Marian reforms

The Marian reforms were putative changes to the composition and operation of the Roman army during the late Roman republic usually attributed to Gaius Marius (a general who was consul in 107, 104–100, and 86 BC^[2]). The most important of those putative changes concerned the altering of the socio-economic background of the soldiery. Other changes were supposed to have included the introduction of the cohort; the institution of a single form of heavy infantry with uniform equipment; the universal adoption of the eagle standard; and the abolition of the citizen cavalry.^[3] It was commonly believed that Marius changed the soldiers' socio-economic background by allowing citizens without property to join the Roman army, a process called "proletarianisation".^[4] This was then supposed to have created a semi-professional class of soldiers motivated by land grants which in turn became clients of their generals, who then used them to overthrow the republic.^[5]

Belief in a comprehensive scheme of reforms under Marius emerged in 1840s German scholarship, which posited that any changes in the Roman army between the times of Polybius and Marius were attributable to a single reform event. This belief was spread relatively uncritically and was accepted as largely proven by the 1850s and through much of the 20th century. There is, however, little ancient evidence for any permanent or significant change to recruitment practice in Marius's time.^[6]^[7]^[8] The occurrence of such a comprehensive reform led by Marius is no longer widely accepted by specialists;^[9]^[10] 21st-century scholars have called the reforms a "construct of modern scholarship".^[11]^[12]

Other reforms to the army's operations and equipment, said to have been done by Marius, are also largely rejected by scholars.^[13] Few of them have any basis in the ancient and archaeological evidence.^[14] Others are wrongly dated or misattributed. Changes in the Roman army of the late republic occurred both later (during the Social War and following civil wars rather than at the end of the 2nd century BC) and emerged from circumstance rather than a reformist Marian vision.

^ Crawford, Michael H (1974). Roman republican coinage. Vol. 1 (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 328. ISBN 0-521-07492-4. LCCN 77-164450.
^ Broughton, Thomas Robert Shannon (1952). The magistrates of the Roman republic. Vol. 2. New York: American Philological Association. p. 589.
^ Faszcza 2021, p. 21. See eg Taylor 2019, p. 76 and Cadiou 2018, p. 395.
^ Cadiou 2018, p. 18.
^ Eg Scullard 2011, pp. 47–48.
^ Gauthier 2020, p. 283. "The idea of a wide-ranging 'Marian reform' that permanently abolished property qualifications for military service has recently been thoroughly rebutted".
^ Keaveney 2007, pp. 93–94. "Marius did few, if any, of the things he is sometimes supposed to have done. He did not make the Roman army an army of mercenaries... he did not create a revolutionary army".
^ Rafferty 2021. "[Cadiou]'s conclusion is that 'l'armée romaine dite « post-marienne » est un mirage historiographique' [the Roman army called 'post-Marian' is a historiographical mirage]".
^ Probst 2008. "Modern research for the most part agrees, it can no longer be said that the Marian reforms and the military service of unpropertied men revolutionised the Roman army".
^ Faszcza 2021, pp. 14–15.
^ Taylor 2019, p. 79. "Relatively modest facts have been spun into the overarching 'Marian reforms', which are ultimately the construct of modern scholarship".
^ Cadiou 2018, p. 395. « L'armée romaine dite ‹ post-marienne › est un mirage historiographique. Elle n'a jamais existé que dans l'esprit des spécialistes modernes ... En ce sens, l'armée de citoyens pauvres à laquelle l'historiographie moderne a coutume d'attribuer une responsabilité décisive dans la crise et la chute de la République romaine s'apparente, en fait, à une armée imaginaire. »
^ Rosenstein 2020, p. 301. "[Gauthier] starts from a position that has become increasingly accepted among scholars (although unfortunately not popular among popular writers), namely that Marius was not responsible for the key changes that distinguished first-century legions from their mid-republican predecessors".
^ Other than army recruitment, the only two changes attributed to Marius directly are a redesign of the pilum and the elimination of non-eagle standards. Both ancient claims are disproved by archeological evidence. Taylor 2019, p. 78.

[1] Crawford, Michael H (1974). Roman republican coinage. Vol. 1 (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 328. ISBN 0-521-07492-4. LCCN 77-164450.

[2] Broughton, Thomas Robert Shannon (1952). The magistrates of the Roman republic. Vol. 2. New York: American Philological Association. p. 589.

[3] Faszcza 2021, p. 21. See eg Taylor 2019, p. 76 and Cadiou 2018, p. 395.

[FOOTNOTECadiou201818-4] Cadiou 2018, p. 18.

[5] Eg Scullard 2011, pp. 47–48.

[6] Gauthier 2020, p. 283. "The idea of a wide-ranging 'Marian reform' that permanently abolished property qualifications for military service has recently been thoroughly rebutted".

[7] Keaveney 2007, pp. 93–94. "Marius did few, if any, of the things he is sometimes supposed to have done. He did not make the Roman army an army of mercenaries... he did not create a revolutionary army".

[8] Rafferty 2021. "[Cadiou]'s conclusion is that 'l'armée romaine dite « post-marienne » est un mirage historiographique' [the Roman army called 'post-Marian' is a historiographical mirage]".

[9] Probst 2008. "Modern research for the most part agrees, it can no longer be said that the Marian reforms and the military service of unpropertied men revolutionised the Roman army".

[FOOTNOTEFaszcza202114–15-10] Faszcza 2021, pp. 14–15.

[11] Taylor 2019, p. 79. "Relatively modest facts have been spun into the overarching 'Marian reforms', which are ultimately the construct of modern scholarship".

[12] Cadiou 2018, p. 395. « L'armée romaine dite ‹ post-marienne › est un mirage historiographique. Elle n'a jamais existé que dans l'esprit des spécialistes modernes ... En ce sens, l'armée de citoyens pauvres à laquelle l'historiographie moderne a coutume d'attribuer une responsabilité décisive dans la crise et la chute de la République romaine s'apparente, en fait, à une armée imaginaire. »

[13] Rosenstein 2020, p. 301. "[Gauthier] starts from a position that has become increasingly accepted among scholars (although unfortunately not popular among popular writers), namely that Marius was not responsible for the key changes that distinguished first-century legions from their mid-republican predecessors".

[14] Other than army recruitment, the only two changes attributed to Marius directly are a redesign of the pilum and the elimination of non-eagle standards. Both ancient claims are disproved by archeological evidence. Taylor 2019, p. 78.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]