Pathetic Historical Characters

[Che Roriniho]

Diocletian? Try Marius.

Lulwut? Without him, The empire wouldn't existed beyond Italy and some of Africa. not much of a big deal. But the whole of the Med? THAT'S a big deal. Why change a formula that works? When the emporer came along, just ive him an army twice the size of the others under his direct command.

[Hax]

Seriously, let's not get into religion here.

Each to his own thoughts. Yes, Christianity has caused a lot of pain and desolation in this world. Actually, I think that the power-mad idiots who said themselves to be christians and used men with weak wills to do what they wanted.

[Juggernaut]

Why change a formula that works?

You see, there were these little dudes called the Sassanids...

[Tellos Athenaios]

Lulwut? Without him, The empire wouldn't existed beyond Italy and some of Africa. not much of a big deal. But the whole of the Med? THAT'S a big deal. Why change a formula that works? When the emporer came along, just ive him an army twice the size of the others under his direct command.

I don't think PVC meant "Marius was a pathetic historical figure who made the Roman Empire lose it all"; rather he meant that with Marius (and his civil war against Sulla) the whole deal of slow desintegration started. (And in fact Diocletian didn't either: he rigidly cut the freedom of the individual 'officers' who had been doing whatever they pleased, often leading to civil revolts or outright civil wars. So he changed the problem from a politic/loyalty/authority one to an economy one, arguably one the Roman Empire was in no shape to tackle. <_<)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't think PVC meant "Marius was a pathetic historical figure who made the Roman Empire lose it all"; rather he meant that with Marius (and his civil war against Sulla) the whole deal of slow desintegration started. (And in fact Diocletian didn't either: he rigidly cut the freedom of the individual 'officers' who had been doing whatever they pleased, often leading to civil revolts or outright civil wars. So he changed the problem from a politic/loyalty/authority one to an economy one, arguably one the Roman Empire was in no shape to tackle. <_<)

Bingo, couldn't have said it better. To expand slightly, by changing the conditions of service without the necessary idiological or constitutional changes required to deal with the political fallout Marius paved the way for an unconstitutional tyranny in the form of the dictators Sulla and Caesar, which then led to the Principate, a nominally elected monarchy which short circuted the Republican institutions without actually properly reforming them. Once the army realised that it, and only it, could make the Emperor it began making them whenever it became unhappy, which led to the century of Civil Wars. The result was Diocletian and the Dominate.

It's like a massive domino effect.

[QuintusSertorius]

Arguably the disintegration of the Republic started with Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, not Marius. Marius was simply able to capitalise on what Gracchus had already begun. That being the creation of political consciousness amongst the lowest orders of the plebs, the same people Marius would come to recruit from.