Editing Marian reforms (section)

{{good article}}
{{short description|Putative reforms of the Roman military in 107 BC}}
{{Use British English|date=June 2023}}
[[File:RRC 326.1 Gaius Fundanius depicting Gaius Marius triumphator.png|thumb|[[Gaius Marius]], depicted as a [[Roman triumph|triumph]]ator in a coin minted by Gaius Fundanius in 101&nbsp;BC. He triumphed due to his victory in the [[Cimbric War]].<ref>{{cite book |last=Crawford |first=Michael H |title=Roman republican coinage |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=1974 |edition=1st |volume=1 |page=328 |isbn=0-521-07492-4 |lccn=77-164450 }}</ref> ]]
{{RomanMilitary}}

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 [[Roman consul|consul]] in 107, 104–100, and 86&nbsp;BC<ref>{{cite book |last=Broughton |first=Thomas Robert Shannon |year=1952 |title=The magistrates of the Roman republic |location=New York |publisher=American Philological Association |author-link=Thomas Robert Shannon Broughton |volume=2 |page=589}}</ref>). The most important of these concerned the altering of the socio-economic background of the soldiery. Other changes were supposed to have included the introduction of the [[Cohort (military unit)|cohort]]; the institution of a single form of [[heavy infantry]] with uniform equipment; the universal adoption of the [[Aquila (Roman)|eagle standard]]; and the abolition of the [[Roman cavalry|citizen cavalry]].<ref>{{harvnb|Faszcza|2021|p=21}}. See eg {{harvnb|Taylor|2019|p=76}} and {{harvnb|Cadiou|2018|p=395}}.</ref> 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".{{sfn|Cadiou|2018|p=18}} This was thought to have created a semi-professional class of soldiers motivated by land grants; these soldiers in turn became clients of their generals, who then used them to [[Crisis of the Roman Republic|overthrow the republic]].<ref>Eg {{harvnb|Scullard|2011|pp=47–48}}.</ref>

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' time.<ref>{{harvnb|Gauthier|2020|p=283|ps=. "The idea of a wide-ranging 'Marian reform' that permanently abolished property qualifications for military service has recently been thoroughly rebutted".}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Keaveney|2007|pp=93–94|ps=. "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".}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Rafferty|2021|ps=. "[Cadiou]'s conclusion is that '{{lang|fr|l'armée romaine dite « post-marienne » est un mirage historiographique}}' [the Roman army called 'post-Marian' is a historiographical mirage]".}}</ref> The occurrence of such a comprehensive reform led by Marius is no longer widely accepted by specialists;<ref>{{harvnb|Probst|2008|ps=. "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". }}</ref>{{sfn|Faszcza|2021|pp=14–15}} 21st-century scholars have called the reforms a "construct of modern scholarship".<ref>{{harvnb|Taylor|2019|p=79|ps=. "Relatively modest facts have been spun into the overarching 'Marian reforms', which are ultimately the construct of modern scholarship".}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Cadiou|2018|p=395|ps=. « {{lang|fr|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.}} »}}</ref>

Other reforms to the army's operations and equipment, said to have been implemented by Marius, are also largely rejected by scholars.<ref>{{harvnb|Rosenstein|2020|p=301|ps=. "[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".}}</ref> Few of them have any basis in the ancient and archaeological evidence.<ref>Other than army recruitment, the only two changes attributed to Marius directly are a redesign of the {{lang|la|[[pilum]]}} and the elimination of non-eagle standards. Both ancient claims are disproved by archeological evidence. {{harvnb|Taylor|2019|p=78}}.</ref> Others are wrongly dated or misattributed. Changes in the [[Roman army of the late republic]] did occur, but appear to have happened later than at the end of the 2nd century&nbsp;BC.  Rather, these shifts were during the [[Social War (91–87 BC)|Social War]] and following [[List of Roman civil wars and revolts|civil wars]], and emerged from circumstance rather than a reformist Marian vision.