 1664.
Legacy.
Five collections of his music for the five-course guitar survive today. Corbetta's two earliest books include compositions in the Italian tradition, but his three later publications are increasingly in the French style. At least two others are lost. His first book includes mostly strummed dance music, while his later books are increasingly written in mixed style, culminating in his "La Guitarre Royalle" of 1671. His last book, also called "La Guitarre Royalle," of 1674, returns to a simpler, more strumming-based style. These publications also included important information for continuo playing on the guitar. A substantial amount of music attributed to him also survives in manuscript.
Corbetta's compositional style has been noted for its liberal use of dissonance, which is often not prepared or resolved according to the conventions of seventeenth-century music. This quality was first noted by Richard Pinnell among modern scholars, and has led to a considerable amount of debate. Pinnell and Lex Eisenhardt have suggested, based on internal evidence, that Corbetta's tablatures may present notes that are not meant to played, as a kind of left-hand fingering aid for the performer. Eisenhardt has also cited Antoine Carré's somewhat simplified versions of Corbetta's pieces in support of this hypothesis. Monica Hall, on the other hand, has argued that Corbetta's dissonances are not unique in Baroque guitar literature, but that his writing shows instead a difference in the degree to which the less formal practices of the early battuto style are incorporated into the more formal notation of the mature mixed style, especially in the 1671 La Guitarre Royalle.
Corbetta was the most significant guitar composer of his day (Gaspar Sanz called him "el mejor de todos," or "the greatest of all") and one of the first to publish in the mixed style. Other guitarists, however, especially Giovanni Paolo Foscarini and Michele Bartolotti, were also influential in establishing and popularizing the mixed style.
Corbetta was also influential as a teacher. As well as Granata, the French guitarist Rémy Médard was probably his student. Another French guitarist, Robert de Visée, composed a "Tombeau de Monsieur Francisque" that is thought to be an elegy for Corbetta. He may have known Corbetta personally, though there is no evidence he was his student. Corbetta was definitely employed as a guitar teacher to Princess Anne, later Queen Anne of Great Britain. On the other hand, he was probably not employed as a guitar teacher to King Louis XIV of France.


Battle of Brenta

The Battle of Brenta was fought between the cavalry of the Kingdom of Italy under king Berengar I and the Hungarians, hired by the East Francian king Arnulf of Carinthia, against him, at an unidentified location in northern Italian Peninsula along the river Brenta on 24 September 899. It was one of the earliest battles of the Hungarian invasions of Europe. The result was a crushing defeat for Berengar I, opening the following raids for the Hungarians against Italy. The Hungarian invasion resulted in the burning of many cities, like Feltre, Vercelli, Modena and monasteries like the monastery in Nonantola, and attacking even Venice, however without success.
In the meantime Berengar's arch enemy, Arnulf of Carinthia died in December 899, as a result the Hungarians, whom he hired against the Italian king, left the kingdom in the next year with all their plunder, not before concluding peace with Berengar, who gave them many hostages and "gifts". On their way home the Hungarians made an "amphibious assault", a unique achievement from an exclusively land army in the pre-modern times, crossing the Adriatic Sea in order to attack Venice.
In some historians' opinion the returning army had a role also in the conquering of Pannonia, as part of the Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin, from the Bavarians by the Hungarians in late 900.
Sources.
Many contemporary sources mention this battle, like the "Chronicon" of Regino of Prüm, the "Annales Fuldenses", the "Chronicon Sagornini" of John the Deacon, "Catalogus abbatum nonantulorum", etc. The most important source is "Antapodosis, seu rerum per Europam gestarum", written by Liutprand of Cremona, which gives the most detailed description of the events which led to the battle and battle itself.
Background.
At the end of the IX. century the Carolingian Empire of Charlemagne was long gone, in its place remained three kingdoms (West Francia, East Francia, Kingdom of Italy (Holy Roman Empire)), led by kings of Carolingian bloodline, which disputed the supremacy among them. Arnulf of Carinthia, the son of the East Francian king Carloman, who became German king in 887, wanted to recreate the Carolingian Empire, thus in 894, as result of his Italian campaign, became King of Italy, and in 896 he was even crowned as Holy Roman Emperor at Rome by the pope. To his goals in Italy he was helped by Berengar of Friuli, the great-grandson of Charlemagne, who after 898 started to see himself more worthy for the title of emperor, because he considered himself as a truer Carolingian than Arnulf, considering the latter to be an illegitimate son of Carloman.
Berengar was king of Italy from 888 but lost his lands to Guy III of Spoleto who proclaimed himself king of Italy and emperor. Berengar was saved by the intervention of Arnulf of Carinthia in 894, defeating Guy of Spoleto, who died shortly after. Arnulf in 896, crowned himself as King of Italy (and emperor), but named his illegitimate son Ratold as sub-king of Italy. Ratold and Berengar agreed to divide Italy between themselves, but shortly after they started to fight for supremacy. Ratold died unexpectedly, so Berengar remained as single ruler, and started to aspire for the title of emperor. Aware of this, Arnulf, very ill, could not go personally in campaign in Italy, but concluded an alliance with the leaders of the Hungarians, who in 895-896 occupied the Eastern parts of the Carpathian Basin, convincing them to send an army to attack Berengar. Arnulf was accused by enemies that he concluded the alliance with the Hungarians by cutting a dog and a wolf in two. This was the way of making alliances by the nomadic people, the parties swearing that they will keep the alliance, and cursed themselves to die like the animals they cut in half if they broke their oath. So, probably beside the Christian way, about which the chronicles do not write anything, Arnulf had to conclude this alliance also in the Hungarians "pagan" way. This shows that Arnulf was aware of the Hungarian danger for the Eastern provinces of his realm: mainly the March of Pannonia. So with this alliance had two purposes: to punish Berengar and to divert their energies far away from Pannonia, so at least for a while he could be assured that they will not attack him. And of course he may have hoped that these two dangerous neighbours would weaken each other.
Prelude.
Hungarian armies had never been to Italy before. Military intelligence was one of the most important features of nomadic warfare. Starting a war without knowing the enemies power, number of soldiers, will to fight, etc., was unimaginable in the nomadic societies. This is why in late October 898 they sent a light armored, quick moving small unit on reconnaissance, which crossed Pannonia on their way to Northern Italy, then arrived in Italy in Friuli. They camped three days with their tents near the river Brenta, sending their scouts in small groups to reconnoitre the land, its wealth, the number and the fighting spirit of the enemy troops, the routes of attack and retreat, the places which can be chosen as battlefields, where the most spoils are to find, the number of the cities, castles and the strength of their defence system. It is certain that the place of the future battle was chosen during this minor incursion. We do not know the exact numbers of this scout unit, but according to Marco Polo, in the Mongolian Empire the reconnaissance units were composed of 200 riders. So we can presume that the Hungarian scout unit, which went in 898 into Italy, had a number around 100-200. After three days the small groups they sent in every direction, returned, analyzed the information they gained, then returned home.
As Liutprand of Cremona mentions, after returning home, the Hungarians used the winter to prepare their weapons, sharpen their arrowheads, and to teach to the youth how to fight. Then in 899, a Hungarian army, crossing Pannonia, headed to Italy. The historians do not agree about the road they took. Gyula Kristó argues that they bypassed Pannonia, and went westwards following the courses of the rivers Sava and Drava, and entering Italy near Aquileia, on the road named after them "Strata Hungarorum", due to the fact that they used it so often during the next decades and centuries. According to István Bóna, the Hungarian army, with the permission of Arnulf, crossed Pannonia, then headed towards Italy on the ancient road Via Gemina, which linked the ancient cities Celeia, Ljubljana and Aquileia, arrived in Italy. The historians' opinions differ also about the period of the year in which the Hungarian army arrived to Italy. According to Kristó, basing on the account of Liutprand, they arrived in February–March. Bóna believes, according to the account of "Catalogus abbatum nonantulorum" that they arrived in August 899.
They entered Italy they passed next to the big walls of Aquileia, without attacking it, then scattered in smaller units, spread in many directions, attacking the surroundings of Treviso, Vicenza, Verona, Brescia, Bergamo, Milano, Pavia, destroying Feltre, one of their unit reaching in the West even the Great St Bernard Pass. Usually the Hungarian nomadic warriors did not attack the castles and big cities surrounded by walls, because they were not skilled in sieges, and having no siege machinery, so they plundered and burned monasteries, gathering spoils in the way.
As Liutprand of Cremona mentions, hearing about the apparition of the Hungarians in his kingdom, Berengar I. was very surprised how this army from a nation, about which he never heard of, appeared so suddenly. Then he sent envoys and letters in every corners of his country demanding to everybody to send their troops to him to fight the Hungarians. After all his troops gathered his army became three times bigger than the Magyar army. According to "Chronicon Sagornini" of John the Deacon, the Italian army was 15,000, so we can conclude, that the Hungarians were 5,000. This number could be exaggerated, like the medieval chroniclers often did with the numbers of the armies, but the affirmation that the Italians were three times more than the Hungarians, has no reason not to be accepted, because usually the chroniclers exaggerate the number of the enemy armies and diminish the number of the troops of their own, so we can accept that the Italians heavily outnumbered the Hungarians. Noticing his superiority, Berengar started to think too much of himself, and instead of attacking the Hungarian army immediately, he spent his time in a town carousing with his men. This gave time to the Hungarian troops, scattered to plunder in every corner of the Italian kingdom, to retreat towards the gathering place, one precisely not specified place on the bank of the river Brenta, which, as shown before, probably was chosen from the beginning to be the place of the battle. Seeing this, king Berengar thought that they were frightened from the number of his troops, and started to chase them, thinking that he already won. His mounted troops even managed to surprise a Hungarian troop and force it to cross in haste the river Adda causing the drowning of many of them. But generally the retreat was a success, because the Hungarians light armors and weapons (the commoners, who usually made the pillaging raids, wear no or just leather armours, only the leaders had lamellar armours, their weapons were always composite bows, the hand-to-hand weapons were sabres, and rarely battle axes or maces) enabled their horses to be more rapid than the heavy armored and weaponed Carolingian type Italian cavalry. The Hungarians retreated on the old Roman road Via Postumia towards the future battlefield.
The Hungarians retreat also served as was part of their psychological warfare, which had the goal to induce self-confidence in Berengar and the belief that he already won the war against them, with this lulling his vigilance. To augment this they sent envoys to Berengar, which promised that they will renounce to all of their plunders, and asked only their safe return to their homeland, but the over confident Berengar and his commanders refused this, believing that it will be an easy task to make them all prisoners. Although the chronicler Liutprand believes that the Hungarians were frightened, hopeless, and just wanted to escape alive, but the modern historians realized that this was only a clever role playing in order to induce the Italians in the mood, which eased their future defeat. The role playing of the Hungarian army was almost exposed when the Italian vanguard reached the Hungarian rearguard at the "wide fields" of Verona and forced it to fight, and the Magyars were forced to defeat the Italians, in order to escape, although probably it was not among the commanders' plans to expose their strength before the final battle. But when Berengar's main forces arrived, the Hungarian rearguard ran away, continuing its retreat. But Berengar did not took this sign too serious, and continued to chase the fleeing Hungarians.
After this long pursuit, on 24 September 899, the Hungarians and the Italians arrived to the river Brenta, after the "most ingenious planned flight of the world history", as István Bóna points. He probably names this retreat so, because of the multiple results it produced:
The nomadic armies used the tactic of feigned retreat very often in the ancient and medieval times, and the Hungarians were masters of it, using it in many battles of the period of their invasions of Europe (899-970). Liutprand mentions that the horses of the Hungarians were very tired, but they had the strength to cross the river before the Italians arrived, so Brenta separated the two armies from each other. The heavily armored Italians could not pass the river so easily, so they remained on the other side, and both armies assembled their battle lines on the both sides of the river.
Then the Hungarians again sent envoys to the Italian side, this time with even more alluring propositions for the Italians; in return for their safe return home, they promised to give them everything: prisoners, equipment, weapons, horses, keeping only one for each of them for their homecoming. To show how serious they are about this proposal, they promised that they will never return to Italy, and as guarantees for this, they will send their own sons to the Italians. With these exaggerate but still unacceptable promises (knowing that Berengar will not accept their departure after the destruction they caused, and would want to take them all prisoners), the Hungarians managed to totally convince the king that their fate depends only from his goodwill. So the Italians responded harshly, threatening them, probably wanting their total surrender.
The Hungarians waited for this moment. The Italians assembled a fortified camp, which however was not sufficiently guarded, left their guard down, and many of them started to eat and drink, to refresh after the long and exhausting pursuit, waiting the continuation of the negotiations, because Berengar thought that the Magyars are too weak and tired to fight, so they are at his mercy. But at the other side of the Brenta river was probably not only the tired, pursued Magyar army group, but other Hungarian troops too which at the start of the campaign, were sent in other directions to plunder, and in the meantime they returned for the battle, and also those who remained in their permanent camp placed in that very place from the beginning of the campaign, because it was chosen a year ago in their reconnaissance incursion. In their campaigns in Europe, the Hungarians in every country they stayed longer, chose a place to be their permanent camp during their stay in the region (in 926 the Abbey of Saint Gall, in 937 in France the Abbey of Saint Basolus near Verzy, in the same year the meadows of Galliano near Capua, where they stood for 12 days), so knowing these, it is highly probable, that the principal camp and the rallying point of the Hungarians was on the meadows near the Brenta river. So, without Berengar's knowledge, on the other side of the river were a great number of fresh troops with fresh horses, which just waited to start the battle.
Battle.
When the Italians were totally unaware and relaxed, the Hungarians sent three troops to cross the river on some remote places, and to place themselves on different strategical points around the Italian camp. When these units took their places, the main Hungarian army crossed the river, at an area away from the detection of the Italians, and directly charged the unsuspecting Italians outside the camp, starting a massacre among them.
The majority of the Italians were in the fortified camp, eating and drinking, when the three Hungarian units sent in ambush, encircled the camp and started to shoot arrows, and caught the Italians so off guard, that Liutprand writes that many of them still ate in the moment, when the Hungarians arrows, or lances pierced the food in their throats. Of course, Liutprand could be exaggerating when he writes that the Italians were killed with the food in their throats, but nevertheless he expresses with this image the total surprise caused by the Hungarian attack to the Italians. This simultaneous attack on the Italians inside and outside of the camp, prevented them from helping each other. The Hungarians who attacked the camp, destroyed the defences preventing the Italians from barricading themselves in the camp, shot continuously arrows on the Italians trapped in it, and probably waited for the main army to finish the Italians outside, then they stormed together inside the fortified camp, because the Italians, due to their surprise and terror, were in impossibility to organize a defence of it, and started a slaughter. The Italians were totally off guard, and was impossible for them to organize a resistance, being caught in this way, so the only option was to flee. But when some of them arrived to the place where their horses were camped, they saw that it was already taken by Hungarian warriors, so these Italians were massacred by them. Probably one of the three Hungarian units sent before to encircle the Italian camp had the duty to occupy the stables before the battle even started.
Some Italians tried to stay away from the little pockets of fight, where groups of their fellows tried to resist, hoping that if they show themselves peaceful and friends to the Hungarians, they will be spared, but they too were massacred.
The Hungarians, after crushing all tiny attempts of resistance, showed no mercy to the Italians, who in the course of the days spent in chasing them, then after their arriving to the Brenta river, when they sent their envoys asking for an agreement, insulted them so many times, so they killed even those who wanted to surrender.
The number of the Italian losses was huge. Annales Fuldenses show the number of the Italians killed as 20,000 men. This is of course an exaggerated number, knowing that the Italian army composed maximum 15,000 men, but shows that the losses were really high. "Catalogus abbatum nonantulorum" writes about thousands of Christian deaths, the "Chronicon" of Regino of Prüm writes about the uncountable masses of the people killed with arrows, or "Chronicon Sagornini" of John the Deacon points that "few of them [the Italians] turned back home". The Hungarian losses were low, since they encountered almost no resistance.
King Berengar managed to escape to Pavia, changing his dress with the clothing of one of his soldiers.
This battle is a vivid example of the ingenuity and the multitude of methods and strategies which the armies of the nomadic societies used in order to achieve victory including choosing the right battlefield which assured superiority over the enemy days or weeks before the battle, deceiving military moves, psychological warfare, the importance of surprise attacks and preponderance of archery in the battle.
Aftermath.
After this victory the whole Italian Kingdom lied on the mercy of the Hungarians. With no Italian army to oppose them, the Hungarians decided to spend the mild winter in Italy, continuing to attack monasteries, castles and cities, trying to conquer them, like they did before they had started to be chased by Berengar's army.
On 13 December 899 they attacked Vercelli, where the bishop of Vercelli and archchancellor of the Carolingian Empire, Liutward, trying to escape them, taking with him his treasures, accidentally stumbled upon them, so he was killed and his treasures taken away. On 26 January 900 they conquered Modena, and two days later the Abbey of Nonantola, where they burned the monastery and the church, and killed monks.
In the meantime, on 8 December 899, emperor Arnulf died in Regensburg, so the alliance between East Francia and the Principality of Hungary lost its validity. The Hungarian envoys sent from the new home of the Hungarians, the eastern part of the Carpathian Basin, to negotiate the renewal of the alliance, were seen as spies by the guardian and councillor of the new king, the 6 year old Louis the Child, Hatto I, Archbishop of Mainz and his advisers, and sent home, having achieved nothing. This started a state of war between the two political communities, so the Principality of Hungary needed the Hungarian army from Italy, which, because they became an important task in the conquest of Pannonia, which was planned by the Hungarians. They had to attack the Bavarian province from South West in the same time when another Hungarian army attacked it from East.
Before the Hungarians left Italy, in the spring of 900, they concluded peace with Berengar, who gave them in exchange for they departure hostages, and money for the peace. After this defeat, or at the latest from 904, Berengar started to pay them tribute regularly, and until his death in 924, and in exchange the Hungarians helped him against every enemies that he had. As Liuprand writes, the Hungarians became Berengar's friends. It seems that, in time, some of the Hungarian leaders became his personal friends.
On their way back home, the Hungarians accomplished a military performance, which was never even tried by a land army in the history. Having no ships, boats or any kind of watercraft, on 29 June 900, they "embarked" on a sea campaign against Venice. As "Chronicon Sagornini" of John the Deacon writes that with their horses and "leather ships" to attack first the cities from the coast, then also the city of Venice itself. The "leather ship" here refer to an animal skin (goat, sheep, maybe cow) tied up to form something like a huge bota bag, filled with air, tied on their horses sides, which helped the warrior and his horse to float, with which the Hungarians and the warriors of other nomadic societies usually used to cross rivers. They first attacked and burned the coastal towns like Equilio, Cittanova, Fine, Capo d'Argine, then tying the filled animal skins to their horses, they crossed the waters of the Lagoon of Venice, and sacked the island town of Chioggia, which was a part of the Dogado (homeland of the Republic of Venice). Then on the day of the martyrdom of Saint Peter and Saint Paul (29 June), on their "leather ships", they tried to enter Rialto and Malamocco, but before they reached the islands, on the place called Albiola the doge of Venice Pietro Tribuno met them with the Venetian war fleet, forcing them to retreat. Although they lost this unusual sea battle, the Hungarians achieved something what was never done by a land army: attacking islands lying in the sea. And although the attack from 29 June was unsuccessful, they succeeded in the attack on the island of Chioggia. This attack was not a violation of the agreement with Berengar, because at that time Venice was not part of the Italian kingdom, but was an autonomous republic under Byzantine influence.
Historians disagree about the route taken by which the army returned to the Hungarian lands. On one hand György Szabados believes that the Hungarian army turned back home from Italy without entering Pannonia, avoiding it from the south, because in his opinion they were exhausted of continuous fighting in Italy in the last year, and were loaded up with plunders, so they would not be capable to accomplish such an important mission. The same opinion had György Györffy too in 1974.
On the other hand, Gyula Kristó and István Bóna think that the Hungarian army returning from Italy took part in the conquest of Pannonia, but in different ways. Kristó believes that the returning Hungarian army had the task only to plunder the land, weakening the capability of the inhabitants to withstand the final attack, then crossed the Danube, turning home, and after that two new Hungarian armies, coming from East accomplished the occupation. Bóna believes that the returning Hungarian army played an active role in the conquest of Pannonia, coming from the southwest, when other armies coming from east, from the Eastern part of the Carpathian Basin, crossed the Danube, attacking it from the north and east. He thinks that the Hungarian army came back from Italy because they received an order from home to come help in the conquering of Pannonia, accomplishing it with an encircling movement.


2000 in Sweden

The following lists events that happened during 2000 in Sweden.


Aleksander Pallas

Aleksander Pallas (10 September 1887 – 7 January 1939) was an Estonian lawyer and politician who was the acting deputy mayor of Tallinn from 13 November to 25 November 1917. He graduated from the Faculty of Law at Moscow State University. A lawyer in Tallinn, he worked alongside Otto Strandman as a city councilor. He participated in the Estonian War of Independence. Pallas was the first mayor after the German occupation of Estonia during World War I, serving as the acting deputy mayor for all of 12 days. Despite being temporary, the brief mayoralty set the stage for the building up of Tallinn as the capital of Estonia. He was succeeded by Aleksander Hellat. He died on 7 January 1939 and was buried at .


Amelia Osborne, Marchioness of Carmarthen

Amelia Osborne, Marchioness of Carmarthen, 12th Baroness Darcy de Knayth, 9th Baroness Conyers, 5th Countess of Mértola ("née" Darcy; 12 October 1754 – 27 January 1784), was a British peer and a Portuguese countess.
Life.
She was the only surviving child of Robert Darcy, 4th Earl of Holderness, and his wife, the former Mary Doublet. Her portrait was painted in about 1764 by François-Hubert Drouais. On 29 November 1773, she married Francis Osborne, Marquess of Carmarthen, in London, and they had three children:
In early 1777 Amelia's mother Lady Holderness broke off relations with her daughter after the Camarthens gave shelter to Richard Glover (son of the poet), a friend of Lord Camarthen, when he eloped with one of the daughters of Solomon Dayrolles.
On 16 May 1778, as the only surviving child of her father, Amelia succeeded "de jure" to the titles of 12th Baroness Darcy de Knayth and 9th Baroness Conyers in her own right, and to the Portuguese countship of Mértola. Her right to the baronies of Darcy de Knayth and Conyers was eventually confirmed in 1798, long after her death.
In December 1778 Lady Camarthen's marriage ended when she ran off with Captain John "Mad Jack" Byron. Byron had been visiting her at home in Grosvenor Square when her husband was absent, and they had been having an affair. Lord and Lady Carmarthen were divorced on 31 May 1779. Almost immediately after the divorce, she married Byron. They had three children:
A year after the birth of last child, Amelia died and the titles were inherited by her eldest son, George. By his second wife, her widower became the father of the poet, Lord Byron.


2005 in Portugal

Events in the year 2005 in Portugal.
Sports.
Football (soccer) competitions: Primeira Liga, Liga de Honra


List of communists imprisoned by the Kingdom of Romania

This is a list of communists imprisoned by the Kingdom of Romania for their political activity during the era of repression of communists, when the Communist Party and communist ideology were banned. Many of these communists belonged to the "prison wing" of the Romanian Communist Party, as opposed to the "Muscovite wing", which resided in exile in Moscow.


Council for the Protection of Struggle and Martyrdom Sites

The Council for the Protection of Struggle and Martyrdom Sites () is a Polish government body charged with the preservation of historical sites of wartime persecution of the Polish nation. It was set up by Act of Parliament on 2 July 1947 and, since 1988, is under the direct responsibility of the Prime Minister's Office.
Aims and objectives.
The Council's tasks include providing logistical help to museums of fight and martyrdom and offering consultation and advice to leading Polish museums of World War II in particular Auschwitz-Birkenau, Majdanek, Treblinka, Stutthof, Stalag Łambinowice, Żabikowo Fort VII, Gross-Rosen in Rogoźnica, and Radogoszcz station and museum. The Council is responsible for scheduling and organizing celebrations, exhibitions and publishing projects, as well as popularizing in mass media the historical facts, figures and notable persons associated with the struggle for freedom and wartime martyrdom of the nation. The Council is also in charge of assessing the current state of the sites of national memory, the public monuments, cemeteries, and mass graves of victims of Nazi and Soviet terror, and places of battles, including their commemoration initiatives.
Chairmans of the Council.
Members of the Council are appointed by the Prime Minister for four-year terms.


Whitby Mudstone

The Whitby Mudstone is a Toarcian (Early Jurassic; "Falciferum"-"Bifrons" in regional chronostratigraphy) geological formation in Yorkshire and Worcestershire, England. The formation, part of the Lias Group, is present in the Cleveland and Worcester Basins and the East Midlands Shelf.
Lithology.
The formations consists of mudstone and siltstone, partly laminated and bituminous, medium to dark grey in colour, with rare fine grained calcareous sandstone beds. Limestone and phosphatic nodules are present at some levels.
Fossil content.
Dinosaur remains are among the fossils that have been recovered from the formation, although none have yet been referred to a specific genus. One of the more notable discoveries is the skull of the pterosaur "Parapsicephalus", found within the Alum Shale Member.
Insects.
Insect compression fossils are known from nodules found on Alderton Hill near Alderton and Dumbleton in Gloucestershire, including Alderton Hill Quarry and other nearby localities.


2002 in Scotland

Events from the year 2002 in Scotland.


Operation Buckland

Operation Buckland or the Battle of the Argenta Gap (12-19 April 1945) was the Eighth Army’s contribution to the Allied Spring Offensive in Italy, and saw them bypass the last series of river defences facing them and break out into the Po plains.


Veleti

The Veleti (; ) or Wilzi, Wielzians and Wiltzes () were a group of medieval Lechitic tribes within the territory of what is now northeastern Germany, related to Polabian Slavs. In common with other Slavic groups between the Elbe and Oder Rivers, they were often described by Germanic sources as Wends. In the late 10th century, they were continued by the Lutici. In Einhard's "Vita Karoli Magni", the Wilzi are said to refer to themselves as "Welatabians".
Name.
The name "Veleti" stems from the root "vel-" ('high, tall'). The Veleti were called by other names, probably given by their neighbours, such as "Lutices", "Ljutici", or "Volki", "Volčki". The latter means 'wolf', and the former probably 'fierce creature' based upon the comparison with the Russian form "lyutyj zvěr".""
Veleti tribes.
The first mention of a tribe named Veltae is found in Ptolemy's second-century Geography, Book III, chapter V: "Back from the Ocean, near the Venedicus Bay [Baltic Sea], the Veltae dwell, above whom are the Ossi." The Bavarian Geographer's anonymous medieval document compiled in Regensburg in 830 contains a list of the tribes in Central Europe east of the Elbe. Among other tribes it also lists the "Uuilci" (Veleti), featuring 95 civitates.
The Veleti did not remain a unified tribe for long: local tribes developed, the most important being: the Kissini ("Kessiner", "Chizzinen", "Kyzziner") along the lower Warnow and Rostock, named after their capital Kessin; the Circipani ("Zirzipanen") along the Trebel and Peene Rivers, with their capital believed to be Teterow and strongholds in Demmin and probably even Güstrow; the Tollenser east and south of the Peene along the Tollense River; and the Redarier south and east of the Tollensesee on the upper Havel. The Hevelli living in the Havel area and, though more unlikely, the Rujanes of Rugia might once have been part of the Veletians. Even the "Leitha" region of Lower Austria may have been named for a tribe of Veneti, the "Leithi".
This political splitting of the Veleti probably occurred due to the size of the inhabited area, with settlements grouped around rivers and forts and separated by large strips of woodlands. Also, the Veletian king Dragowit had been defeated and made a vassal by Charlemagne in the only expedition into Slavic territory led by Charlemagne himself, in 798, causing the central Veletian rule to collapse. The Veleti were invaded by the Franks during their continuous expeditions into Obodrite lands, with the Obodrites being allies of the Franks against the Saxons. Einhard made these claims in "Vita Karoli Magni" ("Life of Charles the Great"), a biography of Charlemagne, King of the Franks.
After the 10th century, the Veleti disappeared from written records, and were replaced by the Lutici who at least in part continued the Veleti tradition.


2020 in Northern Ireland

Events from the year 2020 in Northern Ireland.


27th European Film Awards

The 27th European Film Awards were presented on 13 December 2014 in Riga, Latvia. The winners were selected by more than 2,500 members of the European Film Academy. Nominations for the People's Choice Award category were announced on 1 September 2014.On 16 September 2014, the European Film Academy and EFA Productions announced a list of 50 films which qualified for nominations. All nominations were announced on 8 November 2014 at the Seville European Film Festival in Spain. British director Steve McQueen was presented with the European Achievement in World Cinema Award and filmmaker Agnès Varda was honoured with the Lifetime Achievement Award.
Winners and nominees.
Best Animated Feature Film.
The nominees were announced on 22 September 2014.
Best Short Film.
The nominees for Best Short Film were selected by independent juries at a series of film festivals throughout Europe.
Young Audience Award.
Twelve- to fourteen-year-old audiences from across Europe voted for the winner after watching the three nominated films at special screenings held on "Young Audience Film Day".


Timeline of Modena

The following is a timeline of the history of the city of Modena in the Emilia-Romagna region of Italy.
See also.
Timelines of other cities in the macroregion of Northeast Italy:()
References.
"This article incorporates information from the Italian Wikipedia."


Parnell Commission

The Parnell Commission, officially Special Commission on Parnellism and Crime, was a judicial inquiry in the late 1880s into allegations of crimes by Irish parliamentarian Charles Stewart Parnell which resulted in his vindication.
Background.
On 6 May 1882 two leading members of the British Government in Ireland, Chief Secretary for Ireland Lord Frederick Cavendish and the Permanent Under-Secretary for Ireland T.H. Burke were stabbed to death in Phoenix Park, Dublin by the Irish National Invincibles (see Phoenix Park Murders).
In March 1887, "The Times" published a series of articles, "Parnellism and Crime", in which Home Rule League leaders were accused of being involved in murder and outrage during the land war. "The Times" produced a number of facsimile letters, allegedly bearing Parnell's signature and in one of the letters Parnell had excused and condoned the murder of T.H. Burke in the Phoenix Park.
In particular the newspaper had paid £1,780 for a letter supposedly written by Parnell to Patrick Egan, a Fenian activist, that included: "Though I regret the accident of Lord F Cavendish's death I cannot refuse to admit that Burke got no more than his deserts" and was signed "Yours very truly, Charles S. Parnell". On the day it was published (18 April 1887), Parnell described the letter in the House of Commons as "a villainous and barefaced forgery."
Also on 18 April the Perpetual Crimes Act had its second reading and debate in the Commons. It appeared to nationalists that it was more than coincidental that the "Times" article on the letter was published on the same day and was obviously intended to sway the debate.
The Commission.
After considerable argument, the government eventually set up a Special Commission to investigate the charges made against Parnell and the Home Rule party. The commission sat for 128 days between September 1888 and November 1889. In February 1889, one of the witnesses, Richard Pigott, admitted to having forged the letters; he then fled to Madrid, where he shot himself. Parnell's name was fully cleared and "The Times" paid a large sum of money by way of compensation after Parnell brought a libel action. His principal lawyer was Charles Russell, who later become Lord Chief Justice. Russell also wrote an influential book about the case.
In an out-of-court settlement Parnell accepted £5,000 in damages. While this was less than the £100,000 he sought, the legal costs for "The Times" brought its overall costs to £200,000. When Parnell re-entered parliament after he was vindicated, he received a standing ovation from his fellow MPs.
The Commission did not limit itself to the forgeries, but also examined at length the surrounding circumstances, and in particular the violent aspects of the Land War and the Plan of Campaign. Testimony included an extensive submission by Land League founder Michael Davitt for which he was paid by The Irish Party.
In July 1889, the Irish Nationalist MPs and their lawyers withdrew, satisfied with the main result. When it eventually published its 35 volumes of evidence it satisfied for the most part the pro- and anti-nationalist camps in Ireland:
Historiography.
A balanced and up-to-date overview of the "Parnellism and Crime" affair is given by T. W. Moody (1968), who was able to take advantage of the important modern contributions of Henry Harrison in the 1940s and 1950s and of Leon Ó Broin in the 1960s. Andrew Robert's biography of Salisbury (1999) mainly lists the government's concerns; chapter 27 covers the period from March 1887 to July 1891. The Commission has a chapter in Myles Dungan's "Conspiracy: Irish Political Trials" (2009). See also Jane Stanford, "That Irishman: The Life and Times of John O'Connor Power", Part Four, "Taking a Stand".


Battle of Ilipa

The Battle of Ilipa () was an engagement considered by many as Scipio Africanus’s most brilliant victory in his military career during the Second Punic War in 206 BC.
It may have taken place on a plain east of Alcalá del Río, Seville, Spain, near the village of Esquivel, the site of the Carthaginian camp.
Though it may not seem to be as original as Hannibal’s tactic at Cannae, Scipio's pre-battle maneuver and his "reverse Cannae" formation stands as the acme of his tactical ability, in which he forever broke the Carthaginian hold in Iberia, thus denying any further land invasion into Italy and cutting off a rich base for the Barca dynasty both in silver and manpower.
Prelude.
After the Battle of Baecula and Hasdrubal Barca’s departure, further Carthaginian reinforcements were landed in Iberia in early 207 BC under Hanno, who soon joined Mago Barca. Together they were raising a powerful army by the heavy recruitment of Celtiberian mercenaries. Meanwhile, Hasdrubal Gisco also advanced his army from Gades into Andalusia. Thus Scipio was facing two concentrated enemy forces, one of which would no doubt fall on his rear if he tried to attack the other.
After careful planning, Scipio decided to send a detachment under Marcus Junius Silanus to strike Mago first. Marching with great speed, Silanus was able to achieve complete surprise when he fell on the Carthaginian camps, which resulted in the dispersion of Mago's Celtiberians and Hanno's capture.
Thus Hasdrubal was left alone in facing Scipio's concentrated force, but the Carthaginian general was able to avoid battle by splitting his troops among fortified cities. The Iberian campaign of 207 BC ended without any further major action.
Pre-battle maneuver.
The next spring, the Carthaginians launched their last great effort to recover their Iberian holdings. Mago was joined at Ilipa by Hasdrubal Gisco, creating a force estimated at 54,000 to 74,000, considerably larger than Scipio's army of 48,000 men, which was composed of a large number of Spanish allies who were not as seasoned as Roman legionaries. Livy's figures, however, give the Carthaginian army 50,000 infantry and 4,500 cavalry (where he mentioned other sources give the figure of 70,000, such as Polybius at 11.20, but Livy believes it was the lesser number), whilst he puts Scipio's force at 55,000 men, so it was also possible Scipio outnumbered the Carthaginians by a slight margin.
Upon the arrival of the Romans, Mago unleashed a daring attack on the Roman camp with most of his cavalry, under his Numidian ally Masinissa. However, this was foreseen by Scipio, who had concealed his own cavalry behind a hill, which charged into the Carthaginian flank, and threw back the enemy with heavy losses on Mago's side.
The two opponents spent the next few days observing and testing each other, with Scipio always waiting to lead out his troops only after the Carthaginians had advanced from their camp first. The Roman formation always presented the legions in the center and Iberians on the wings, thus leading Hasdrubal and Mago to believe that this would be the Roman arrangement on the day of battle.
Battle.
Believing his deception had taken a firm hold on the Carthaginian commanders, Scipio made his move. First he ordered the army to be fed and armed before daylight. He then promptly sent his cavalry and light troops ("velites") against the Carthaginian outposts at daybreak, while advancing with his main force behind, all the way to the front of the Carthaginian position. This day his legions stood at the wings and the Iberians in the centre.
Surprised by the Romans' sudden attacks, the Carthaginians rushed to arm themselves and sallied forth without breakfast. Still believing that Scipio would arrange his force in the earlier fashion, Hasdrubal deployed his elite Africans in the centre and the Spanish mercenaries on his wings; he was not able to change formation after discovering the new Roman arrangement because the opposing army was too close, as Scipio had ordered his troops to form for battle closer to the Carthaginian camp.
For the next few hours Scipio held back his infantry behind the skirmishing light troops and thus amplified the effect of the missed breakfast on his enemy. When he finally decided to attack, the light troops were called back through the space between the "maniples" to position themselves behind the legions on the wings; then the main advance began. With his wings advancing at a faster pace than the Iberians in his center, Scipio formed a concave, or "reverse Cannae", battle line. Furthermore, the Roman general expanded his wings by ordering the light troops to the flanks of the legionaries, and the cavalry to the flank of the light troops, thus enveloping the whole Carthaginian line on both sides.
Still refusing his center, Scipio's legions, light troops, and cavalry attacked the half-trained Spaniards on the Carthaginian wings from front, flank, and rear respectively. The Carthaginian center was helpless to reinforce its wings with the threat of the Iberian force that was looming large in the near distance but not yet attacking.
With the inevitable destruction of its wings, the Carthaginian center was further demoralized and confused by the trampling by their own maddened elephants, which were being driven towards the center by the Roman cavalry attacking the flanks. Combined with hunger and fatigue, the Carthaginians started to withdraw, at first in good order. But as Scipio now pressed his advantage by ordering his Iberian center into battle, the Carthaginians crumbled, and a massacre that might have rivaled the one in Cannae was only averted by a sudden downpour, which brought a hold to all actions on the field, and enabled the remaining Carthaginians to seek refuge in their camp.
After-battle maneuvers.
Although temporarily safe in their camp, the Carthaginians were not able to rest. Facing the inevitable Roman attack the next morning, they were obliged to strengthen their defenses. But, as more and more Spanish mercenaries deserted the Carthaginians as night drew forward, Hasdrubal tried to slip away with his remaining men in darkness.
Scipio immediately ordered a pursuit. Led by the cavalry, the whole Roman army was hot on Hasdrubal's tail. When the Romans finally caught up with the Carthaginian host, the butchery began. Hasdrubal was left with only 6,000 men, who then fled to a mountain top without any water supply. This remnant of the Carthaginian army surrendered a short time later, but not before Hasdrubal and Mago had made good their escape.
Aftermath.
After the battle, Hasdrubal Gisco departed for Africa to visit the powerful Numidian king Syphax, in whose court he was met by Scipio, who was also courting the favor of the Numidians.
Mago Barca fled to the Balearics, whence he would sail to Liguria and attempt an invasion of northern Italy.
After his final subjugation of Carthaginian Iberia and revenge upon the Iberian chieftains, whose betrayal had led to the death of his father and uncle, Scipio returned to Rome. He was elected consul in 205 BC with a near-unanimous nomination, and after receiving the Senate's consent, he would have the control of Sicily as proconsul, from where his invasion of the Carthaginian homeland would be realized.