Talk:Marian reforms

Sources

Sources would be well appreciated. Lucius Domitius 20:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Marian??

It is generally known as the Marius Reforms (at least in the UK). I cant say I've heard it with this variant before. After all he is known as Marius, not Marian. -- RND   ^talk  10:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Presumably 'Marian' is an adjective, so it's effectively the same as saying 'the reforms of Marius'. 80.47.203.38 11:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think its more likely that its an anglicised name of Marius. I much prefer Marius though. -- RND  T  C  17:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've always read it as the "adjectival form" of the name Marius. - Vedexent 06:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's definitely what it is. One doesn't speak of the "Julius calendar" but of the "Julian calendar"; likewise with "Marius" and "Marian." It certainly should remain as is.

Added Header

I added the External Links header to follow standard wiki layout. The link was almost lost with just [1] showing. -- RND   ^talk  11:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This is kind of off topic but in Ancient Rome by Pamela Bradley it says that "During his second consulship Marius carried out a major reorganisation of the army" ie The Marian Reforms. this was after the war against Jugurtha and not during as suggested in the article, I suggest some should fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.24.9.99 (talk) 03:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

First Cohort size

In the Cohort (military unit) page, the First Cohort states that while Marius's original plan for a legion was 10 cohorts of 480 soldiers, the concept of the First Cohort as a double strength unit of 800 was set in stone in the first century AD. This page refers to the double strength First Cohort as being the first of the 10 in Marius's definition of a legion, rather than a post-Marian alteration. Since the reforms regarding military structure are so clearly based around consistency (both in terms of unit size and capabilities) it seems more likely that the original plan was that a legion was 10 cohorts of 480 soldiers (and 120 support staff), making a legion of 4800 soldiers (with 1200 support). However, just because I don't like the idea of a special First Cohort being almost twice as large as the rest doesn't mean Marius didn't - I have no idea which of these is correct, only that the articles are inconsistent. If anyone out there knows their military history well enough to know what changes were made by Marius and which were adaptations to his original plan, could they please make the necessary alterations to the erroneous page? Rashkavar (talk) 05:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The idea of a double strength first cohort might not have been a universal thing. There is evidence that some legions were structured this way, but it is not at all clear that every legion was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.74.0.22 (talk) 12:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Silver Eagles

There is no mention here of Marius' invention of the silver eagle standards each legion carried and which became a superstitious symbol of Rome's power. This is the one aspect of the Marian reforms that would be familiar to anyone who has ever seen a Roman legion depicted in a movie. - J. Conti 108.20.137.173 (talk) 05:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Non-combatants

The idea that there were non-combatants regularly attached to each century is commonly found around the internet, but it is disputed theory at best. There is no ancient evidence to support the idea of non-combatants. This is a modern theory that attempts to reconcile the sometimes contradictory nature of the ancient evidence. Ancient descriptions of the Roman army in writers like Polybius, Vegetius, Caesar, and Pseudo-Hygenius never mention non-combatants as part of any military unit or as regular members of an army. The numbers provided by the ancient sources for the various units (centuries, cohorts, legions) are confused and often contradictory. For example, Pseudo-Hygenius specifically states that a century contains 80 men. But elsewhere states that there are 600 men in a cohort. This is an apparent contradiction. Some scholars have attempted to resolve this contradiction by supposing that there were extra non-combatants included among the 600 men in the cohort. This could explain the discrepancy, but nowhere does Pseudo-Hygenius or any other source state that there were non-combatants in a legion. It is merely speculation. There are also many times when various authors describe cohorts and legions in action; not only in combat but also on the march, building camps, and doing other manual labor. At no time does any source ever mention non-combatants being involved in the work of a legion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.74.0.22 (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Article is just wrong

Marius' reforms were not a major break from past practice. The armies in the late republic were broadly similar with those of the middle republic: "the composition of the post-Marian armies... did not differ markedly from the past".

"The property qualification for army service had become nearly meaningless by 107" with exemptions from the property qualifications becoming commonplace and recurrent. Marius's recruitment reforms simply made plain what had been for some time commonplace, out of need for men or simply the expediency of calling up urban volunteers rather than conscripting farmers. There also is no evidence that Marius introduced the cohort.

Soldiers and veterans were not permanent clients of their generals. Defections were common. Having some oath of loyalty was symbolic more of a general's lack of security than actual loyalty. The Roman army was not professionalised, nor was there any break between military and civilian service. Ifly6 (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

References

• Evans, Richard John (1995). Gaius Marius: A Political Biography (PDF) (DLitt et Phil thesis). University of South Africa. Retrieved 2019-06-08.
• Gruen, Erich S. (1995). The Last Generation of the Roman Republic. Berkeley. ISBN 0-520-02238-6. OCLC 943848.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

disconnect

The number of men per legion here is 5 times what is cited in a different article on the Roman army that goes through the entire history of the Roman legions. Would you two authors please sync up on your sources and decide which ones are exaggerating? The numbers here look like what Gibbon has and my study of his work shows he didn't handle his facts properly. 100.15.127.199 (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Connor Reid, "The Marian Reforms"

Cited six times throughout the article, and given a veneer of reliablity by being hosted on academia.edu, this seems like a very dubiously reliable source. I can't find any evidence that it's been published by any sort of reliable source, and the author is described on his academia.edu profile as I'm a 18 year old bibliophile, logophile, anti-theophile, technophile, and partially an audiophile. I'm diseased, too. Huzzah! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd say remove it. Ifly6 (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The main issue with this article I think is that nobody really believes in the Gaius-Marius-did-all-these-things-look-at-this-pilum-etc-etc reforms anymore. Professionalisation of the Roman legions was a prolonged process through the first century BC, not some revolutionary programme by the dastardly and insipid populares in their party manifesto. That was a joke; the populares qua political party did not exist. It feels like that should be reflected in a rewrite. Ifly6 (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Incoming critique

from someone pretty qualified. The good news is that he tends to mention his sources so we should get something to cite. The bad news is his suggestion so far has a 390 euro paywall.©Geni (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Geni: I used that very source to create a "historiography" section as a stopgap. User:Ifly6 has a draft at User:Ifly6/Marian reforms which may or may not be ready by Friday. (I still need to go give it a look over myself, but I do think we may need to keep some of the current article, just under a section title like "Traditional view" or "Evolution of the Roman Army in the 2nd and 1st century BC" with a disclaimer that calling said evolution the Marian reforms is (probably) a misnomer. SnowFire (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

It will almost certainly not be ready by Friday. I need to translate some somewhat large portions of Cadiou 2018. (Though it would be easier if he didn't keep writing these single sentences with at least five commas that consume eight lines.) Ifly6 (talk) 01:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Echoing SnowFire somewhat, I have access to and have read Taylor 2019. The better overview of the matter, I think, though is Gautier and the most recent relevant and well-regarded monograph is Cadiou 2018 which is (somewhat unfortunately) in French. In general though I agree with Devereaux; the article as it stands is of seriously deficient quality. Ifly6 (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The full article with the critiques has since been published: https://acoup.blog/2023/06/30/collections-the-marian-reforms-werent-a-thing/. BalinKingOfMoria (talk) 01:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

We saw, yes. Just there may not be much point in updating this article when it's probably going to be mostly replaced by Ifly's draft at some point.

While it'd read weirdly on a topic of ancient history, I'd argue that "disputed" is the wrong tag to use - maybe {{Update}}? This article really is describing the traditional view, warts and all. It's what older historians said, so from a strict WP:V perspective, that's still accurate that older historians said this. Just the problem is that it doesn't really include what recent historians have said and needs to be brought up to date. If you read Deveraux's article, you'll note he qualifies his critique with saying one particular 1984 book is not a bad book, just scholarship hadn't come as long as far as it has now. SnowFire (talk) 01:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@SnowFire Oh, I didn't mean to spam you all—I just wanted to link the article itself for the convenience of future readers :-)

And yeah, Disputed felt a bit odd to me too.... Thanks for suggesting Update instead, I've just changed it to that. BalinKingOfMoria (talk) 04:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I just added a brief blurb describing the reforms as "thought to be" by "older scholarship", citing the blog post. I know that source doesn't meet the guidelines, but it will be replaced by Ifly's draft when it's ready, and I think in the meantime it's better to have a caveat with an invalid source than completely incorrect information without a signpost. 207.164.135.99 (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Marian reforms/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 12:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I should say at the outset that I'm hugely impressed with the recent work on this article: having read Bret Devereux's critique of the old one, it's extremely impressive to see such a dramatic turnaround on a topic with many eyes on it and where, I suspect, making bold changes is not always easy. Will give it a read now and make initial comments. I'm a classicist but this isn't my specific field, so I'll try to make tentative comments on content as well as form, but please do bear my relative inexpertise in mind.

Resolved matters

Resolved matters

The Marian reforms refer to putative changes: per MOS:REFERS, we should have The Marian Reforms were... or similar. Are they putative changes, or putatively attributed to Marius? My impression is that we're fairly sure that most of the reforms happened, we just disagree with the 'traditional' view as to when and why (and sometimes how often) they did. Refers is used properly in this instance per policy. I think your impression is wrong: most of the traditional view's reforms are fictitious. To use The Marian reforms were... gives them undue historicity. That's why I used the phrasing I did. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Well, the Roman army did become professional, did adopt (mostly) uniform equipment, did end up with a consistent eagle standard and did stop using citizens as cavalry. Which point of policy are you referring to? MOS:REFERS (not policy, but a guideline), has Avoid constructions like "[Subject] refers to..." or "...is a word for..." – the article is about the subject, not a term for the subject. For articles that are actually about terms, italicize the term to indicate the use–mention distinction. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC) The guideline, in depth, discusses this distinction in general. Ifly6 (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Thanks. I'm afraid I still don't see anything that would support the way the first sentence is currently written. If nothing else, both guidelines (well, a guideline and an explanatory essay about it) are clear that, if we are going to have an article about a term, we should italicise it per MOS:WORDSASWORDS. However, I think this article is about the reforms themselves (whether or not they happened) rather than the word for them, in the same way that the article about the Loch Ness Monster is about the monster (whether or not it exists) rather than its name. Again, please do quote chapter and verse at me if I've missed something. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC) I had italicised as of a few hours ago. Ifly6 (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC) I'm happy that we're now within MOS; I'm not sure that this actually is an article about the term, rather than about the reforms (again, which need not have happened to have an article about them), but there's nothing in the GA standards to hold us up on this point. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC) Wikilink consul, and perhaps briefly explain? Explain how? Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC) However you see fit: the idea is that, particularly in the lead, we shouldn't be assuming specialist knowledge of our readers, and not everyone knows how the Roman political system worked. This is particularly true for an article to which people might be coming from non-academic entry points (i.e., they've just played a Total War game). "consul (chief magistrate)" is a simplification but might be close enough for the purpose? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Changed to introduce with "a general". Ifly6 (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC) The second paragraph starts "it is..." but then goes on to say what "was" believed. The tenses need sorting out here: my impression in the article is that we've generally considered the 'traditional narrative' to be dead, and so I'd suggest bringing forward the later points about when the "Marius-did-everything" school of thought emerged, and then attaching this bit to that. Sure. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Many scholars have also now abandoned the notion that Italy suffered in the second centuryBC any deficit of manpower which would have driven such putative reductions: triple-cited: are these simply scholars who have abandoned the view, or do they explicitly say that many scholars have? Cadiou says so. The scholarship on population decline is settled; there wasn't any. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Great stuff. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC) are attributed in the ancient sources – though here rather late: what does here rather late mean in this context? Is it describing the relevant sources? More generally, I found this paragraph a little unclear. There are only three reforms attributed in the ancient sources. The first is Valerius Maximus' "Marius recruited the poor"; the other two are in Plutarch and Pliny and relate to the pilum and eagle. The latter two are "late" as in "removed from time from the events they describe". This is a common phrasing. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC) The word late in itself is fine, but the phrasing could be clearer. How about "are attributed in the ancient sources – though these are from considerably later"? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Changed to attributed, in rather late ancient sources, to Marius directly. Ifly6 (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC) I'm going to pick another nit here and suggest we're more precise on "rather late ancient", particularly as there's a reasonable confusion with the late antique period, several centuries later. As far as ancient sources go, all of these are relatively early. How about "all dating at least several centuries after Marius' career" vel sim? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Sure. Ifly6 (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Characterisation of soldiers as "poor" in elite rhetoric: To be clearer for non-specialists, suggest going back a step and first being clear as to that and how elite rhetoric (what, exactly?) did characterise soldiers as poor. Introduced. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC) I've made a slight tweak here (please feel free to re-tweak), so that we're first explaining that elite sources called the soldiers poor, then explaining what they meant by that. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC) Note 18 (Gruen) is interesting: already in the mid-90s we've got a pretty deadly critique of the conventional "Marius' army killed the Republic" narrative. I wonder if that's worth bringing into the historiography section? The conventional narrative is dead, in Continental scholarship, by the 80s. The zombified life of the Marian reforms in popular culture is what has lived on (Cadiou and Rosenstein both independently lament this), not scholars actually believing in them. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Emilio Gabba: another one to contextualise. emended implies that the change was a correction; my impression is that we're arguing instead for either a mistake or a corruption. Amended would work if Pliny introduced that. This sentence confused two different things. I omitted the other one (clothing = the last thing on the list of stuff the state bought) and reflected only Gabba (Plutarch actually meant equipment). Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC) I've made a slight tweak here for clarity; again, please re-tweak as felt necessary. In particular, I've clarified Plutarch's text; using simply Plutarch to mean his writings is fine for classicists but ambiguous to the general reader in this context. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC) as both soldiers and commanders served only for short periods intending to secure plunder or political advancement from military victory: could do with separating these out: few ordinary soldiers hoped to secure political advancement. More generally, I'm wary of trying to psychoanalyse hundreds of thousands of people at once: some of them surely had other motives. Added respectively. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC) I think we're still missing a bit of nuance: apart from my question-mark as to whether every single Roman soldier was 100% driven by plunder (if nothing else, a steady paycheck in a world where those generally didn't exist must have been attractive, to say nothing of the eternal reasons why young men run away from home to join the forces), Verres would certainly point out that it was possible to be both a political climber and a voracious looter. Not a major problem but perhaps something to think on. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Are you basically suggesting prefacing "in general"? Ifly6 (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC) I suppose that would be enough, yes! There's nothing like a straightforward solution (which somehow managed to escape me...) UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC) There is no evidence to support this contention: perhaps a little harsh: presumably those who claimed this had some justification, even if only the evidence of absence we briefly discuss? The justification was the absence. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC) given relatively fixed logistical costs, heavy infantry is more cost-efficient than light infantry in extended and distant campaigns: this is a bit technical and somewhat unclear; would suggest a rephrase (presumably, the point is that they both use more or less the same amount of kit, and so if you're going to go through the same amount of effort to supply one or the other, you pick the one that's more combat effective, which was generally heavy infantry within the Roman model of fighting - until, of course, it wasn't...) Well taken. (Literally being a bureaucrat working in economic research, my native tongue is Fedspeak.) Ifly6 (talk) distributing lands to Marius' veterans and others: other commanders' veterans, or just other people? Clarified to latter. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC) The agrarian law in that instance was defined largely in terms of building up lands to distribute to expected future army veterans rather than some kind of revolutionary redistribution to the benefit of thronging masses of veterans: I'm not sure about the WP:TONE here; it's getting a little close to polemic rather than detached summary. Omitted. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC) No such clientelist programme: suggest reworking or explaining the specialist word clientelist. Substituted client army. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Other sources, though largely far later, also associate Marius with allowing the to join in 107BC: Plutarch, Florus, and Aulus Gellius: these need more specific dates. Cadiou says Antonine so I'll follow. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Thomas Rice Holmes: I don't quite understand the chronology here: Holmes' book was first published in 1903, so the idea can't have moved into it from Kromeyer and Veith (1928). The first was by Hans Delbrück in 1900. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC) If Delbrück is the source, we need to rework the sentence. We currently have 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. From there, this view moved into reference works like the Realencyclopädie, and then into Anglophone scholarship via Thomas Rice Holmes' book Caesar's Conquest of Gaul. The most obvious antecedent for there is the work of Kromayer and Veith; there's no grammatical reading that skips those to read it as Delbrück's work. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC) In the interim I've just omitted reference to Holmes. I think F is discussing later editions but would have to confirm. Ifly6 (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC) The view inherited from the 19th century sources was overthrown in two articles published in 1949 and 1951: "overthrown" is a bit strong, given that this was still a widely-held belief into the 21st century (see the review of Caidou). Changed. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Roman army policy during the second century: very few ancient historians would be comfortable saying that the Romans had an anything policy in any coherent sense, and certainly not one that lasted a century. Omitted and joined with next sentence. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC) The subtitle Contemporary historiography could perhaps be tweaked to Recent or Twenty-first century: contemporary could mean "contemporary with us" (in which case, it's dated from the minute it's written) or "contemporary with Marius" (in which case it's wrong). Under the larger heading Re-evaluation I don't believe there is any reasonable confusion. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC) I'm happy to be unreasonable, then: my reservation on self-dating language stands, though it's a fairly minor objection at this stage. "Twenty-first-century historiography" better, or even "Revisionist historiography"? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC) The re-evaluation started prior to the 21st century and "revisionist" has been taking negative undertones. Ifly6 (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Sounds like this is as good as we'll get (I think revisionist is generally fine; it has two distinct meanings but people are generally happy enough to describe themselves as revisionists when making evidence-informed critiques of old historical paradigms.) The belief in the Marian reforms occurred by that point: I'm not sure what this means. The point is a point in time, ie the late 20th century; I reflected that. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC) I think the word "occurred" was the problem; it's now gone, so all's well here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC) François Cadiou, in a well-received 2018 book: two sources cited praise it, but to satisfy WP:SYNTH, we need at least one to explicitly say that it's been well received (they could be the only people who liked it!). Omitted. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Rome instead hired whose service was paid for by treaty: hired sits oddly here, though it might be because I don't fully understand the phrase paid for by treaty. Rephrased. To explain, auxilia are paid for by their home non-Roman communities pursuant to treaty. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Happy here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC) In note 22, I'd give Matthew as a short citation (use harvnb), to be consistent with the rest of the citations. Those are two separate citations to two different works by Matthew, one of which is cited once. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC) landless and mercenary soldiers: a little unclear: does mercenary mean "non-Romans for hire" or "motivated by pay"? If the latter, a little dubious on tone. The use of the word mercenary is common in this literature. I substituted motivated by pay. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Whose translation is that from Sallust? We should credit it. It is... from the one cited... Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC) My mistake: I'd missed that the link on Sal. Iug. in the footnote was a SFN and not a wikilink. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Note 36 is really an explanatory footnote rather than proving the point (we generally want to use secondary sources for that, especially in the context of an argument about how shaky primary sources can be): you might want to use the EFN template and separate it out. There are insufficient notes of that sort (I would go with three minimum) to justify introduction of a separate Notes section for {{efn}}. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Fair enough. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Note 25: wikilink Appian and Fronto. Generally, I'd advise writing ancient authors and works in full (see WP:NOTPAPER: we don't need to save space, so the clearer and more layman-friendly approach is the best), but it's not a deal-breaker for GA. Note 30: short cite for Bell? Bell is cited once. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC) More generally, I don't understand the system as to when short and long citations are used within footnotes. Almost anything goes as long as there is a system, and that system is somehow consistent. If used once, it goes into footnotes. If used more than once, it goes into the bibliography. Ifly6 (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Fair enough. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC) by the Pyrrhic War (c. 291 BC): what's the logic behind the circa here? The dates of the Pyrrhic War are pretty uncontroversial, and this gives the impression that it lasted only one year. It's the date which OCD4 gives for the arming. The specific dates of the war don't matter. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC) OK, then we should rework the sentence to be clear that the date is for the arming, not the war: the current phrasing and ordering imply the opposite. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Clarified. Ifly6 (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC) The MOS dislikes abbreviations in body text, and it reads oddly to have c. as a word in the main flow of a sentence (rather than in brackets). I'd replace the c. with a word like approximately. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC) "Closing" this one because, per source review, it's now transmuted into a different point. following in his footsteps: again, fix for MOS:IDIOM (which is part of MOS:WTW, one of the few parts of the MOS we really do care about for GA). Strictly, File:Gaius Fundanius, denarius reverse, 101 BC, RRC 326-1.jpg should have a licence for the coin itself, but as it's been manually approved by Wikimedia, I don't see a particular need. File:Theodor Mommsen 2.jpg needs a US tag. I tagged the first one with a public domain notice due to age. I'm not sure why you think the definitely public domain image of Mommsen needs a US-specific tag. Ifly6 (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC) The issue is first publication, not when it was taken. Do we know when File:Friedrich Wilhelm Rüstow.jpg was actually put to print? If we can't show publication older than the immediate source (1935), it's still in copyright. Ditto for File:Theodor Mommsen 2.jpg: at the moment, the first evidence of publication we have is 1989, which means it's in copyright. Both images need a correct US PD tag because everything used on Wikipedia needs to be either Fair Use or PD in the United States (see WP:PD); it's part of the GA criteria to check that licences to that effect are attached to all media. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC) I've replaced the Mommsen image. I have no inkling at all as to when the photograph of a man who died in 1878 was published. I'm not chasing it down. Ifly6 (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC) @UndercoverClassicist and Ifly6: I'd already fixed the Mommsen 2 image, to be clear (diff), so there's no need to argue over it or replace it. (And while the GA reviewer normally should keep distance, Just Fixing It is probably okay in such cases where a photo is clearly public domain but the tagging could be more clear.) SnowFire (talk) 02:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC) Thanks for putting the license in: I'm sorry to keep repeating myself, but there's still no indication of the original publication: we've asserted that it was published before 1928 but provided no evidence of that. If you can find a pre-1928 work in which it was published, I'm happy to Just Fix It and add the information to the Commons page myself. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC) We now have File:Theodor Mommsen by Ludwig Knaus (1881).jpg: the associated website says it was first exhibited in 1893, so I'm happy that it was 'published' before 1928 and have added the correct US PD tag. Rüstow is still more tricky. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC) Note 4: It was commonly claimed that Marius changed the soldiers' socio-economic background by allowing citizens without property to join the Roman army, a process called "proletarianisation". (Cadiou p18) While recruits should have been in principle from the citizens with a minimum patrimony, this traditional scheme was inverted progressively from the 2nd century BC such that the by the end of the 1st century the armies were largely but not exclusively formed from poor citizens and therefore was radically different from the past. It is this development habitually designated by the modern term “proletarianisation” of the legions. (My translation.) Ifly6 (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC) Here, I'm not seeing It was commonly claimed that (I see this as a definition of proletarianisation, but not a claim about how commonly proletarianisation is considered a Thing). However, as it's Cadiou, I'd generally consider this one moot without the original-original to check against. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC) Page 18 introduces the chapter on historiography and its first sentence, per my translation, is Since the start of modern classical studies, it has been imposed with great force and permanence the idea that the principal evolution of the Roman army at the end of the republic coincided with a decisive change in the social origin of the recruits. While recruits should have been in principle from the citizens with a minimum wealth, this traditional scheme was inverted... Ifly6 (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC) Y Happy here within the limits of what's possible using a translation. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC) Note 9: Many of the other reforms commonly attributed to Marius also have no basis in the ancient sources (Taylor 2019. p. 78) Taylor says Marius was no different. The ancient sources attribute only two specific reforms to Marius. This is the converse statement of what I wrote. Ifly6 (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC) Yes, I'm happy with that. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC) Note 20etc: Many scholars have also now abandoned the notion that Italy suffered in the second century BC any deficit of manpower which would have driven such putative reductions. (specifically looking for many scholars have...). Thus, the hypothesis of a decline in the number of adsidui over the course of the 2nd century, central to Gabba’s demonstration, has been sometimes rejected, and rightly in my opinion (citations omitted). (My translation.) The citations omitted were voluminous; I would characterise it as understatement. Ifly6 (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC) OK: mostly there. The only issue is many scholars for where the source has sometimes. It might be an understatement, but the article should reflect its source: many scholars needs to be softened if that's what it's based on, as this source is quite clearly (deliberately?) stopping short of that. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC) Extended citation in article to include reference to Cadiou 2018 pp 49–50: The primary tendency, for its part, was illustrated in a fundamental article by J W Rich... demonstrating that the problems [50] raised by our documentation for the end of the 2nd century can be explained without needing to imagine the progressive rarefaction of the number of adsidui and therefo re, a structural crisis in the legionary recruitment in that age. Ifly6 (talk) 03:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC) Are we leaning on "primary tendency" here? Out of context, I'm not totally sure that it does mean what we want it to, but again, as it's a Caidou check, I'm happy to write this one off unless there's a strikingly obvious problem. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC) Note 29: The second edition Cambridge Ancient History viewed it as an expedient to evade popular opposition to conscription The Senate allowed Marius to conscript, but he evaded opposition that Metellus encountered in 109 by only recruiting volunteers, especially the time-served soldiers (evocati), promising them victory and booty. That is the only reason CAH2 9 accepts (it raises the Sallustian "poors = morally corrupt" and dismisses it at length) for why Marius accepted volunteers. Ifly6 (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC) Y happy with that. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC) Note 38: (Gruen) Y checks out. Note 36: (Refferty) Y checks out. Note 50: (Gauthier): Y checks out. It's a PhD thesis: not a problem, but worth replacing if a good alternative presents itself. Gauthier gives the additional detail that Gabba thinks Plutarch abridged his own text, which isn't in the article: not strictly necessary but might be worth adding, since the obvious assumption otherwise is post-facto manuscript corruption. Note 58 (Taylor 2019: p86): The decline of Roman light infantry has been connected not to reform but cost. Because the logistical cost of supporting light infantry and heavy infantry was relatively similar, the Romans chose to deploy heavy infantry in extended and distant campaigns due to their greater combat effectiveness, especially when local levies could substitute for light infantry brought from Rome and Italy Ex Taylor If light infantry was still useful, why had the velites gone away? Logistical factors may underlie their disappearance. Velites as a mass were integral to the overall tactical system, but each individual veles represented less combat power than a heavy infan- tryman. Given that Roman armies in the second century BC needed to be shipped great distances to their areas of operations, it may have increasingly been more attrac- tive logistically to use local auxiliaries as light infantry, while reserving scarce space on troop transports for heavy infantry. There may have also been fiscal reasons. The Social War ended Rome’s free supply of Italian soldiers: now Rome had to pay Italian draftees as citizen troops, rather than merely providing them with rations.63 There was thus fiscal pressure to reduce the number of velites, so that each stipendium was spent upon a heavy infantryman. Ifly6 (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC) We've gone a little further with "logistical cost" (T. seems to be talking specifically about transportation space and pay, which makes sense, since heavy infantry would have needed a slightly beefier supply chain for their heavy equipment), but I'm not sure that's a deal-breaker given the explicit use of the word logistical in the source. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC) Note 75: Most scholars have now abandoned the belief that Marius was responsible for any proletarianisation of the Roman legions in the early 1st century BC and that such proletarianisation occurred at all (loads to choose from: we particularly need something on most scholars have...). Cadiou 2018 p 40, most clearly, Contrary to that which a first impression might lead one to believe, current historiography has largely overwhelmingly abandoned the idea that the rupture Marius had occurred with Marius though suggested by the testimony of the ancient authors explicitly. Probst 2008 Consequently, as 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. Removed citation to Gauthier p 283. Ifly6 (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC) Y Great stuff. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC) Note 87 (Cadiou 2018, pp 79-80): However, other sources are entirely silent: for example, the 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 [79] ... As for [Livy’s Periochae], it is satisfied for the years 108–105 to mention the victory of Marius over Jugurtha [80] Of course, it is difficult to determine if the choice is that of Livy or that of the epitomiser. But, if we start from the principle that the periocha consists by definition of retaining the elements judged important, one can at least affirm in the eyes of the epitomiser, this is not the case with the initiative done by Marius that year in terms of recruitment. [p 79 n 210] Livy Per 66. Indeed, the periocha 65, devoted to years 109–107, does not even mention the election of Marius to the consulate, and so a fortiori the question of the levy. The fact was noted in particular by Evans, 1994, pp 68–69. (My translation.) Ifly6 (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC) Y Happy with that (I think we've actually put it better than Cadiou, who acknowledges and then seems to forget that the epitomiser couldn't have included a detail Livy considered too unimportant to mention). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC) Note 90: this is only Google translate, but we have 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. The source has Badaczem, który jako pierwszy w formie naukowej stworzył spójną wizję reform Mariusza, był C.C.L. (Christian Conrad Ludwig) Lange, which Google gives as The researcher who was the first to create a coherent vision of Marius's reforms in a scientific form was C.C.L. (Christian Conrad Ludwig) Lange. To my eyes, that says only that he was the first to really pin down a view of exactly what Marius had done, and to argue for it in a scientific way; it at least implies that others had posited reforms and argued for them in a non-scientific way. Very happy to be corrected on linguistic grounds here. More generally. there's a lot hanging on this Polish-language source: per WP:NONENG, if the same ideas can be found in Anglophone scholarship, it would be good to switch some citations to that. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC) That's a reasonable summary of what F says. Ifly6 (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC) OK: the article should be amended to match it, then. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC) The article already gives a reasonable summary of what F says. Ifly6 (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC) To be clear, when F talks about "Marian reforms", he is not talking about the idea that one or two reforms or another were attributed to Marius. He is describing specifically the 19th century hypothesis that Marius was responsible for basically every change between the army in Polybius and that in Caesar. You quoted the start of the paragraph... the end of the paragraph is Although Lange devoted less than 30 pages to the evolution of the republican army, he still managed to use information scattered in various sources to create a theory that assumed the existence of comprehensive reforms of a completely revolutionary nature that permanently changed the face of the Roman legions. (Machine translated.) Ifly6 (talk) 02:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC) Y OK, the word "create" swings that one for me. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC) Note 103 (Faszcza 2021, p. 33): could I have a quote and translation for the specific part The belief in the Marian reforms, by the late 20th century, largely rested on the argument that they reflected a manpower shortage. Page was originally incorrect. [Passage describing Brunt's work circa 1971]... This suggests that the Romans did not reform the conscription system along the lines of the solution used in 107 BC. To confirm this conclusion, it only remained to show that the Roman republic did not struggle at the turn of the 2nd and 1st centuries BC with a demographic crisis, which, according to Lange and Rüstow, was supposed to be the biggest problem directly leading to the establishment of a professional army on page 32. Ifly6 (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC) Y Happy with that. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC) Note 106: Y checks out for Rafferty. Note 112 or 113: Contrary to the traditional story of quiescent client armies following their generals, contemporary historiography has established that Roman soldiers during the civil wars needed to be convinced of the legitimacy of their generals' causes. (particularly for contemporary historiography has established...). Cadiou 2018 pp 419–20: Of course, it is well known that the armies of the civil wars were not purely passive actors; their political motives should not be underestimated. Moreover, the leaders were aware that their soldiers were citizens who had to be convinced of the legitimacy of their cause. Increasingly, it is emphasised that soldiers were not docile instruments in the hands of imperatores. [Cadiou cites Morstein-Marx at this location.] In this sense, the involvement of the armies in these civil wars constituted, in certain respects, a modality of the exercise of their libertas by the citizens present in the legions. (My translation.) Ifly6 (talk) 02:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC) Y Perhaps on the borderline (C. seems to be presenting the need to convince soldiers as a corollary of what is well known, rather than something that already is), but close enough given how we're treating and checking this particular source. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments before formal review

Lead/General

• The article is inconsistent as to whether it's e.g. the 20th century or the twentieth. Personally, I'd spell it out, but anything consistent is fine.
• The MOS would prefer e.g. Marius's, but compliance with that particular clause isn't needed for GA and I'm perfectly happy to overlook it.
• There are a few very short paragraphs of only one or two sentences. If possible, it's better to combine these into more substantial blocks.
• The use of names-as-adjectives could be a little unclear, especially to those with English as an additional language: I'd suggest e.g. Polybius' credibility rather than Polybian credibility in most cases.
• In my copyedit, I've cut out a few bits that could be seen as WP:PUFFERY ("a very influential article...", "an important book..." etc).
• MOS:LEADCITE: unless a direct or implied quotation, we don't generally cite things in the lead that are also cited in the body. Under MOS:LEAD, there shouldn't really be anything in the lead that isn't in the body, and there shouldn't really be anything in the body that isn't cited, so most of the citations in the lead should be possible to do away with.

Background

• For much of the twentieth century, historians held that the property qualification separating the five classes and the was reduced over the course of the second century to a nugatory level due to a shortage of manpower. It is not clear whether, over the course of the second century BC, the qualification was actually reduced.: the join between these two sentences is a little confusing. As we've started the first one with a time phrase, it would help to do the same for the second: when did we start to change our minds? Alternatively, we could give some idea as to why C20th historians thought as they did, and why that evidence is no longer considered convincing.

"The view that the property qualification... was progressively reduced derives much of its plausibility from the fact that it fits well with received doctrine on Roman manpower... It would thus smack of circularity to use the supposed second century reduction in the property qualification as evidence for the shortage of assidui." Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

That's a footnote: most people won't read that at the same time as the main text (or indeed at all). Bringing the first part of that in paraphrase into the main text would be an advantage, I think. I like the pugnaciousness of "it would smack of circularity" but best kept far from Wikivoice! UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Added a mention of the three figures. Ifly6 (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid I now find this sentence (It is not clear whether, over the course of the second century BC, the qualification was actually reduced, as the basis for that belief was merely three undated figures for it which could be ordered in a descending order) very hard to follow. Suggest something like However, the basis for that belief was merely three undated Roman figures for the amount of property required to serve, and it is therefore unclear whether that qualification actually did reduce over time. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Rephrased taking some of your suggestion into account. Ifly6 (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Attributed reforms

• In traditional modern historiography: I'd suggest coming up with a consistent shorthand for "the view that Marius snapped his fingers and everything changed overnight". I'm not sure that modern is quite right, given that we're situating this as an outdated paradigm, but also worry that traditional might give it a bit more gravitas than needed.

The words are used that way because there are two traditional historiographies. The first is the traditional historiography of Plut, Val Max, etc. The second is the traditional historiography of moderns. The word "traditional" has been criticised as implicitly meaning "out-dated"; it's well situated in the middle if you think it's also giving something gravitas. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

It's sometimes a little unclear to this reader, at least, which scholarly body is being talked about. Presumably "traditional modern historiography" isn't that of Plutarch and co.? Suggest "in the conventional view of the Marian Reforms...", which leaves both doors open but is also clear that we're not talking about modern-modern (post 1980ish which is, after all, nearly half a century ago...) historiography. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it the "conventional" view because it isn't the conventional view anymore. Given the timing of "modern" stretches from the Early modern period to the present, I don't really think "modern" means "recently". Ifly6 (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think something can be both "modern" and no longer in use ("modern cars have bench seats and a man with a red flag to walk in front of them"). I wouldn't have a massive problem with simply traditional historiography. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps something akin to "classical"? "Older"? "Traditional" implies some sort of fundamental conflict and change in sources and methods, which, while would be appropriate if we were referring to Gibbon, doesn't sit well with the relative contemporaneousness of this misconception and the continuation of that into popular conception. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 20:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Possible (though again, the problem of older vs oldest will arise). "Maximalist" might be an option, though I'm wary of creating historiographical terminology de novo. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• Beyond the attribution to Marius of setting the precedent for recruiting the poor, made by the historian Valerius Maximus in the early 1st century AD, only two reforms (distinguished from mere actions taken by Marius) are attributed, in sources postdating his career by hundreds of years, to Marius directly: a redesign of the pilum and sole use of the eagle as the legionary standard: this is a very long sentence, with lots of subordination: Cicero would have loved it, but it would be clearer if split down.

• There's lots of sources and people named here. Given that we're tracking a debate over time, I think it's important that we properly introduce each one by where, when and from roughly what perspective they wrote: I'd added a bit on Valerius Maximus. Sallust's ideological attachment to Caesar, for example, is important (because if the Republic collapsed because of moral decline, you can't blame his boss!), while it's relevant that CAH 2 was written between the 1970s and 1990s, while Caidou is very up-to-the-minute (in fact, his 2018 book is a spruced-up version of his doctoral thesis from 2013).

• RJ Evans was a DPhil student when he wrote the cited source: he's gone on to fairly distinguished things, but not as a classicist [it's a different RJ Evans]. Perhaps too much prominence given to him here? Perhaps similar on Caidou, though at least that's a peer-reviewed book: more context might help. Have you seen this review?

Yes, I have seen it. It's ... in the bibliography and cited in the body. I had the author of that review look over this article before I pushed to the main-space. Cadiou cites Evans positively. Ifly6 (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, if Evans is what we've got, it's what we've got, but we should as a matter of principle look to replace a doctoral thesis with a more heavily-vetted work of scholarship (per WP:THESIS) if the opportunity arises. We're absolutely fine to use it here; there's no reliability issue especially given its citation in wider literature. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

There is a book version of the thesis: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24594537 (a review thereof). I didn't cite the book as I don't have it; the thesis version is far more widely available. Ifly6 (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The book version is available online here, in various PDFs. It would be an improvement to cite that over the thesis (since it will have undergone further review by the author and others), but certainly above and beyond the call of duty for this stage. If it turns out to be a straightforward job, I might have a go at porting the citations over. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• The second edition Cambridge Ancient History: why this and not Lintott by name?
• It is sometimes claimed that Marius' decision...: as this narrative goes on, it starts to get unclear that we're still talking about a discredited point of view; the tone sounds as if we're simply stating facts, until the sharp stop of "there are, however...".
• Beyond continued conscription after Marius' time, especially during the Social War, the wealth and social background of the men who joined before and after the opening of recruitment changed little: I don't think beyond quite works in this context: usually, it should mean "except for", but conscription is being identified as as point of continuity.
  • Now changed to "Notwithstanding", which still implies that continued conscription should have changed the wealth and social background of the men who joined the army. Assuming the opposite is intended, we could simply split the sentence: "Conscription continued ... and the wealth and social background ..." UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  Done. Ifly6 (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• only five asses per day: can we put that into context as to roughly how much it was?

Ancient prices are practically inconvertible to modern prices. That it was not much is already present. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The usual way to do this is to compare with something like a day's pay for a skilled worker (admittedly, we often use military pay as the yardstick...). It's a pretty common practice in ancient historical writing; you're right that it would be unhelpful to say "equivalent to $10 today" or something equally arbitrary. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Further to this: on spot check, Gruen calls it "a bare subsistence". I'd add that judgement to the article. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Extremely low with Gruen quote "bare subsistence" added to note. Ifly6 (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• On the pilum, it's not clear to someone who doesn't already know what the wooden peg would do. We're missing the (now debated) assertion that the head was meant to break off. Marius' redesign did not stick: MOS:IDIOM would like this rephrased more literally, particularly as pila do, literally, stick into shields and people.

We don't entirely know what the wooden peg does. Plutarch isn't entirely clear. The head wasn't meant to break off. (Also, the common claim that the pilum was designed to do these things is wrong: military historians now largely believe that it was a nice plus from a design meant to penetrate.) Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

This seems clear enough in the article at the moment; either a clarifying edit or simply my eyes adjusting on second reading. On the eagles, we have Nash 2010, p91. in The Cambridge Companion to Tacitus (here), who talks about the eagle as one of, along with the standard itself, "the archetypal symbols of order and discipline within the Roman army". UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Pliny's Natural History: as before, contextualise. Can we make it explicit that the eagle was the universal standard by Pliny's day, and so he's doing the classic Roman thing of projecting something important back onto a great man of the past?

I don't know whether the eagle is universal by the imperial period. That would require a source. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• There's a couple of circas in this section: if used, these should be bracketed off, but see my comment on the Pyrrhic War above as to whether more precise dates wouldn't be better.

There two. The first is the arming of capite censi during the Pyrrhic war requiring a circa. The second is Gaius Gracchus' two tribunates which are so mixed together it also requires a circa. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The only one that's a problem is before deploying them in the Lusitanian War c. 145 BC, which is the problem of having the abbreviation in body text. As the date is for the deployment, not the war, I'd suggest before deploying them in approximately 145 BC during the Lusitanian War. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think having c. is an issue. Ifly6 (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not enough of one to hold up a GA nomination, at any rate. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• Polybius': we've given a date for the battle, but more important to give one for Polybius (and perhaps to explain a bit about him to establish that he knew what he was talking about).

The date of Polybius is not relevant; that he is usually reliable is now added and cited. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the date is important when we're saying that he's the first attestation of something. I do think "a usually reliable historian" is a bit simplistic in these postmodern days, but I'm not going to start a major scrap over it at GA level. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Only during the civil wars: I'd give an explicit time period here, as we're trying to date this development. Likewise for triumviral period later.

Added later last century BC. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Added dates for Caesar's civvy and the triumviral period. Ifly6 (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I've added dates already: 49 – 45 BC and 43 – 31 BC. Ifly6 (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd give specific dates for Caesar's civil war and the triumviral period, as the relative chronology is important to the argument that the article is making.

• mutineers demanded lands as a pretext for larger donatives: I'm not sure the word pretext (a false justification for something) is quite right here: do we mean that mutineers demanded lands as a form of donative?

They demanded lands as a pretext for a cash donative as in I say I want land but actually I want a bribe. Ifly6 (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah: so they never really expected to receive the lands? If so, suggest expanding a little and clarifying. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

That feels like what the word "pretext" in this sentence would mean. Ifly6 (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't clear to me when I read it; it's possible that I'm the only one who'd fail to see the intended meaning, but I doubt it. Pretext is itself an often-misunderstood word. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Historiography

• largely in the interest of creating exempla (moral parables) of traditions broken rather than conveying historical events: I think the antithesis here is a little strong: would suggest removing the second part, as Val. Max. would probably have argued that the two were one and the same. It's certainly not a distinction that any Roman historian would have recognised, and an increasingly problematic one in modern historiography (with apologies to poor old Ranke).

I'm rather sure this distinction still carries weight. It's also what's in cited Cadiou. That Val Max's claims are thought of poorly and with history contorted into his framework is well established. See Gowing 2005, the introduction to Val Max in the recent Loebs, etc. Whether or not Val Max would have recognised this distinction is irrelevant; modern historians don't think Tiberius Gracchus (or was it Gaius) tried to overthrow the senate as Val Max claims. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Happy if cited, though I'll put this one into the spot checks. Since the various 'Turns' (linguistic and social) of the tail end of the last century, historians (and ancient historians in particular) are pretty wary of the idea that there exists an 'objective' historian narrative (wie es eigentlich gewesen), and that historians are either stating facts or displaying their nasty, tricky biases. Every source has a perspective and will be influenced by that perspective even when simply reporting things that are true (how do you choose which truths to report, in what order, and with what language?). A fairly simple fix would be just to delete rather than conveying historical events. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

My translation the relevant portion of of Cadiou 2018 p 88:

Thus, on closer inspection, most of the texts mentioning the dilectus of 107 do not make the levy as such the object of their discourse, but use the trace of it in the collective memory as a pretext to formulate moral considerations which, in reality, constitute their real subject (ambitio for Sallust; consuetudo for Valerius Maximus) or which arise from the most stereotypical observations of the political imagination (acting bono publico in Exuperantius; the drift of superbia for John the Lydian). However, the discursive practices of ancient authors – whether they are historians, biographers, or rhetoricians – do not guarantee that these interpretations necessarily have a direct relationship with the historical fact on which they claim to be based.

Ifly6 (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• Much of this work, however, did not carry over into the Anglophone scholarship until the 1980s / The British classicist Peter Brunt, in his 1971 book Italian Manpower, also questioned the extent to which Polybius' descriptions reflected the army of the mid-second century: these two sentences don't quite fit together. Was Brunt a radical outlier in 1971, or had he only taken on part of the revisionist view?

Omitted. Ifly6 (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• William Harris: who and when was he?

Harris is a classics professor at Columbia. I've now noted the citation that F makes. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

A small nit: William Vernon Harris, an American classicist, first showed in 1979 means that the first time Harris showed it was in 1979, but I think we mean that Harris was the first to show it, and that he did so in 1979. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Omitted. Ifly6 (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• this recast Marius' call in 107BC for volunteers as Numidia not being a rich eastern kingdom on which Roman armies could engorge themselves: this is a bit confusing. I think phrasing it in the positive (that is, getting rid of the not) would help.

Rephrased. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

this recast Marius' call in 107 BC for volunteers as reflecting enthusiasm emerging from the relative scarcity of expected plunder from Numidia: I no longer understand this (lots of abstract nouns, which might be the problem). Do we mean that Marius called for volunteers because he expected there to be relatively little plunder available in Numidia (and therefore that soldiers weren't signing up in their usual numbers)? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Do we mean that Marius called for volunteers because he expected there to be relatively little plunder available in Numidia (and therefore that soldiers weren't signing up in their usual numbers)? Yes. Ifly6 (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

OK: suggest clarifying if you haven't already done so. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• and the bidding wars for military loyalty that waged concurrently with the actual fighting: this could be clearer: in particular, we could establish the extent to which bidding wars is (not) a metaphor.

I used bidding wars because it is not a metaphor. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, it's inherently a metaphor (most auctions don't involve generals, divisions and bloodshed): since it's so commonly used in a more figurative sense, we might consider being absolutely explicit that we mean "generals making attempts to secure their soldiers' loyalty through gifts and donatives" (ideally phrased a little more snappily than I've just managed). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

How about generals' attempts to secure military loyalty with pay increases? Ifly6 (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

If accurate: in my head, I think of donatives here, but those might be more an imperial-period thing. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Citations

• MOS:TITLECAPS would like title case (The History of Rome, not The history of Rome) at least for book and journal titles in English, though some style guides do otherwise for chapter and article titles.

• In note 92, we have the unsourced statement Rüstow's book became the main progenitor of the comprehensive Marian reforms hypothesis, likely because it was written in German instead of Latin.

It's not unsourced. Note 92: Faszcza 2021, p. 21. Rüstow's book became the main progenitor of the comprehensive Marian reforms hypothesis, likely because it was written in German instead of Latin. Ifly6 (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah: is that sentence cited to Faszcza 2021, p21? The full stop implies otherwise. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

It's in the same note. Ifly6 (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but it's the equivalent of citing the sentence before if you put a period/full stop after it. To indicate that it supports the sentence after, you use a colon. Even less ambiguous would be a footnote within a footnote. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Resolved. Ifly6 (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• Strongly advise against the abbreviation et seq, both for accessibility and for precision: giving a definite range is much better.

Image review

• File:Friedrich Wilhelm Rüstow.jpg needs a tag for the original work.

There are no leads as to the publication date of the "original" photograph. We should bring this to GAR discussion. Ifly6 (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what there is to discuss: the key to the US copyright is the date of publication (see here). If it had never been published before 2003, you could use PD-US-unpublished, but as we know it was published in 1935, that won't wash. Alternatively, if you can find the 1935 publication and show that it doesn't have a copyright notice, and that its author's life plus 70 years ended before 1996, you can use PD-1996. Very happy for you to call on a second opinion if you'd like. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Rüstow's 1857 book Geschichte der Infanterie ("History of the Infantry") was highly influential in spreading the myth of comprehensive Marian reforms.

Removed the image of Rüstow. I sent a message to the Swiss National Library as to whether they have higher quality images of the man. If they get back I might add something of the sort back. There is simply no way to prove, without onerous archival research, anything about the original publication date of the image. Ifly6 (talk) 05:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Spot checks (sourcing, TSI, plagiarism)

Earwig's happy: it flags up a few bits of overlap with online sources, but those are limited to the fact that both have cited the same sources. I can't see anything on the CLOP side to be concerned about at this stage.

In each case, could I have the direct quotation for the sourced material. I don't need translations from French, but would appreciate them from Polish.

• Note 17 Under the this scheme, the proletarii were exempt from conscription except when an emergency, called a tumultus, was declared; under such circumstances, the poorest were levied as well. The first documented instance of the proletarii being called up was some time in the fourth century; they first received arms at state expense in c. 281 BC, at the start of the Pyrrhic War. (OCD 4).

An emergency levy (tumultuarius dilectus) was the only time that *proletarii (citizens who fell below the military census qualification for military service) could be enrolled (Gell. 16. 10. 11–13), and on a famous occasion, probably the invasion of *Pyrrhus in 281 BCE, they were for the first time armed at public expense (Enn., Ann. 170–2 Skutsch; Cassius Hemina fr. 21 Peter). Ifly6 (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

All good except that I don't understand where our circa has crept in: circa is a matter of precision rather than accuracy, and the OCD seems certain that 281 is the precise date for the arming if it were indeed related to Pyrrhus' invasion. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I've confirmed that the date given in Cassius Hemina fr 21 Peter is exactly 281 BC per Quintus Marcius Philippus (consul 281 BC). Ifly6 (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

As I understand the source, it's clear that, if the first arming was during the Pyrrhic War, it was definitely 281 BC, but it's only "probably" certain that those two events go together. We've collapsed that in the article and need to phrase it a little less confidently (more or less as the source does would be fine, as the phrasing is so quotidian) to maintain WP:TSI. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Done. Ifly6 (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

I had talked to Taylor. There are no in-depth historiographies in English. Rafferty recommended Cadiou, already cited, but Cadiou's historiographical section in the introduction goes only back to the late 19th century. Ifly6 (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't have current access to the original Cadiou in French; the only place nearby that has it is the Library of Congress. I wrote for myself an English translation, however. Ifly6 (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

We can do the checks without Caidou: it's not ideal to have to take the article's main source on faith, but it is what it is. Ignore those for now; let's work through what we've got here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Review template

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   There are some points above for clarity, grammar and MOS, but nothing that should hold up a pass per the GA standards.

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   With the caveat that I've only been able to check a major source at second hand (and that only thanks to the nominator's very assiduous translation of it), I have no reason for concern here.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   This is now sorted, and I appreciate the nominator's patience with what can be an arcane and counter-intuitive area of the rules and the law.

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   y

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

   A credit to the encyclopaedia: the nominator (and their collaborators) have taken an article which was badly outdated and situated it right at the cutting edge of contemporary scholarship.

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

So what of the gaping hole?

It's a good article, but while it casts doubt on the traditional modern historiography of the "Marian reforms", it never offers an alternative. So if there never was one specific set of monumental reforms, the question becomes, did the changes ever occur at all? And if so, of what nature were they, exactly?

Currently, only the very last two paragraphs of the article attempt an explanation (section: Contemporary historiography). But I'm still left with the feeling of a gaping hole after all the critique has been done. Or is it simply the case, as one of the sources states, that we just don't have an alternative? Just don't know? "Cadiou has not given us a coherent new account of the late republican army, but he has demolished the old one."

If so, this could be made explicit, so that an amateur hobbyist like me could sleep in peace without the nagging feeling like they've missed something. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 13:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

"Marian" "reforms"

"Reform"	c. 100 BC	Marius?	Ever?
Army proletarianisation (Big bad client armies)	N	Y
Equipment changes	N	Y
State-purchased equipment	N	N
More training	N	N	Y–
Bye bye horsies	N	N	Y+
Cohorts > maniples	Y	N	Y=
Land for veterans	N	Y	Y+
Citizenship for veterans	N	Y	Y+

The topic of how the Roman army turned from its middle republican form to the early imperial form – most especially in terms of recruitment – is still the subject of research; the focus now is on later periods rather than on Marius. There were changes in the late republic: the maniple, for example, does seem to have disappeared in the late 2nd or early 1st century but that did not have to do with Marius.

The issue of broader reforms is more problematic. Going through the list of reforms I want to tally two different columns, whether it occurred around 100 BC and whether Marius was responsible, which I've put at right. Sometimes a "reform" happens as a one-off event; I mark these as N. If Marius was at all connected with an event resembling the tag I mark it Y though some of these really should be ?. These tallies are a bit subjective and I'm sure reasonable people could disagree.

Putting it in a table like this I think most clearly shows why there aren't "Marian" "reforms". The thesis of the "Marian" "reforms" is that there were broad reforms, which stuck, initiated by Marius during his consulships between 107–100. There are some reforms around 100 BC but they are not Marian. And what is Marian is not a reform around 100 BC.

Perhaps to fill the "gaping hole", I would stress that what remains after Cadiou is an emphasis on continuities. I've added the column Ever? to mark reforms that happened but not around 100 BC: it is not always perfectly clear when they happened but it was not around 100 BC; the superscripts mark whether they happened before or after 100 BC. How they should be thought of, however, is as evolutionary expediencies or accretions taken step-by-step to solve immediate problems rather than as some monumental project by one visionary man. Ifly6 (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. This is about what I gleaned. The sad thing is, that while Marius' reforms may have been a total fantasy, they were a neat point of reference to read up on the changes in the army. I guess this is touched upon more in the Roman Army wiki, but that doesn't seem to go into all that much depth either.

Out of curiosity, why is "State-purchased equipment" unticked? Is there a possibility that it never happened? MrThe1And0nly (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Tacitus records complaints at the accession of Tiberius from soldiers about how their pay was being docked to pay for clothing and other expenses. It's cited in the article as Tac. Ann. 1.17.6: ten asses a day is the value set on life and limb; out of this, clothing, arms, tents, as well as the mercy of centurions and exemptions from duty have to be purchased. Ifly6 (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Tone and flow problems

I question the staggering number of words like "supposed," "alleged," "putative," etc. I get having disclaimers at the start of disputed topics, but not every sentence. It's really just too much. It stops the flow and comes across like someone has an ax to grind.

Foregrounding the current skepticism this much leaves it unclear what this article is even about. Is this an article about a period in Roman history that was later subject to exaggeration and myth making, or about a 19th Century just-so story that's bad and wrong and here's why?

I'd like to see the narrative cleaned up and tackled chronologically with a neutral POV. 98.176.69.41 (talk) 02:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no period in Roman history which the phrase "Marian reforms" would describe. The consensus among historians today is that the "Marian reforms" as described in the 19th century did not exist at almost every level. Composing this reply itself raises the wording issue you brought: I initially tried to write the article is about the reforms but this is not accurate since they did not exist; I therefore must write the article is about the supposed reforms.

The alternative is a misleading article. Eg there was an edit which recast the article into description of reforms that actually happened. That was a mistake that emerges from the extent to which the "Marian reforms" are ingrained in popular culture (Rome: Total War). The neutral POV is what the modern reliable sources say: they say the "Marian reforms" did not exist. Readers are best served by a reflection of the scholarship and not their misunderstandings. Ifly6 (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

We could quibble the word "alleged" (which sounds like a crime; I quite liked "putative", which is much closer in meaning to "reconstructed" or "hypothetical"), but User:Ifly6 is quite right that this is an article about a myth -- or, at least, an outdated historical construct. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

"Historical construct" works pretty well for the 19th/20th Century elaborations. My main issue is that Marius did have a long and influential consulship and there are several reforms (or at least "actions") attributed to him by classical sources. The article seems to neglect the historical Marius and our best sources for him. I especially take issue with starting a section with "Beyond the attribution to Marius of setting the precedent for recruiting the poor, made by the historian Valerius Maximus in the early 1st century AD." Why are we immediately moving "beyond" an important near-contempory source suggesting an early origin to the "reform" narrative? In general, this article seems overly focused on puncturing the myth that emerged around Marius later rather than probing its origins.

As for the POV issues, I think the vast number of citations pointing back to a handful of authors (Cadiou, Taylor, and Gauthier, Faszcza especially) poses a problem. I recognize that this is an evolving topic of scholarship and using the latest sources is important. I applaud the work put into tracking down and translating publications, but the reference list sometimes has the same person cited 5 or 6 times in a row, which is unusual to see on wiki articles of this quality. 98.176.69.41 (talk) 03:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The basic principle at work here is WP:DUEWEIGHT, which says that the balance of material in the article should reflect the balance of how the topic is covered in high-quality, reliable, secondary (WP:HQRS) sources. Hopefully that answers the question of why are we immediately moving "beyond" an important near-contempory source suggesting an early origin to the "reform" narrative?: that's exactly what Wikipedia's policies tell us to do, given that no high-quality, scholarly treatment today takes that primary source at face value. Similarly, if modern scholars have published works probing the origins of the "Marian Reforms" narrative, we should use and cite them, but we can't do that if they haven't (this is the policy against using research that has not appeared in print elsewhere). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

(Hi again. Same armchair critic from five months ago, but I made an account.)

So there's no secondary source for what Valerius Maximus had to say about Marius? Not even from Taylor himself? That strikes me as unlikely. I feel like the more encyclopediac way to present sections like that would be to provide a neutral statement of fact "Valerius Maximus writing in the 1st Century AD said..." and then follow that up with whatever additional commentary, qualification, or modern assessment is appropriate, preferably from multiple perspectives.

As written, it comes across as someone (Taylor?) breezily dismissing a relevant source that's inconvenient for the argument being made (and make no mistake, the style is argumentative). If Valerius is unreliable, misleading, or irrelevant, the article doesn't say so. I didn't know no one takes it at "face value." Why not? Perhaps that would be a good thing to address in the article. Duxbag (talk) 06:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm greatly unclear as to what you want the article to say. Can you provide a proposal?

But as to someone (Taylor?) breezily dismissing a relevant source that's inconvenient for the argument being made the statement that it exists is in an introduction; what follows is a presentation of consensus describing how "the idea of a wide-ranging 'Marian reform' that permanently abolished property qualifications for military service has recently [as of 2020] been thoroughly rebutted" (Gauthier 2020 p 283 with citations). What you seem to want(?) is under the next heading since that's just introductory material. Ifly6 (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Why is Valerius Maximus referenced in introductory material and never brought up again though? Shouldn't the source's claim and sigificance (or lack thereof) be adressed directly, rather than in passing? Anyway, that intro reads as argumentative largely because of it's "Beyond, [...] only [...]" structure. The "beyond" dismisses while the "only" minimizes. The same construction is repeated later in the section as well. The crux of the POV issue seems to lie in segments like that where the article itself is picking sides in an academic debate rather than letting the sources do the talking. If only one side is supported by evidence, a neutral presentation of evidemce should make that clear.

It's OK if other people disagree with me. I don't want to run this into the ground, especially since this article is already better than many. I might go in and snip the extraneous "onlys," but I'm more of a reader than an editor, so I'll leave any bigger decisions to people with more experience and subject knowledge/access to sources. Thanks for hearing me out. Duxbag (talk) 11:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll need to have a proper look at Taylor to have a considered opinion here, but I do think we need something to the effect of "none of the other changes lumped under the 'Marian reforms' by 19th-century historians have any basis in ancient sources". However, the substance of the change is good, I think: it's always better to keep the editorial voice subtle and use the facts to bring the reader onto the conclusion. To me, the paragraph above that header is a bigger problem -- it seems to imply that modern (ie, 21st century) historians think that the Marian reforms were a Thing, which is the opposite of what it should say. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

So I was all set drop this but after re-wording the Valerius Maximus bit, I noticed a much more serious issue which is that that intro to the Ancient Attributions section doesn't mention Sallust at all, despite him being much earlier (and more notable) than Valerius and his being quoted extensively in the Historiography section describing a terrible breach of "the manner of our forefathers." So the statement that the only sources for Marian reform were Valerius and people writing "centuries later" was highly dubious and contradicted elsewhere in the article. I took out the "only" at least, but it still feels like it needs a revision to include Sallust. The bit about Marius' "Mules" also possibly belongs in the ancient attributions section rather than the the modern one since it's based on "ancient sources," but that ones a little more vague to me. Duxbag (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed on Sallust: I was ready to say "that's an action, not a reform", but then we call it just that in the section below. At least one of these needs to change, depending on whether Sallust couches that as "Marius changed the way that the Roman army operates" or "Marius did something once; it was odd then but it's normal now." UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess it sort of depends whether the change "stuck," at least in Sallust's opinion. I'm also noticing that the Ancient Attributions section does mention Sallust later in the "proletarianization" section, but without properly introducing him, so it seems more like an oversight than deliberate omision. I'm inclined to say Sallust is highly notable and deserves pride of place as it's quite possible that Valerius and all the rest were drawing from him. The whole "reforms" myth might have all started out as "Marius changed it, now it sucks!" Duxbag (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The reason why I picked Val Max 2.3.1 instead of Sall Iug 86 was because, as UndercoverClassicist mentions, Sallust's presentation is essentially this is a thing that happened. This contrasts to Val Max 2.3.1 which in Walker 2004's translation says This old tradition [of assidiui-only service] was in force for a long time and was well established by then, but Marius abolished it by enlisting men without property as soldiers. The difference is basically that Sallust never says it was a reform (contra one-time expedient); Val Max does. The difference also matters. During the Second Punic War the proletarii were called to service as an expedient or one-off (something Val Max just happens to omit); no similar proletarianisation thesis emerged around that. That Marius' volunteers were dismissed promptly and, when he fought the Cimbri, he then took a normal army levied in the normal way also is part of the recent rejection of "Marian" "reforms". Ifly6 (talk) 23:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's our job to decide what constitutes a "reform," especially when so many of our other sources are interpreting Sallust that way. We as the voice of wikipedia don't have to agree with that interpretation. At all. But I think introducing Sallust earlier and describing his actual claim will help readers know what we're talking about later on. Anyway, thanks for hearing me out. Kudos on all the good work so far. 98.176.69.41 (talk) 08:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's our job to decide what constitutes a "reform": indeed -- we have to fall in line with what the secondary sources do. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

L' armée imaginaire

How reliable is this as definite fact? While the position that their were no specific Marian reforms seems correct by wider histography, a huge amount of core positions in this page (e.g. poverty of legionnaires didn't exist and most legionaires were actually still 1st and 2nd class landowners) seem to derive explicitly from this book, despite the fact that much of the books content seems to be opinion rather than explicit histography. Many cases seems to take a position of "because this fact isn't 100% true in all cases, it must be 100% false in all cases).... 90.91.194.4 (talk) 09:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The book is a high quality reliable source that is well accepted by scholars. The distinction created in this comment, between "opinion" (that describes everything) and whatever "explicit historiography" is, isn't relevant for Wikipedia's content and sourcing requirements. The arguments given are in the book; Wikipedia is a summary, largely of conclusions, not a copyright infringing translation of the book. Ifly6 (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)