Citations

I have used much of my own information here, but my cited works are taken exclusively from the following webpages:

Source 1: http://romans.etrusia.co.uk/roman_army_print
Source 2: http://faculty.vassar.edu/jolott/old_courses/republic1998/marius/index.htm

These two websites had a lot of good, well-cited information that made it easy to put the artifact together! The visual aspect isn't really my thing, but I hope all find it presentable and educational.

The Introduction

The Marian Reforms refer to Gaius Marius’ efforts to modernize the Roman army. This subject is particularly intriguing to me because of the duality of the reforms. It wasn’t simply a change in military protocol, it was also a social change that completely changed the nature of how armies were raised and maintained.

 

 Pictured below, a portrait of General Gaius Marius.

The Pre-Marius Armies

The early Roman armies operated within certain limitations that curbed the overall effectiveness of the fighting force. While the initial state of the army was enough to make Rome into a Mediterranean superpower, cracks did appear in the structure. The Punic Wars in particular exposed certain weaknesses in the army, as evidenced by several catastrophic defeats.

The first Roman armies were organized based on the wealth and standing of the individual Roman (1). Only landowners were eligible to join the army, and the role any Roman filled depended on what equipment he could afford and bring to the battlefield (2). Several main roles existed within the Roman army:

The equites filled the role of cavalry. This was a fairly select group, again not based off of any measure of individual skill or training. The defining factor was whether or not the Roman could afford a horse, which meant that this group of soldiers was generally made up of the very wealthy (1).

 

The next groups can be essentially divided into Heavy and Light infantry, and formed the maintstay of the Roman army. The original Roman battle formation was referred to as the "triplex acies" or "triple battle order" (2). The front line was made up of Velites. They were typically the poorest of the army, and could only afford light armor and weapons (2). Their combat mostly included skirmishing with javelines, as they could not afford the armor and weapons necessary to engage in close combat (1).

(Velites were famously recognizable for their wolf skin headware!)

The next two battlelines were made up of hastati and principes (2). These two groups were roughly of the same economic status, with hastati being the youngest soldiers and principes the more experienced (2). They were both armed with the same weapons and gear: short spears, swords and shields (2). Hastati would typically take on the brunt of the battle, with principes positioned directly behind to support as needed.

The final group was made up of Triarii, older soldiers who were near the end of their fighting days (2). Typically, they would not be needed in a battle, as the army would have to be a severe state of disarray for them to enter the fight (1).

(A typical battle formation, courtesy of vassar.edu.)

With this system, the Romans enjoyed many years of success in the Mediterranean region.

Weakness of the Roman Army

It seems generally agreed that the main weakness in the Roman army was a general "lack of professionalism" (1). The army being structured as it was meant that important roles were based more on one's social standing than their skill at warfare. The army could not be maintained over long periods of time, as the soldiers within it were all landowners, and thus had a duty to maintain their lands that they had left behind. Armies that stayed abroad too long would end up with discontent soldiers, who could very well return to find their lands overgrown, overrun, or simply seized by the state or powerful landlords.

This social structure, combined with the need to constantly disband and reform armies of landowners, meant that Roman armies could be poorly trained and ill-suited to fight a more professional force. Some astonishing defeats, including the horrific battle of Cannae, showed how a smaller, better trained, more dedicated fighting force could decimate a less professional Roman army.

(The Battle of Cannae was a horrific defeat for the Romans, ending with the near annihilation of their entire fighting force).

General Marius and His Reforms: Structure of the Army

Marius, during the time of his Consulship changed both the how the Roman army operated and its interior structure. The army he molded is the army that many associate with the Romans, the kind that has been romanticized in films for decades.

The most significant changes were to the structure of the army, how it was formed, armed and operated.

Firstly, Marius did away with the landowning requirement, opening enrollment to all Romans. This accomplished a few things: first, it allowed for the large influx of soldiers needed for his campaigns. The poor and landless filled the ranks, people who did not have a need to stay with their lands for fear of losing livelihood or being dispossessed while abroad (2). This also ended up a net boon for Roman society as a whole, by siphoning the poor and future-less out of the cities and into a productive role.

This made the Roman war machine overall a much more flexible beast. The soldiers within the army had nothing to go home to, which made them far easier to bring abroad than the landowner class of soldiers had been. These were career men, who could be expected to fight over twenty years within the army (1). As one might expect, this led to a much more effective fighting force, as the soldiers within it were not temporary volunteers: they were professionals, dedicated to their task for an extended period of time.

(Roman soldiers on the move!)

General Marius and His Reforms: A New Look

Since Roman soldiers could no longer be counted on to be somewhat well-to-do, or capable of bringing their own equipment, Marius had the Roman state subsidize the cost (1). There were several specific changes to equipment (mostly to due with the sort of weapons the Romans carried, such as the pilum) but the main focus of this change was to standardize the Roman army. No more lines of infantry separated by varying qualities of equipment or experience. The Roman army standardized: cohorts of heavy infantry, identically equipped, made up the core and backbone of the army (1).

(In all its glory.)

The changes to equipment added to the image of the Roman army as a highly trained, highly flexible fighting force. The nickname "Marius' Mules" is something anyone studying the Roman army will have come across, and the term generally refers to the sheer amount of equipment these legionaries had to carry (1). Tents, provisions, personal arms. These new soldiers were the best equipped soldiers in the Mediterranean and possibly the world, completely outfitted and prepared for extensive campaigns away from home.

The army was reorganized, again specifically away from age or gear required hierarchies. The Roman legion was divided into Cohorts, 10 per legion, each containing roughly 480 legionaries (1). The role of cavalry and light skirmishing infantry was given over to the auxiliary forces, soldiers made up of "allied troops and native soldiers" (1).
(A visualization of the newly organized Legion)

The finished product was the army we now associate with Romans, the army that conquered the world.

Final Thoughts

Looking at the reformed Roman army, it is amazing to me how significant the overhaul was. From a military point of view, it transformed an already effective fighting force into virtual killing machine. Marius' vision was clearly based from his time fighting in Numidia, where the Roman campaign was often hindered by certain weaknesses I outlined in earlier posts. It is fascinating to see each of these addressed, and the army sculpted from an instrument of defense into a precise tool quite clearly crafted for long campaigns away from home.

From a social perspective, the consequences are interesting. I have no idea how much Marius intended, and how much simply happened. The removal of the landowning requirement was a brilliant idea, both serving to fill the army and bring him popularity with landowners who no longer were required to go to war abroad. Long term, and my sources are heavy on this, it is clear that the reform led to much of the trouble we find later in Roman history. In later times, we find Roman armies loyal to their general as opposed to the state, dependent on them for land, booty, sustenance, direction.

In all, this was a huge shift not just for the army, but Roman society in general. It saw the rise of the professional fighting force, and with it the power and prominence of its generals. Certainly, a magnificent feat made all the more intriguing by its far-reaching consequences.

(We finish on a high note, with Caesar leading his legions to glorious victory!)