Editing Marian reforms (section)

==== Army proletarianisation ====

The main putative reform attributed to Marius is a change to recruitment starting, as is generally held, in 107&nbsp;BC. In that year, Marius was consul, had himself assigned by [[Plebeian Council|plebiscite]] to the war against Jugurtha, and recruited additional soldiers to send to war by enlisting volunteers from both those in the five census classes and also the {{lang|la|capite censi}}. The senate had in fact given Marius the right to conscript,{{sfn|Cadiou|2018|p=107}} but he chose to also enrol some three to five thousand volunteers.{{sfn|Evans|1995|p=92}}

Various motives have been ascribed to Marius' decision to accept volunteers. The motive attributed in Sallust, Marius' personal ambition to seize power, may more reflect Sallust's desire to connect the republic's collapse with moral decline and failure to adhere to tradition.{{sfn|Cadiou|2018|pp=81–83}} The second edition ''Cambridge Ancient History'' viewed it as an expedient to evade popular opposition to conscription.{{sfn|Lintott|1994|pp=91–92}} R&nbsp;J Evans,<ref>See {{harvnb|Evans|1995|pp=92–93}}.</ref> with whom François Cadiou agreed, instead proposed that Marius' decision emerged from his promise of a quick victory in Numidia followed by an energetic effort to follow through by raising and bringing an army as quickly as possible to Africa so to maximise his time campaigning as consul.{{sfn|Cadiou|2018|pp=106, 110}} Regardless, after Marius' victorious return from the Jugurthine War, his volunteers were discharged and, in the following [[Cimbrian War|Cimbric War]], he assumed command of consular legions recruited via hitherto normal procedure.{{sfnm|Taylor|2023|1p=160|Taylor|2019|2p=79}}

It was believed that Marius' decision to enlist volunteers from the {{lang|la|capite censi}} changed the socio-economic background of the army by allowing the poor to take it over.{{sfn|Cadiou|2018|p=399}} These poor soldiers then professionalised and lived only as soldiers. These professional soldiers, disconnected from a society in which they had no property stake, over time became clients of their generals who then used them to seize power in Rome and plunge the republic into civil wars that eventually brought about its collapse.{{sfnm|Mackay|2009|1p=97|Scullard|2011|2p=47}} There are, however, no indications that Roman conscription ceased.<ref>{{harvnb|Lintott|1994|p=92|ps=. "The Romans continued to levy regularly by conscription".}} {{harvnb|Gruen|1995|p=367|ps=. "And the Marian reforms... did not abolish the levy. Conscription continued... to the end of the republic".}}</ref> Nor is there much evidence that later Roman armies during the 1st century&nbsp;BC were made up of volunteers; almost all ancient references to army recruitment, outside private armies, involve conscription.{{sfnm|Rafferty|2021|1p=|Gauthier|2020|2p=283, "the sources show that soldiers were usually still recruited according to their census rating even in the late Republic", citing {{harvnb|Cadiou|2018|pp=392–93}} }}

Conscription continued after Marius' time, especially during the Social War, and the wealth and social background of the men who joined before and after the opening of recruitment changed little.{{sfnm|Rich|1983|1p=329|Gruen|1995|2pp=xvii, 367|Evans|1995|3p=91}} Pay remained extremely low – only five [[As (Roman coin)|asses]] per day – and irregular.{{sfn|Gruen|1995|p=369, calling it a "bare subsistence"}} Moreover, although the surviving sources frequently characterise soldiers as "poor", these sources largely reflect the perspectives of the elite, by whom the vast majority of the population were considered "poor" and for whom the notion of poverty was broader than actual landlessness. Many of the soldiers of the 1st century&nbsp;BC possessed modest lands.{{sfn|Rafferty|2021}} Nor did the legions meaningfully professionalise: as, in general, both soldiers and commanders served only for short periods intending, respectively, to secure plunder or political advancement from military victory.{{sfn|Gruen|1995|p=xvii}} There is little evidence that this putative change in army recruitment created anti-republican client armies.<ref>{{harvnb|Gruen|1995|p=xvii|ps=. "Nothing suggests that the soldiery had developed a separatist mentality, let alone that they contemplated toppling the republic. Even those who [[crossed the Rubicon]] responded to appeals on constitutional grounds".}}</ref>