Talk:Marian reforms
 | Marian reforms has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: July 18, 2023. (Reviewed version). |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sources
[edit]Sources would be well appreciated. Lucius Domitius 20:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Marian??
[edit]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 think its more likely that its an anglicised name of Marius. I much prefer Marius though. --
- 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
[edit]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
[edit]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
[edit]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
[edit]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
[edit]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".[1][2]
"The property qualification for army service had become nearly meaningless by 107" with exemptions from the property qualifications becoming commonplace and recurrent.[3] Marius's recruitment reforms simply made plain what had been for some time commonplace,[3] out of need for men or simply the expediency of calling up urban volunteers rather than conscripting farmers.[4] There also is no evidence that Marius introduced the cohort.
Soldiers and veterans were not permanent clients of their generals.[5] Defections were common. Having some oath of loyalty was symbolic more of a general's lack of security than actual loyalty.[6] The Roman army was not professionalised,[7] nor was there any break between military and civilian service.[8] Ifly6 (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ Gruen 1995, p. xvii.
- ^ Brunt, P. A. (1962). "The Army and the Land in the Roman Revolution". The Journal of Roman Studies. 52: 69–86. doi:10.2307/297878. ISSN 0075-4358.
- ^ a b Evans 1995, p. 91.
- ^ Evans 1995, p. 92.
- ^ Gruen 1995, pp. 377–78.
- ^ Gruen 1995, p. 376.
- ^ Gruen 1995, p. 379.
- ^ Gruen 1995, p. 381.
- 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
[edit]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"
[edit]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
[edit]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
[edit]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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- 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
[edit]Resolved matters
|
|---|
|
Comments before formal review
[edit]Lead/General
[edit]- 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
[edit]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 likeHowever, 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)
- I'm afraid I now find this sentence (
- Added a mention of the three figures. Ifly6 (talk) 21:24, 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)
Attributed reforms
[edit]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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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 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)
- 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)
- 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 suggestbefore 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)
- I don't think having c. is an issue. Ifly6 (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- The only one that's a problem is
- 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)
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.
- Added
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)
- That feels like what the word "pretext" in this sentence would mean. Ifly6 (talk) 19:10, 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)
- 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)
Historiography
[edit]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:
Ifly6 (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)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.
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- A small nit:
- Harris is a classics professor at Columbia. I've now noted the citation that F makes. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 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)
- Rephrased. Ifly6 (talk) 16:00, 13 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)
- How about
- I used
Citations
[edit]- 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)
- 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)
- It's in the same note. Ifly6 (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- It's not unsourced. Note 92:
- Strongly advise against the abbreviation et seq, both for accessibility and for precision: giving a definite range is much better.
Image review
[edit]- 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)
- 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)
[edit]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)
- 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)
- 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)
Discussion
[edit]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
[edit]GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
- It is reasonably well written.
- 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.
- a. (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a. (major aspects):
- b. (focused):
- a. (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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
- a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- 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.
- Pass/fail:
(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?
[edit]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."[2]
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)
| "Reform" | c. 100 BC | Marius? | Ever? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Army proletarianisation (Big bad client armies) |
 |
 |
|
| Equipment changes | |
|
|
| State-purchased equipment | |
|
|
| More training | |
|
–
|
| Bye bye horsies | |
|
+
|
| Cohorts > maniples | |
|
=
|
| Land for veterans | |
|
+
|
| Citizenship for veterans | |
|
+
|
- 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
. If Marius was at all connected with an event resembling the tag I mark it 
though some of these really should be 
. These tallies are a bit subjective and I'm sure reasonable people could disagree.
.jpg){kind=link}
- 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)
- 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:
References
- ^ Faszcza 2021, p. 21.
- ^ Rafferty, David (2021). "Review of "L'armée imaginaire: les soldats prolétaires dans les légions romaines au dernier siècle de la République"". Bryn Mawr Classical Review. ISSN 1055-7660.
Tone and flow problems
[edit]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 writethe 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?
- 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
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- But as to
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
[edit]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)
Categories:
- Wikipedia good articles
- Warfare good articles
- GA-Class military history articles
- GA-Class Roman and Byzantine military history articles
- Roman and Byzantine military history task force articles
- GA-Class Classical warfare articles
- Classical warfare task force articles
- GA-Class Classical Greece and Rome articles
- Mid-importance Classical Greece and Rome articles
- All WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome pages
- GA-Class European history articles
- Mid-importance European history articles
- All WikiProject European history pages