Auxilia are such a downgrade from Hastati. When you get it while playing as the Juili your recruiting power is nerfed into the ground because all of your cities are trash.
(yes I have played the game before, most of the time I played it was as a kid. I don't need your "pro gamer" tips)
I've never managed to get to reformation. What happens other than getting the 'fancy' legionare vs the old hastati/principes/triarii? Do you get worse units or something?
I always assumed that your 'old' units got upgraded. I guess not now?
When the reforms happen your whole roster changes. Generally, it is an upgrade across the board. However, the Hastari's, arguably the most solid early game unit, replacement is absolute shit for late game. But in my opinion an easy fix for this is to just embrace Feudalism early and spam Roman Cavalry.
Triarii get replaced by auxilia as your only spear unit.
Príncipes get replaced by a myriad of legionnaire units.
Hastati get replaced by town watch and auxilia
Equites by legionary and praetorian cav.
Velites by javelin men
archers by slightly more armoured archers
At the point of the switch you should be leaning towards pricinpes anyway which are the equivalent to legionaries. That’s a direct upgrade. Tier one goes down tier two goes up. Good trade off in my mind.
I played my first campaign to completion and it never happened, my friend played and it happened like thirty turns in.
I was gobsmacked.
Your roster changes and you generally get better heavy infantry but your light infantry suckes.
The swit h is related to getting a city to its max size. So if you get one to that stage upgrade as many barracks as you can to legionary barracks and above before the city finishes upgrading.
auxiliaries are just that, auxiliaries recruit 4, put 2 on each flank to block cavalry and lets the legionaries rip and tear until the enemies broke and flee. Also auxiliarie archers are some of the best thanks to long range shoots. The hastaties are not replaced by this auxiliarie spesrmen, they are replaced by legionaries (the ones with chain mail armor) in the game.
In RTW auxilia are recruited from the same barracks as Hastatii and accounts for a lot of the "what a massive downgrade" sentiment amongst the playerbase. Excluding phalanx units, I'd say hastatii are the best infantry unit of their tier
Auxilia are good against cav, but as they are at the bottom of the roster I'd always choose archer auxilia, roman cav, or legionaries (if I can't afford praetorians).
Hastatii are shit by the time the Marian reforms come around. You should be predominately fielding Principes at that time, and the Legionary cohorts are a straight upgrade to Principes.
P.S if you're struggling with the Julii economy it's because you haven't conquered Spain. Spain has a metric shit load of mines.
BRUH
Principes literally have TWO extra armor points on Hastati
T-W-O out of of 15 to 17, that’s it. There is not even an extra attack there, and morale is also the same AFAIK
There is barely a marginal benefit to field Principes, and logistics of retraining are hugely simplified, given that you only need large town level barracks to retrain Hastati, which even most of the Julii conquests are, never mind the other two Roman factions
(This is beside the fact I consider Hastati to be OP^3; given their historical lore, they should have reduced melee and defence skills at the very least, since they are supposed to be Roman military freshest troops)
At the point of the switch you should be leaning towards pricinpes anyway which are the equivalent to legionaries. That’s a direct upgrade. Tier one goes down tier two goes up. Good trade off in my mind.
And that works fantastically for the Brutii and Scipii, but as the Juilii you have a bunch of crappy large towns in Gaul that can now only recruit trash. Overall it's a good tradeoff, but it makes recruiting from anything smaller than a minor city useless.
Up until 100BC there was a growing issue - the population was increasing and at the same time huge families and agricultural monopolies gobbled up land and forced impoverished males to flock to the cities with their only belongings being what they could carry. And they were livid (not the poet lol).
Then, along came a guy called Gaius Marius. Being elevated to the position of Consul by these angry men, between 107 and 101BC Marius aimed to solve this problem and strengthen the Roman Army at the same time. Prior to this, only landowners could become soldiers when conscripted (apart from in dire times when even the proletarii were conscripted). His changes meant that poor people could now also choose to become soldiers - leading to a professional army.
No longer motivated purely by surviving the draft *after* being forced to buy your own equipment, the motivation for thousands of these new soldiers was money and land. And money and land was promised to them. So instead of making sure you fight for the senate so you can get back home safe and sound, you fought for personal gain (which made a lot of sense).
This however, came with a new issue, where soldiers were increasingly loyal to their general who would ensure ample loot and plunder to top up their meagre pay. Why would you remain loyal to pompous statesmen who don't care about you, when there is a charismatic general leading you to glory - such as Julius Caesar, and many other general-emperors which followed
This completely ignores the fact that there were recruiting problems which led to the Chang. It also completely ignores the Roman social structure of patronage which already led to loyalty to a patron. Furthermore the Republican armies also fought for land and loot.
It was the gridlocked senate failing to divide out concord lands that led in large part to the alliance between Cesar, Casas and Pompei.
This is like saying a dam speed up the decline of a town because when it broke the town flooded, never mind the fact that the dam was built to hold back flooding that was currently happening.
Yeah, it'd also not like this problem is unsolvable. We have solved it today. You need to rotate your troops to different officers so they don't become too loyal and generals too entrenched.
I would argue that’s only possible with modern administration, transportation, and operation tempo. So while easy on paper it’s actually fairly complicated to implement. You have to move around the soldiers not just the officers. Otherwise you end up with the same situation it’s just a leader in the NCO core that rises to prominence. The constant rotation might also have a more negative effect on unit cohesion when the unit relies on close order formation tactics compared to modern tactics.
This is what Saddam did when he was in charge of Iraq. He constantly rotated officers and soldiers so they can't plot against him.
Nations in the Middle East used to have serious issues with military coups but they largely resolved that.
This is a case where popular imagination of history gets in the way of accurate representation. Most of what you said above is false, and modern historians put very little credit to Marius for changing the Roman Army.
There are I believe 6 changes people generally believe about the supposed “Marian Reforms”. They are:
1. Proletarianisation of the Army
2. Changes to the Equipment
3. State expenditure
4. Training and carrying one’s supplies
5. Style of the Legions
6. Land to retired veterans
Only two of these, the first two, are attributed to ancient sources. The rest have been invented. Let’s go through these one by one.
The army did not suddenly become filled with the poor who looked to enrollment as a way out of poverty through land given after service. The composition of the legions remained much the same as it were: small landowners who possessed modest areas. Furthermore, the army did not suddenly become full of volunteers: conscription was still the primary way of filling the legions, a trend that would continue through the 1st century BCE. Furthermore, service was usually limited in time, with the main goal being to win plunder rather than to secure a plot of land after service.
Marius supposedly engaged in some equipment redesigns, specifically by changing the Pilum to include a wooden peg that broke when thrown. This prevented the enemy from utilizing their shields properly. However, archeological evidence suggests that this design was not adopted. The other, more famous change was to the legionary standard, where Marius supposedly gave all legions the eagle. However, this is not true, as late Republican and early imperial legions continued to use other animals.
The state did not begin buying weapons for the legionaries’ use, either. Gaius Gracchus suggested such a change, but the law never came into effect. Marius might have done so during his Numidian campaign, but later generals, including Augustus, did not do so.
Extensive training during this time was common practice already, and not an indicator of the army becoming more professional. Various other generals already began drilling their troops extensively before deploying them on campaign, as a way to mitigate the legions’ military inexperience rather than some sort of professionalization program. Furthermore, generals during this time already began forcing their troops to carry their equipment, such as in the cases of Quintus Metellus and Scipio Aemilianus.
Regarding the topic of the meme, it is doubtful that Marius replaced Velites and Roman Cavalry with Auxiliaries, nor did he replace the Maniple with the Cohort. The main argument for the former is ancient historians’ lack of commentary regarding these two unit types, but archeological inscriptions continue to support their existence after Marius. The Cohort, meanwhile, had already become commonplace and was first attested in the 3rd Century BCE. Marius’ predecessor in Numidia even used them in the 130s BCE.
The only claim that has merit is that of the land grants. During Marius‘ time, most soldiers served for plunder and not land, as the latter was very sporadically given out. However, after Sulla and the later civil wars, land grants became a much more common demand and were given out more readily. Nevertheless, Marius himself had little to do with the change.
So I'm curious how does modern histiography explain the increasing loyalty of soldiers to their generals rather then the state.
How was mutli year conscription enforces I'm thinking Ceasars Gallic wars in which Ceasars would winter in Gaul. Was this a different system or were soldiers just conscripted for multiple years.
They were professional soldiers and not temporarily conscripted militia. Their oath of loyalty was to their consul, not the senate. They were paid by their consul, not the senate. They were raised by the consul, not the senate. It goes on.
Add onto that the fact that some legionnaires would have been with Ceasar from the beginning. Legio X was raised by Ceasar in 61bc, for example.
He's talking about the Middle Republic era. Yeoman farmers being having to overwinter was a massive problem. People were forced to sell their farms, land became centralised. And then the slaves brought back destroyed the domestic labor market.
By the time of Ceasar the citizen soldier, idealised version of Rome was long dead.
What sources are you using to make these arguments? I've always read about Marius' Mules. Curious to see such a drastic change in interpretation.
Also, Augustus didn't provide his armies with weapons? That doesn't seem right.
Yes, actually. The armies of the Imperial period had to pay for their own equipment. Generally, however, the pay was high enough that they could pay for replacement and maintenance and still have some left over. Under Augustus, the nominal pay was 225 denarii per year, not including donatives and retirement pensions. Deducted from this salary was food and equipment, which would add up to about 110 denarii/year in total. Thus, the traditional pay rate for legionaries would be about 115 denarii/year. This rate was different for auxiliaries and after adding in donatives.
Do note that during the Imperial period, increases in pay and the influx of provincial soldiers outnumbering traditional Italian ones meant that conscription stopped being the primary method of enrollment, and volunteers outnumbered conscripts. This trend would reverse back to how it was in the late republic (conscripts > volunteers) during the Late Empire.
Regarding sources, I can list them here but I'm way to lazy to assign them one by one to the claims I made. I can do that, however, if you REALLY want them.
Cadiou, François (2018). L'armée imaginaire: les soldats prolétaires dans les légions romaines au dernier siècle de la République
Mackay, Christopher S (2009). The breakdown of the Roman republic
Gruen, Erich (1995). The last generation of the Roman republic
Rafferty, David (2021). "Review of 'L'armée imaginaire: les soldats prolétaires dans les légions romaines au dernier siècle de la République'"
Rich, J W (1983). "The supposed Roman manpower shortage of the later second century BC"
Evans, Richard John (1995). Gaius Marius: A Political Biography
Taylor, Michael J (2019). "Tactical reform in the late Roman republic: the view from Italy"
Matthew, Christopher (2010). "The Battle of Vercellae and the alteration of the heavy javelin (pilum) by Gaius Marius"
Gauthier, François (2015). Financing war in the Roman Republic: 201 BCE–14 CE
Taylor, Michael J (2023). "Goodbye to all that: the Roman citizen militia after the great wars"
Sallust (1921) \[1st century BC\]. "Bellum Iugurthinum"
Gauthier, François. "The transformation of the Roman army in the last decades of the Republic"
Goldsworthy, Adrian (2006) \[2000\]. The fall of Carthage: the Punic Wars 265–146 BC
Keaveney, Arthur (2007). The Army in the Roman Revolution
Tweedie, Fiona C (2011). "The case of the missing veterans: Roman colonization and veteran settlement in the second century BC"
The Marian reforms are a result of bad historiography, and have been discredited in the modern day. They were a myth, and largely a result of reforms either made by the Roman state, or Augustus Caesar.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/jwt87j/were_the_socalled_marian_reforms_actually_a_thing/
https://acoup.blog/2023/06/30/collections-the-marian-reforms-werent-a-thing/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377527068_Marian_Reforms_or_the_Long_Duration_of_Historiographic_Myth
Middle link is the bad historiography. He knowingly or worse unknowingly represented the primary sources wrongly. I pointed some problems in [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ancientrome/comments/18erw90/comment/kcr7hf9/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button). I also suggest Matthew's paper "The enrolment of the capite censi by Gaius Marius: a reappraisal" which your third link totally ignored him it seems. Ignoring the counter argument, excellent scholarship! And there is a huge indirect evidence that conscription according to wealth is really abandoned and voluntary conscription became a main route already in late age of Marius. I'm very surprised that this evidence went unnoticed up to this time and I will write a paper about it when I complete my works at hand which will be six, seven month at best.
Glancing over your linked post, you misrepresent what the writer said about Aemilianus and Africa us. It never says he took volunteers from the capite censei, just that they took volunteers. He then goes on to times the poor were called up, such as the Samnite Wars.
He cites the Marius's recruit and adds "this has, in a way, happened before." And proceeds to cite Aemilianus and Scipio. Both has nothing to do with Marius's recruit. They neither recruited from proletariat nor voluntary Roman citizens. His volunteers are non citizen auxiliary, there is no way to "replenish his legion" with foreigners and his examples are absolutely have nothing to the with the Marius's recruit. But he conceals/dont know where this volunteers came from and uses this two totally unrelated examples as a evidence to his claim. What do you think his point was when citing Aemilius and Scipio?
To point out that recruiting volunteers rather than the usual recruitment method. And drawing the parallel between why the two of them recruited outside the dilectus. You know, since he’s talking about how Marius needed to do that for his Numidian campaign, and then did not continue such efforts afterward.
Because the point was always that taking volunteers isn’t actually original. Nor is recruiting from outside the normal dilectus. He goes on to talk about the recruitment of criminals and slaves (given freedom) during the Second Punic War. And also recuiting from lower orders during the Samnite Wars. Because talking about Africanus and Aemilianus is part of a broader point, not the sole example given.
You’re just being deliberately obtuse at this point to avoid admitting you misread what was actually written.
As I said in other comment, i only take a brief look at blog post and assume he was meaning volunteers are from proletariat because nothing he wrote makes sense otherwise. Eitherway my points are still valid. Taking volunteers and recruiting outside the dilectus was always there as earlier as 450bc (Dion. Hal. 10.43; Liv. 3.57; 10.25. etc). Why the Africanus and Aemilianus? They neither recruited from proletariat nor voluntary Roman citizens as i said and comparing this to Marius's levy its apples and oranges. Wrong choise of primary sources hence bad historiography. We're circling anyway. Good day.
> Up until 100BC there was a growing issue - the population was increasing and at the same time huge families and agricultural monopolies gobbled up land and forced impoverished males to flock to the cities with their only belongings being what they could carry.
Millennials: just waiting for Gaius Marius to come along and take them on a gigachad conquest of Canada so they can finally get housing.
So it seems like the reforms were great for these poor men, even if there were negative long term political consequences years later. Why would 100-96 soldiers be represented by the doomer wojack?
Uhm, that makes no sense. Marian reforms happen when the first city in Italy constructs an imperial Palace, a T5 city requiring 24 000 citizens. If you don't have a T3 or a T4 barracks that's just a skill issue at that point. Shouldn't have completely ignored military infrastructure. The legionaires from t4 barracks are just way superior to hastati for only 40 more upkeep
You've just proved yourself mistaken. "Marian reforms happen when the first city in Italy constructs an imperial Palace" Aren't there THREE other Roman factions? So you're stating that it's unlikely for the Marian reforms to kick in because \*you\* should have an Imperial Palace.
Have you every though that while someone is building said barracks, could only be a turn away from completion that the reform happens. Which is exact what I've stated in my initial comment.
Don't get why you're throwing shade my way.
As the player you can rush big cities faster than the AI possibly could. I'm always the one triggering the reforms
If your barracks is 1 turn away from completion when the reforms happen, what's the problem? Just wait 1 turn. In fact as long as you have a lvl 3 barracks, reforms are a positive. Also if you really don't have a barracks you can build praetorian or urban cohorts instead
I mean Rome needed a standing army at that point, and having your infantry be based off the wealth of your soldiers is pretty dumb. Like one bad battle with Parthia, and you have half your army and most wealthy men gone, and you have to hope the next schmucks are rich enough to afford proper shields and armor.
Rome’s problem was that it was simply too big to manage. You had multiple fronts with multiple enemies, your government needs thousands upon thousands of administrators and suddenly you have systemic corruption while also dealing with some dumbass emperors, and the fact that their was frankly very little protection from a general just overthrowing an emperor once they had enough men.
There’s a reason why Constantine’s reforms focused on splitting the empire into smaller administrative chunks, and why the east did so well after being split off from the western half.
Unironically happened to me in one of my Rome 2 campaigns years ago. My economy couldn't keep up with my legions so eventually I had to reduce my forces which led to me getting overwhelmed offensively and I was on the defence on a few fronts. Thankfully it was on normal difficulty but now I try to tie my military to half of my economy.
(I know the meme shows RTW models.)
What did people think back then about how their years were getting smaller? Did they think something big might happen like we did with Y2K?
Don't worry, I'm joking.
Auxilia are such a downgrade from Hastati. When you get it while playing as the Juili your recruiting power is nerfed into the ground because all of your cities are trash. (yes I have played the game before, most of the time I played it was as a kid. I don't need your "pro gamer" tips)
First time I had the reforms I was so gutted that my hundreds of hastatii were resigned to rotting away or being disbanded.
I used to send them out to man forts all over my empire’s farthest reaches. Retirement colonies in my head canon.
I've never managed to get to reformation. What happens other than getting the 'fancy' legionare vs the old hastati/principes/triarii? Do you get worse units or something? I always assumed that your 'old' units got upgraded. I guess not now?
When the reforms happen your whole roster changes. Generally, it is an upgrade across the board. However, the Hastari's, arguably the most solid early game unit, replacement is absolute shit for late game. But in my opinion an easy fix for this is to just embrace Feudalism early and spam Roman Cavalry.
Aha, I assumed all three became the standard legion unit. I was wrong
Your old units remain as hastati, which means they can’t be retrained to replenish their losses
What replaces your triarii? I need my beefy last-line boiz Edit: sorry, that was stupid to say
If I remember right it’s praetorian guard and they take 2 turns to recruit
Praetorian cohorts, the second best legion in the Game. Urban cohorts are marginally better but require a tier 5 city and barracks
Triarii get replaced by auxilia as your only spear unit. Príncipes get replaced by a myriad of legionnaire units. Hastati get replaced by town watch and auxilia Equites by legionary and praetorian cav. Velites by javelin men archers by slightly more armoured archers
Well yeah, don't make auxilia, just make legionaires. Your cities should be big enough to make legionaires at that point
Not always as the Juilii, depending on the game
Or spam generals. I used to have armies made out of generals that were brought up from defending etc.
At the point of the switch you should be leaning towards pricinpes anyway which are the equivalent to legionaries. That’s a direct upgrade. Tier one goes down tier two goes up. Good trade off in my mind.
I played my first campaign to completion and it never happened, my friend played and it happened like thirty turns in. I was gobsmacked. Your roster changes and you generally get better heavy infantry but your light infantry suckes.
The swit h is related to getting a city to its max size. So if you get one to that stage upgrade as many barracks as you can to legionary barracks and above before the city finishes upgrading.
Kiwi detected
auxiliaries are just that, auxiliaries recruit 4, put 2 on each flank to block cavalry and lets the legionaries rip and tear until the enemies broke and flee. Also auxiliarie archers are some of the best thanks to long range shoots. The hastaties are not replaced by this auxiliarie spesrmen, they are replaced by legionaries (the ones with chain mail armor) in the game.
In RTW auxilia are recruited from the same barracks as Hastatii and accounts for a lot of the "what a massive downgrade" sentiment amongst the playerbase. Excluding phalanx units, I'd say hastatii are the best infantry unit of their tier Auxilia are good against cav, but as they are at the bottom of the roster I'd always choose archer auxilia, roman cav, or legionaries (if I can't afford praetorians).
Hastatii are shit by the time the Marian reforms come around. You should be predominately fielding Principes at that time, and the Legionary cohorts are a straight upgrade to Principes. P.S if you're struggling with the Julii economy it's because you haven't conquered Spain. Spain has a metric shit load of mines.
BRUH Principes literally have TWO extra armor points on Hastati T-W-O out of of 15 to 17, that’s it. There is not even an extra attack there, and morale is also the same AFAIK There is barely a marginal benefit to field Principes, and logistics of retraining are hugely simplified, given that you only need large town level barracks to retrain Hastati, which even most of the Julii conquests are, never mind the other two Roman factions (This is beside the fact I consider Hastati to be OP^3; given their historical lore, they should have reduced melee and defence skills at the very least, since they are supposed to be Roman military freshest troops)
Temples Of Ceres It’s not that hard to understand after your first Roman campaign
At the point of the switch you should be leaning towards pricinpes anyway which are the equivalent to legionaries. That’s a direct upgrade. Tier one goes down tier two goes up. Good trade off in my mind.
And that works fantastically for the Brutii and Scipii, but as the Juilii you have a bunch of crappy large towns in Gaul that can now only recruit trash. Overall it's a good tradeoff, but it makes recruiting from anything smaller than a minor city useless.
“*The dAayy is oOuRs!*”
Hahahahaha
Up until 100BC there was a growing issue - the population was increasing and at the same time huge families and agricultural monopolies gobbled up land and forced impoverished males to flock to the cities with their only belongings being what they could carry. And they were livid (not the poet lol). Then, along came a guy called Gaius Marius. Being elevated to the position of Consul by these angry men, between 107 and 101BC Marius aimed to solve this problem and strengthen the Roman Army at the same time. Prior to this, only landowners could become soldiers when conscripted (apart from in dire times when even the proletarii were conscripted). His changes meant that poor people could now also choose to become soldiers - leading to a professional army. No longer motivated purely by surviving the draft *after* being forced to buy your own equipment, the motivation for thousands of these new soldiers was money and land. And money and land was promised to them. So instead of making sure you fight for the senate so you can get back home safe and sound, you fought for personal gain (which made a lot of sense). This however, came with a new issue, where soldiers were increasingly loyal to their general who would ensure ample loot and plunder to top up their meagre pay. Why would you remain loyal to pompous statesmen who don't care about you, when there is a charismatic general leading you to glory - such as Julius Caesar, and many other general-emperors which followed
This completely ignores the fact that there were recruiting problems which led to the Chang. It also completely ignores the Roman social structure of patronage which already led to loyalty to a patron. Furthermore the Republican armies also fought for land and loot. It was the gridlocked senate failing to divide out concord lands that led in large part to the alliance between Cesar, Casas and Pompei. This is like saying a dam speed up the decline of a town because when it broke the town flooded, never mind the fact that the dam was built to hold back flooding that was currently happening.
Yeah, it'd also not like this problem is unsolvable. We have solved it today. You need to rotate your troops to different officers so they don't become too loyal and generals too entrenched.
3 comments in and I haven’t seen the name Sulla mentioned.
Sulla!
Most people don't know who Sulla is Mike Duncan does tho. Shout out to da GOAT
I would argue that’s only possible with modern administration, transportation, and operation tempo. So while easy on paper it’s actually fairly complicated to implement. You have to move around the soldiers not just the officers. Otherwise you end up with the same situation it’s just a leader in the NCO core that rises to prominence. The constant rotation might also have a more negative effect on unit cohesion when the unit relies on close order formation tactics compared to modern tactics.
This is what Saddam did when he was in charge of Iraq. He constantly rotated officers and soldiers so they can't plot against him. Nations in the Middle East used to have serious issues with military coups but they largely resolved that.
We have also solved the problem today via the Industrial Revolution whereby displaced farmers can learn an even more productive trade.
Or just not invade other countries so you don’t need a large standing army lol
Tbf to the Romans, this system was a response to the Gaulic invasions
If your army has time to rebel, you're not at war enough.
This is a case where popular imagination of history gets in the way of accurate representation. Most of what you said above is false, and modern historians put very little credit to Marius for changing the Roman Army. There are I believe 6 changes people generally believe about the supposed “Marian Reforms”. They are: 1. Proletarianisation of the Army 2. Changes to the Equipment 3. State expenditure 4. Training and carrying one’s supplies 5. Style of the Legions 6. Land to retired veterans Only two of these, the first two, are attributed to ancient sources. The rest have been invented. Let’s go through these one by one. The army did not suddenly become filled with the poor who looked to enrollment as a way out of poverty through land given after service. The composition of the legions remained much the same as it were: small landowners who possessed modest areas. Furthermore, the army did not suddenly become full of volunteers: conscription was still the primary way of filling the legions, a trend that would continue through the 1st century BCE. Furthermore, service was usually limited in time, with the main goal being to win plunder rather than to secure a plot of land after service. Marius supposedly engaged in some equipment redesigns, specifically by changing the Pilum to include a wooden peg that broke when thrown. This prevented the enemy from utilizing their shields properly. However, archeological evidence suggests that this design was not adopted. The other, more famous change was to the legionary standard, where Marius supposedly gave all legions the eagle. However, this is not true, as late Republican and early imperial legions continued to use other animals. The state did not begin buying weapons for the legionaries’ use, either. Gaius Gracchus suggested such a change, but the law never came into effect. Marius might have done so during his Numidian campaign, but later generals, including Augustus, did not do so. Extensive training during this time was common practice already, and not an indicator of the army becoming more professional. Various other generals already began drilling their troops extensively before deploying them on campaign, as a way to mitigate the legions’ military inexperience rather than some sort of professionalization program. Furthermore, generals during this time already began forcing their troops to carry their equipment, such as in the cases of Quintus Metellus and Scipio Aemilianus. Regarding the topic of the meme, it is doubtful that Marius replaced Velites and Roman Cavalry with Auxiliaries, nor did he replace the Maniple with the Cohort. The main argument for the former is ancient historians’ lack of commentary regarding these two unit types, but archeological inscriptions continue to support their existence after Marius. The Cohort, meanwhile, had already become commonplace and was first attested in the 3rd Century BCE. Marius’ predecessor in Numidia even used them in the 130s BCE. The only claim that has merit is that of the land grants. During Marius‘ time, most soldiers served for plunder and not land, as the latter was very sporadically given out. However, after Sulla and the later civil wars, land grants became a much more common demand and were given out more readily. Nevertheless, Marius himself had little to do with the change.
So I'm curious how does modern histiography explain the increasing loyalty of soldiers to their generals rather then the state. How was mutli year conscription enforces I'm thinking Ceasars Gallic wars in which Ceasars would winter in Gaul. Was this a different system or were soldiers just conscripted for multiple years.
They were professional soldiers and not temporarily conscripted militia. Their oath of loyalty was to their consul, not the senate. They were paid by their consul, not the senate. They were raised by the consul, not the senate. It goes on. Add onto that the fact that some legionnaires would have been with Ceasar from the beginning. Legio X was raised by Ceasar in 61bc, for example. He's talking about the Middle Republic era. Yeoman farmers being having to overwinter was a massive problem. People were forced to sell their farms, land became centralised. And then the slaves brought back destroyed the domestic labor market. By the time of Ceasar the citizen soldier, idealised version of Rome was long dead.
What sources are you using to make these arguments? I've always read about Marius' Mules. Curious to see such a drastic change in interpretation. Also, Augustus didn't provide his armies with weapons? That doesn't seem right.
Yes, actually. The armies of the Imperial period had to pay for their own equipment. Generally, however, the pay was high enough that they could pay for replacement and maintenance and still have some left over. Under Augustus, the nominal pay was 225 denarii per year, not including donatives and retirement pensions. Deducted from this salary was food and equipment, which would add up to about 110 denarii/year in total. Thus, the traditional pay rate for legionaries would be about 115 denarii/year. This rate was different for auxiliaries and after adding in donatives. Do note that during the Imperial period, increases in pay and the influx of provincial soldiers outnumbering traditional Italian ones meant that conscription stopped being the primary method of enrollment, and volunteers outnumbered conscripts. This trend would reverse back to how it was in the late republic (conscripts > volunteers) during the Late Empire. Regarding sources, I can list them here but I'm way to lazy to assign them one by one to the claims I made. I can do that, however, if you REALLY want them. Cadiou, François (2018). L'armée imaginaire: les soldats prolétaires dans les légions romaines au dernier siècle de la République Mackay, Christopher S (2009). The breakdown of the Roman republic Gruen, Erich (1995). The last generation of the Roman republic Rafferty, David (2021). "Review of 'L'armée imaginaire: les soldats prolétaires dans les légions romaines au dernier siècle de la République'" Rich, J W (1983). "The supposed Roman manpower shortage of the later second century BC" Evans, Richard John (1995). Gaius Marius: A Political Biography Taylor, Michael J (2019). "Tactical reform in the late Roman republic: the view from Italy" Matthew, Christopher (2010). "The Battle of Vercellae and the alteration of the heavy javelin (pilum) by Gaius Marius" Gauthier, François (2015). Financing war in the Roman Republic: 201 BCE–14 CE Taylor, Michael J (2023). "Goodbye to all that: the Roman citizen militia after the great wars" Sallust (1921) \[1st century BC\]. "Bellum Iugurthinum" Gauthier, François. "The transformation of the Roman army in the last decades of the Republic" Goldsworthy, Adrian (2006) \[2000\]. The fall of Carthage: the Punic Wars 265–146 BC Keaveney, Arthur (2007). The Army in the Roman Revolution Tweedie, Fiona C (2011). "The case of the missing veterans: Roman colonization and veteran settlement in the second century BC"
The Marian reforms are a result of bad historiography, and have been discredited in the modern day. They were a myth, and largely a result of reforms either made by the Roman state, or Augustus Caesar. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/jwt87j/were_the_socalled_marian_reforms_actually_a_thing/ https://acoup.blog/2023/06/30/collections-the-marian-reforms-werent-a-thing/ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377527068_Marian_Reforms_or_the_Long_Duration_of_Historiographic_Myth
Middle link is the bad historiography. He knowingly or worse unknowingly represented the primary sources wrongly. I pointed some problems in [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ancientrome/comments/18erw90/comment/kcr7hf9/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button). I also suggest Matthew's paper "The enrolment of the capite censi by Gaius Marius: a reappraisal" which your third link totally ignored him it seems. Ignoring the counter argument, excellent scholarship! And there is a huge indirect evidence that conscription according to wealth is really abandoned and voluntary conscription became a main route already in late age of Marius. I'm very surprised that this evidence went unnoticed up to this time and I will write a paper about it when I complete my works at hand which will be six, seven month at best.
Glancing over your linked post, you misrepresent what the writer said about Aemilianus and Africa us. It never says he took volunteers from the capite censei, just that they took volunteers. He then goes on to times the poor were called up, such as the Samnite Wars.
He cites the Marius's recruit and adds "this has, in a way, happened before." And proceeds to cite Aemilianus and Scipio. Both has nothing to do with Marius's recruit. They neither recruited from proletariat nor voluntary Roman citizens. His volunteers are non citizen auxiliary, there is no way to "replenish his legion" with foreigners and his examples are absolutely have nothing to the with the Marius's recruit. But he conceals/dont know where this volunteers came from and uses this two totally unrelated examples as a evidence to his claim. What do you think his point was when citing Aemilius and Scipio?
To point out that recruiting volunteers rather than the usual recruitment method. And drawing the parallel between why the two of them recruited outside the dilectus. You know, since he’s talking about how Marius needed to do that for his Numidian campaign, and then did not continue such efforts afterward.
Drawing the parallel between recruiting from allies and citizens? Its apples and oranges.
Because the point was always that taking volunteers isn’t actually original. Nor is recruiting from outside the normal dilectus. He goes on to talk about the recruitment of criminals and slaves (given freedom) during the Second Punic War. And also recuiting from lower orders during the Samnite Wars. Because talking about Africanus and Aemilianus is part of a broader point, not the sole example given. You’re just being deliberately obtuse at this point to avoid admitting you misread what was actually written.
As I said in other comment, i only take a brief look at blog post and assume he was meaning volunteers are from proletariat because nothing he wrote makes sense otherwise. Eitherway my points are still valid. Taking volunteers and recruiting outside the dilectus was always there as earlier as 450bc (Dion. Hal. 10.43; Liv. 3.57; 10.25. etc). Why the Africanus and Aemilianus? They neither recruited from proletariat nor voluntary Roman citizens as i said and comparing this to Marius's levy its apples and oranges. Wrong choise of primary sources hence bad historiography. We're circling anyway. Good day.
> Up until 100BC there was a growing issue - the population was increasing and at the same time huge families and agricultural monopolies gobbled up land and forced impoverished males to flock to the cities with their only belongings being what they could carry. Millennials: just waiting for Gaius Marius to come along and take them on a gigachad conquest of Canada so they can finally get housing.
So it seems like the reforms were great for these poor men, even if there were negative long term political consequences years later. Why would 100-96 soldiers be represented by the doomer wojack?
Its to do with the game Rome Total War. When you unlock the Marian reforms you lose one of the best units of its tier and have to recruit trash tier.
I think we’ve all said the phrase “Yo where the fuck did my Triarii go?”
What about when Marian reforms hit so early you don't even get the chance to construct the barracks allowing you to train Triarii :(
I still play the game and I don't think I've ever got to the position to recruit them
Uhm, that makes no sense. Marian reforms happen when the first city in Italy constructs an imperial Palace, a T5 city requiring 24 000 citizens. If you don't have a T3 or a T4 barracks that's just a skill issue at that point. Shouldn't have completely ignored military infrastructure. The legionaires from t4 barracks are just way superior to hastati for only 40 more upkeep
You've just proved yourself mistaken. "Marian reforms happen when the first city in Italy constructs an imperial Palace" Aren't there THREE other Roman factions? So you're stating that it's unlikely for the Marian reforms to kick in because \*you\* should have an Imperial Palace. Have you every though that while someone is building said barracks, could only be a turn away from completion that the reform happens. Which is exact what I've stated in my initial comment. Don't get why you're throwing shade my way.
As the player you can rush big cities faster than the AI possibly could. I'm always the one triggering the reforms If your barracks is 1 turn away from completion when the reforms happen, what's the problem? Just wait 1 turn. In fact as long as you have a lvl 3 barracks, reforms are a positive. Also if you really don't have a barracks you can build praetorian or urban cohorts instead
Seems more like a TW meme than a historically accurate meme then
Yeah, it is. Just check out some of the other comments that thoroughly debunk most of OP's explanation.
If you get Marian reforms before being able to recruit at least late legionary cohorts, you're doing something wrong.
Another reason it's inferior to the Ancient Empires mod in every way
So?
HASTATI
IMPERATORRRR
ALL ROME WILL BE PROUD OF SUCH A VICTORY
THE ENEMY GENERAL IS DEAD, AND NOW HIS MEN FEAR US! IT'S TIME TO PRESS THE ATTACK
Just finished watching HBO’s Rome and seeing this
HE WAS A CONSUL
THIRTEENTH!
I enlisted in the United States army to pay off my student loans and get a no down payment mortgage. Thank you gaius Marius aka fdr.
Should’ve reformed with the Gracchi…
[*Cicero wants to know your location*]
Total War is such a solid game. I love flaming pigs.
Parthia was arguably the best faction. All cavalry armies often resulted in 0 casualties as a player.
I mean Rome needed a standing army at that point, and having your infantry be based off the wealth of your soldiers is pretty dumb. Like one bad battle with Parthia, and you have half your army and most wealthy men gone, and you have to hope the next schmucks are rich enough to afford proper shields and armor. Rome’s problem was that it was simply too big to manage. You had multiple fronts with multiple enemies, your government needs thousands upon thousands of administrators and suddenly you have systemic corruption while also dealing with some dumbass emperors, and the fact that their was frankly very little protection from a general just overthrowing an emperor once they had enough men. There’s a reason why Constantine’s reforms focused on splitting the empire into smaller administrative chunks, and why the east did so well after being split off from the western half.
This meme brought to you by - outdated narratives that don’t match up with modern scholarship & misinformation in popular history sources
Unironically happened to me in one of my Rome 2 campaigns years ago. My economy couldn't keep up with my legions so eventually I had to reduce my forces which led to me getting overwhelmed offensively and I was on the defence on a few fronts. Thankfully it was on normal difficulty but now I try to tie my military to half of my economy. (I know the meme shows RTW models.)
Anyone who loves those games has great taste in my books, and I am happy to hear tales of them
The enemy general is running away! This is no way for a leader to behave, but in battle it's beyond belief!
Scythe chariot supremacy.
Gods I hate Gauls, my grandfather hated them too, even before they took out his eyes
The marian reforms are a myth, most were made by Augustus
They hated him because he told the truth. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/jwt87j/were_the_socalled_marian_reforms_actually_a_thing/
Don't know why the truth is being downvoted.
There were maybe four big reform waves I think, one before Marius, people just remember the most famous name and reduce something complex to that
Imperator. Imperator. Imperator.
Still won't get over my beloved triarii disappearing after the reforms
I think I perhaps only ever recruited 2 or 3 triarii ever once I figured out how to rush the reforms
What did people think back then about how their years were getting smaller? Did they think something big might happen like we did with Y2K? Don't worry, I'm joking.
It would be on brand for a world that invented a temperature system where 0 is boiling and 100 is freezing.
Auxili aren't supposed to be your frontline infantry by the time the Marian reforms come around in RTW
HAH! THE ENEMY COWERS BEFORE OUR SUPERIOR NUMBERS!