Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Marian reforms
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
=== Ancient and 19th century views === [[File:Theodor Mommsen by Ludwig Knaus (1881).jpg|thumb|upright|1881 painting of [[Theodor Mommsen]], who spread the idea of Marian reforms, especially in terms of cohortal legions, state-purchased equipment, and volunteer enlistment]] Ancient narratives on the Marian reforms largely discussed them in service of the respective narrative's themes. Sallust, the closest source to 107 BC, wrote a narrative lamenting moral decline among the citizenry. To that end, he portrayed Marius' enrolment in 107 in terms of his alleged ambition and disregard for ancestral customs:{{sfn|Cadiou|2018|pp=81–83}} {{quote|[Marius] enrolled soldiers, not according to the [[Centuriate Assembly|classes]] in the manner of our forefathers, but allowing anyone to volunteer, for the most part the [[proletariat]]. Some say that he did this through lack of good men, others because of a desire to curry favour, since that class had given him honour and rank. As a matter of fact, to one who aspires to power the poorest man is the most helpful, since he has no regard for his property, having none, and considers anything honourable for which he receives pay.{{sfn|Sall. ''Iug.''|loc=86.2–3}} }} Marius' open recruitment, as documented in Sallust, may also be explained not in terms of ambition but also by his desire to recruit as large an army as possible to send to Africa,<ref>{{harvnb|Sall. ''Iug.''|loc=86.4}}, states Marius arrived in Africa with more men than the senate had authorised.</ref> to do so quickly,{{sfn|Evans|1995|pp=92–93}} or to do so without harming his popularity.{{sfn|Lintott|1994|pp=91–92}} One of the other main sources is Valerius Maximus; he wrote, in a longer passage on the customs of the Roman army, that Marius disregarded its traditional recruitment practices due to his status as a {{lang|la|[[novus homo]]}}, an aetiology which historians have dismissed as "puerile, naïve, and fanciful".<ref>{{harvnb|Cadiou|2018|p=85}}, citing, among others, {{harvnb|Rich|1983|p=325}}.</ref> Valerius Maximus' narrative is largely in the interest of creating {{lang|la|exempla}} (moral parables) of traditions broken rather than conveying historical events.{{sfn|Cadiou|2018|p=88}} Other sources, largely far later and dating from the [[Antonine period]] (2nd century AD), also associate Marius with allowing the {{lang|la|capite censi}} to join in 107 BC: [[Plutarch]], [[Florus]], and [[Aulus Gellius]].<ref>{{harvnb|Cadiou|2018|p=37 nn. 7–9|ps=. Cadiou cites {{harvnb|Plut. ''Mar.''|loc=9.1}}; Flor. 1.36.13; Gell. 16.10.14.}}</ref> Plutarch's ''Life'' of Marius, depending on emendation, may claim that Marius enrolled slaves, which would be a profound exaggeration.<ref>{{harvnb|Cadiou|2018|p=90}}, citing {{harvnb|Plut. ''Mar.''|loc=9.1|ps=; the specific emendation is δοῦλον (referring to slaves) for φαῦλον (merely the poor)}}.</ref> Gellius' discussion indicates that there was some disagreement in the sources before him as to the year (during the Cimbric War in 104 or the Jugurthine War in 107 BC) in which Marius recruited the {{lang|la|capite censi}}.{{sfn|Cadiou|2018|pp=37–38}} However, other sources are entirely silent: for example, the [[Periochae|abridgement]] of [[Livy]]'s history entirely passes over the events from Marius' first consulship and Numidian command (108 – 105 BC), noting only that he was victor over Jugurtha, indicating that Livy or his epitomiser thought Marius' irregular levy unimportant.{{sfn|Cadiou|2018|pp=79–80}} It is likely, however, that most of the ancient narratives which connected the collapse of the free state to the self-serving armed proletarian did so in the context of civil war.<ref>{{harvnb|Keaveney|2007|pp=6 (Plutarch discussing Sulla), 7 (Appian discussing the [[Second Triumvirate]])}}.</ref> As literary themes, they were then retrojected into the time of Marius and the Jugurthine War, more than two generations earlier.{{sfn|Keaveney|2007|pp=6–7}} The first time a modern historian posited and attributed to Marius a revolutionary and comprehensive reform was in an 1846 book by the German scholar [[Ludwig Lange (philologist)|Ludwig Lange]].<ref>{{harvnb|Faszcza|2021|p=17}}, citing {{cite book |last=Lange |first=Christian Conrad Ludwig |title=Historia mutationum rei militaris Romanorum inde ab interitu rei publicae usque ad Constantinum Magnum |url=https://haab-digital.klassik-stiftung.de/viewer/image/4158548888/15/LOG_0000/ |volume=1 |year=1846 |publisher=Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht |location=Gottingen |pages=3–30 |language=la }} Lange admitted his theory was speculative and noted how it could be falsified.</ref><ref>No trace, for example, of the Marian reforms is found at {{cite encyclopedia |editor-last=Smith |editor-first=William |title=Marius |year=1848 |encyclopedia=Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology |url=https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0104%3Aentry%3Dmarius-bio-1 |publisher=John Murray |location=London |via=Perseus }}</ref> The hypothesis rested on the assumption that any differences between the army of Marius' time and that of Polybius' time could be attributed to a single reform event of which Marius could have been the only progenitor.{{sfn|Faszcza|2021|pp=18–19}} The idea was spread by the influential 19th-century classicist [[Theodor Mommsen]] in the 1855 second volume of his ''[[History of Rome (Mommsen)|The History of Rome]]'', which served to bring the idea of the Marian reforms into the core of scholarship. It received more attention in the military historian [[Wilhelm Rüstow]]'s 1857 book {{Lang|de|Geschichte der Infanterie}} ('History of the Infantry') which presented the Marian reforms – here conceived as a full overhaul including the abolition of the citizen cavalry, institution of a single form of heavy infantry, uniform equipment, and introduction of the cohort – as an established fact.<ref>{{harvnb|Faszcza|2021|p=21|ps=. Rüstow's book became the main progenitor of the comprehensive Marian reforms hypothesis, likely because it was written in German instead of Latin. {{harvnb|Faszcza|2021|p=22}}. }}</ref> However, he viewed it only as a step in the full professionalisation of the Roman army and believed that the putative reforms reflected real military needs.<ref>{{harvnb|Faszcza|2021|p=21}}, citing {{Cite book |last=Mommsen |first=Theodor |title=The History of Rome |volume=2 |language=de |pages=194–197 |year=1855 |location=Berlin }}</ref> Rüstow's views were largely repeated uncritically by authors including [[Joachim Marquardt]] and [[Theodore Ayrault Dodge]].<ref>{{harvnb|Faszcza|2021|pp=22–23|ps=. Faszcza approvingly mentions a 1915 article by Theodor Steinwender which questioned whether Polybius' army description was accurate; it did not, however, challenge the belief in comprehensive reforms. See {{Cite journal |last=Steinwender |first=Theodor |date=1912 |title=Zum Polybianischen Feldlager |journal=[[Rheinisches Museum für Philologie]] |volume=67 |pages=48–66 |jstor=41247689 |issn=0035-449X |language=de }} }}</ref> By the early twentieth century, two major overviews in German played a substantial role in also spreading these views. The first was by [[Hans Delbrück]] in 1900; the second was by [[Johannes Kromayer]] and [[Georg Veith]] in 1928. While both noted that there were no ancient sources which described any putative large-scale reforms by Marius, they both largely repeated previous scholarship that accepted the Marian reforms as a revolutionary turning point for the Roman army.{{sfn|Faszcza|2021|pp=24–27}} From there, this view moved into reference works like the [[Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft|''Realencyclopädie'']],<ref>{{harvnb|Faszcza|2021|p=28}}, calling attention to two articles: * {{cite encyclopedia |last=Kubitschek |first=Wilhelm |title=legio (republickanische Zeit) |encyclopedia=Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft |volume=12 |year=1924 |at=cols. 1201–2 |language=de |ref=none }} * {{cite encyclopedia |last=Weynand |first=Rudolf |title=Marius (14) |encyclopedia=Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft |volume=Suppl. 6 |year=1935 |at=cols. 1420–22 |language=de |ref=none }}</ref> and then into Anglophone scholarship via the highly cited 1928 overview ''The Roman Legions'' by Henry Michael Denne Parker. Only after the [[Second World War]] were these views re-examined.{{sfn|Faszcza|2021|pp=28–30}}
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)