Literature about Marian Reforms

[Lysandros]

Hallo everyone,
as I know there are others on the forum who are into ancient history also on an academic level, I thought I could ask here if anyone can recommend literature about the Marian Reforms. I am writing a paper about it and I had difficulties in finding preferably up-to-date literature on the topic. What I have found and read so far is:

More important:
Emilio Gabba: Republican Rome, the Army and the Allies (Translated by P. J. Cuff), Oxford 1976.
Peter A. Brunt: Italian Manpower 225 B. C. – A. D. 14, Oxford 1971.

Less important:
Lukas de Blois: The Roman army and politics in the first century before Christ, Amsterdam 1987.
Thomas F. Carney: A biography of C. Marius, Chicago 1970.
Volker Werner: Quantum bello optimus, tantum pace pessimus: Studien zum Mariusbild in der antiken Geschichtsschreibung, Bonn 1995.

Any help is gladly appreciated!

[QuintusSertorius]

In his section on "Marius' Mules" in In the Name of Rome, Goldsworth references L. Keppie, The Making of the Roman Army (1984), Gabba as you've already mentioned, and F. Smith Service in the Post-Marian Roman Army (Manchester, 1958).

[Lysandros]

Thanks a lot, I found Keppie's book in the library's catalogue! Anyone else?

[cmacq]

Have you read the original source material, because these are what the above are based on? After you become familiar with these, you may find that often a modern author’s ideas about the past simply don’t hold up. Also if you do get copies of the sources, make sure they are recent translations.

[QuintusSertorius]

Appian, Sallust and Plutarch are the main sources Goldsworthy used on Marius.

[Lysandros]

Yes, I know what you mean, cmaq. I do have original sources: Gaius Sallustius Crispus, Appianus of Alexandria and Plutarch's Parallel Lives. But I have to present modern opinions about the topic, too...
Edit: seems as if Goldsworthy used the same sources ;)

[konny]

Have you read the original source material, because these are what the above are based on? After you become familiar with these, you may find that often a modern author’s ideas about the past simply don’t hold up. Also if you do get copies of the sources, make sure they are recent translations.

I wouldn't advise to start with reading single Ancient texts without aquiring a decent knowledge of the subject beforehand. That on the other hand is only possible by starting with secondary texts before. The reason is that the modern author (preferably the standard work of a renowned scholar, not to old) does usally much more information on the subject than the Ancient source reveals, by other texts, archeology, numismatic and such. And he might (should) provide you with background information about the Ancient author that could turn out to be important in understanding the ancient text.

In a second step one should read the primary texts (or decide that the topic is not worth devoting more time into) and either conclude or disapprove with the modern authors' conclusions.