Plus an equivalent number of auxilliaries.

Yeah but the patricians bought up all the land in Italy that was decent. Those soldiers had to move on. Of course the army changed over time and was a force crom the empire. Not Rome. Very different soldiers to those commanded by Caesar.

That was what triggered the Marian Reforms of the late 2d century BC. 

After Arausio when they went to the cupboard for more soldiers they found it bare.  Arming the urban mob seemed like a better solution than letting the Germans overrun Italy even if it did spell the death knell of the republic... which was an oligarchy in reality.

Similar to the situation we 21st century 'murricans find ourselves today.

(August 1, 2016 at 10:23 pm)Banjo Wrote: Yeah but the patricians  bought up all the land in Italy that was decent. Those soldiers had to move on. Of course the army changed over time and was a force crom the empire. Not Rome. Very different soldiers to those commanded by  Caesar.

The main difference happened before Caesar.   Under both Caesar and the emperors, the army consisted of long serving professional soldiers who mostly came from the bottom of the social ladder, who sought military service as a means to a more secure social and economic position in later life (sounds familiar to Americans?), who owes absolutely nothing to social and political stability in the empire, and who benefits if their own general usurps the throne.  Sure, under Caesar most legionaries were Italians.  Later they would be mostly provencial.  But the outlook and motivations of the caesar's Italians and commodus' provincials were the same.

But prior to Marius around 40 years before Caesar, things were very different.  The army consisted of what is essentially a militia force drawn as needed from the properties classes of the Roman republic.  These men didn't need the army for financial and social security in later life.  They served because they owned property, and as a result, their family welfare owned its security to the security of the Roman state, which safeguarded those rights and properties.  These men had little incentive to favor revolts and disruption to the established social and political order, such as their own general ursurping the throne.  They were there to defend the established social and political order because they already had a passable position in those orders, and were more likely to lose out the to win if the social and political order were shattered.  These legionaries were mostly not just Italian, but Roman.   Furthermore, in outlook, they were totally different from later legionaries, whether Italian or provencial.

Yes, but Banjo is correct about the mechanism of the change.  Before the 2d Punic War there were relatively few slaves in Italy, south of the Po.  This was Roman dominated territory and the military was drawn in classes based on citizen wealth.  Most were farmers and after planting and before harvest there was always plenty of men who wanted a little adventure and maybe a chance to pick up some loot with the army.  But the 2d Punic War was effectively a world war by the time it ended and Roman armies were kept in the field for far longer than they had been before.  After the 3d Punic War, with any possible threat of Carthage eliminated we began to see large numbers of slaves brought to Italy.  As noted, the Patricians bought out the small farmers and combined the plots into large estates and worked them with slaves.  The displaced farmers moved to the city and formed the basis of the urban mob.  They soon went through the money they had been paid and were destitute. Unable to meet the demands of the censors they dropped in class and were no longer designated to serve as one of the major formations of the republican army - Hastati, Principes, Triarii, Equites.  People did notice what was going on.  Famously the Gracchi brothers, Tiberius and Gaius, agitated for land reform but the nobility found it easier to kill them.

After the Battle of Arausio the state found itself unable to replace battle losses because there were no yeomen farmers to draw from.  Marius stepped forward to reform the army but he quickly learned that they other uses than fighting barbarians.  Twenty years later Marius and L. Cornelius Sulla were using their personal armies to slaughter each other.  And the republic was doomed.

I'm learning a lot from this discussion. Thanks to all involved and please do continue.

It is not quite fair to blame the Teutones and the Cimbri for everything that happened to Rome's military.  The Senate did a fairly good job of fucking things up on its own.

In 146 BC, the Romans captured and burned Carthage AND Corinth ending two wars.  The Romans had been deeply involved in Greek politics since the late stages of the 2d Punic War ( ended 202 BC) and in spite of the lofty promises of Titus Quinctius Flamininus who proclaimed liberty for the Greek states in 196 the Romans kept being dragged back in to the constant machinations of the various Greek leagues and the Macedonians.  By the time Mummius sacked and leveled Corinth the Romans were saying to the Greeks "fuck you, we've had it.  Now do what you're told."

Still Rome was at peace in 146 in spite of the fact that Italy was filling with slaves as a result of her conquests in the proceeding 50+ years.  The economic/social ramifications of that has already been discussed.  But it did not last.  Revolts broke out in Spain in in 143 and continued in a series of up and downs until 132.  IN the same year, a serious slave revolt that had broken out on Sicily in 135 was also suppressed.  In 133 Attalus of Pergamum dies and bequeaths his kingdom to Rome.  This involves the Romans in small scale warfare in Asia Minor.
Beginning around 123 the Romans are dragged into wars in Gaul when their allies call for assistance.  Just as that calmed down in about 116 the Romans were involved in Illyria (Serbia)
and then in North Africa Jugurtha started in on his career.  The Jugurthine War breaks out c 110.  In 105 the dreadful disaster of Arausio occurs and in 104 a Second Slave Revolt begins in Sicily.  While all this was going on abroad there were the serious internal political struggles between the Optimates and the Populares ripping at the fabric of Roman society.

With all of this, and the depletion of the ranks of Roman citizens to serve in the legions, we have now reached the point where Rome ran out of men.

And in the first century - things did not get a whole lot better.

(August 1, 2016 at 10:34 pm)Minimalist Wrote: That was what triggered the Marian Reforms of the late 2d century BC. 

After Arausio when they went to the cupboard for more soldiers they found it bare.  Arming the urban mob seemed like a better solution than letting the Germans overrun Italy even if it did spell the death knell of the republic... which was an oligarchy in reality.

Similar to the situation we 21st century 'murricans find ourselves today.

So many citizens had perished in earlier wars. The second Punic war devastated the "Roman" citizenry. 30,000 at Trasimene, 60,000 at Cannae. By the time Iulius was in Gaul many soldiers were regular folk.

Everything I read underneath is correct too. The Gracci etc.

Rome simply ran out of Romans and then as the empire grew Africans, Greeks, anyone could be in the legion. Later they hired mercenaries. Especially in the east. 

That of course was centuries later.

One of the promises Caesar made to form his leadership was to offer his men land, and the citizens jobs whereas they had been "taken" by slaves. Caesar was the "Man of the people" and many fell for it.

Mind you, who else would work the lead mines but slaves?

Later those same soldiers felt cheated, civil wars and strife. Down went the Republic. All hail Octavian.

(August 2, 2016 at 12:45 am)Minimalist Wrote: Yes, but Banjo is correct about the mechanism of the change.  Before the 2d Punic War there were relatively few slaves in Italy, south of the Po.  This was Roman dominated territory and the military was drawn in classes based on citizen wealth.  Most were farmers and after planting and before harvest there was always plenty of men who wanted a little adventure and maybe a chance to pick up some loot with the army.

There's also a social element to it. The big landowners simply stole the land of the poor farmers serving in the military while they were away. That had two effects. One, a rising number of people being thrown into poverty and the wealthy class needing more and more cheap labor to toil their fields. It was one of the contributing factor for the rise of slavery.

(August 2, 2016 at 3:17 am)Banjo Wrote:

(August 1, 2016 at 10:34 pm)Minimalist Wrote: That was what triggered the Marian Reforms of the late 2d century BC. 

After Arausio when they went to the cupboard for more soldiers they found it bare.  Arming the urban mob seemed like a better solution than letting the Germans overrun Italy even if it did spell the death knell of the republic... which was an oligarchy in reality.

Similar to the situation we 21st century 'murricans find ourselves today.

So many citizens had perished in earlier wars. The second Punic war devastated the "Roman" citizenry. 30,000 at Trasimene, 60,000 at Cannae. By the time Iulius was in Gaul many soldiers were regular folk.

Everything I read underneath is correct too. The Gracci etc.

Rome simply ran out of Romans and then as the empire grew Africans, Greeks, anyone could be in the legion. Later they hired mercenaries. Especially in the east. 

That of course was centuries later.

One of the promises Caesar made to form his leadership was to offer his men land, and the citizens jobs whereas they had been "taken" by slaves. Caesar was the "Man of the people" and many fell for it.

Mind you, who else would work the lead mines but slaves?

Later those same soldiers felt cheated, civil wars and strife. Down went the Republic. All hail Octavian.

2nd Punic war didn't deplete Rome's eligible manpower. Rome continued to be able to field fully manned militia army for wars on multiple fronts through the 3rd Punic war. Later social and economic factors alluded to earlier depleted the ranks of yoeman farmers, and also made those who remained unwilling to serve. The transition happened way before Caesar, under Marius at around 110BC.

The Roman army had always consisted of "everyday folk". Prior to Marius, the army consisted of Yoeman farmer citizens who had some small property, and the ability to purchase and hand down through the family a set of soldier's equipments. After Marius the army increasing consisted of the dispossessed citizens who can't pay for their own equipment and relied on the state, and their generals, for basic equipment kit.

Even during caesar's wars, not everyone could be in the legionary army. One has to be a Roman citizen. That usually means one had to have been either a true Roman, or from an Italian city long allied with Rome and whose citizens were granted Roman citizenship at the end of the social wars. The phenomenon of a permenant auxiliary army that consisted of non-citizens didn't really arise until after the start of the empire.

Later Roman legionary army didn't really become open to everyone until around AD210, when serverus granted Roman citizenship to all freemen in the empire.