Marian Reform

[maskoolin]

Hi everybody. Please tell me, i m playing as romans in 132 bc now and i ve read that the reform was in 133. so whats the matter with this ?

[MSB]

The reform occurs in 110BC (as it did historically). You just have to wait another 22 years (88 turns) before you get your proffesional Marian Army.

[maskoolin]

okeeee. thats a long time but thank you for the help :)

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

I thought the reforms were in 107BC.

[MSB]

I thought the reforms were in 107BC.

Actually yes they are, sorry.
So you actually have to wait another 25 years (100 turns) to get your proffesional army.

[Avicenna]

At least it's a nice round figure.

Are there going to be constraints on the time you can get the Marian reforms in 0.80? Like in vanilla, where you have to meet criteria X and be at least at year Y or past it before it occurs. Or is it like RTR and just does it once you meet criteria X?

[MSB]

At least it's a nice round figure.

Are there going to be constraints on the time you can get the Marian reforms in 0.80? Like in vanilla, where you have to meet criteria X and be at least at year Y or past it before it occurs. Or is it like RTR and just does it once you meet criteria X?

You should read this:

We have dynamic conditions being worked on right now for all Roman reforms.

That is all I know, it will probably occur like vannila - it will happen after date Y if you have met criteria X.

[Trithemius]

You should read this:

That is all I know, it will probably occur like vannila - it will happen after date Y if you have met criteria X.

Or hopefully just criteria x?

Are there two stages to the Romani reforms? Camillan->Polybian, then Polybian->Marian?

[MSB]

Or hopefully just criteria x?

Are there two stages to the Romani reforms? Camillan->Polybian, then Polybian->Marian?

Thing is if it was to occur after criteria x then you could be having Marian reforms at an unrealistic date. For example the Marius reforms could occur in 199BC if you have completed the criteria.

I have never got this far in an Romani campaign, but I think there is a Marian->Imperial reform round about 14AD, although I am not sure.

[CountArach]

I thought the Imperial Reform was 30 BC with Augustus's ascension to Emperor?

[Trithemius]

Thing is if it was to occur after criteria x then you could be having Marian reforms at an unrealistic date. For example the Marius reforms could occur in 199BC if you have completed the criteria.

"Unrealistic"? If the team decides that the conditions of the historical reforms were x, y, and z and then defines these in the game then surely it is not unrealistic to allow the reforms to be enacted when these conditions are met, rather than also delaying any reforms to a minimum date? If the Republic expands twices as fast as it did historically then I don't see a problem in having reforms occur "early" - in fact this would be a major bonus to me! It would make the reforms more "realistic". Alternatively, if the Republic remained small then perhaps the neccessary conditions might never emerge, resulting in no reforms.

To me this truly dynamic model for reform triggering is superior to any kind of limitation on the basis of historical continuity.

[Foot]

The problem is that there are some things that cannot be simulated in game. The marian reforms were an answer to a number of things that didn't happen overnight, and some of these issues that plagued the roman army and social system cannot be measured in game, so there may be a need to delay them until after a certain point. However I'm not uptodate on the dynamic reforms code so I don't know what was finally decided.

Foot

[MSB]

I thought the Imperial Reform was 30 BC with Augustus's ascension to Emperor?

Mabye it is, like I said I haven't got that far in a Romani campaign.

"Unrealistic"? If the team decides that the conditions of the historical reforms were x, y, and z and then defines these in the game then surely it is not unrealistic to allow the reforms to be enacted when these conditions are met, rather than also delaying any reforms to a minimum date? If the Republic expands twices as fast as it did historically then I don't see a problem in having reforms occur "early" - in fact this would be a major bonus to me! It would make the reforms more "realistic". Alternatively, if the Republic remained small then perhaps the neccessary conditions might never emerge, resulting in no reforms.

To me this truly dynamic model for reform triggering is superior to any kind of limitation on the basis of historical continuity.

Yes they could occur early, but not too early. Marius reforms occurring in 199BC would just be unrealistic while Marius reforms happening in 155BC would be reasonable. There should be a date restriction on the reforms to prevent what happened in vanilla - reforms in 250BC!

[Trithemius]

The problem is that there are some things that cannot be simulated in game. The marian reforms were an answer to a number of things that didn't happen overnight, and some of these issues that plagued the roman army and social system cannot be measured in game, so there may be a need to delay them until after a certain point. However I'm not uptodate on the dynamic reforms code so I don't know what was finally decided.

Well I sure hope that there are no arbitrary limitations. I might be being extremely materialist but I think that the game can model most of the factors to a tolerable degree.

[Foot]

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...9&postcount=11 not all of these circumstances can be fully represented and so we will probably have to make concessions somewhere (but again I don't know what the final plans are for the reforms).

Foot

[Trithemius]

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...9&postcount=11 not all of these circumstances can be fully represented and so we will probably have to make concessions somewhere (but again I don't know what the final plans are for the reforms).

From the post cited:
"I could go on and on but the point is, is that without the historical circumstances that made a larger permanent army necessary..."

I would argue that these circumstances are, essentially, economic in nature and that they can be modelled reasonably.

The game can detect army size, number of provinces, and the amount in a treasury. All this should be enough to allow for some kind of modelling of the economic pressures that led to the empoverishment of small farmers, the rise of the great estates, and the ensuing political turmoil which - combined with more mundane military concerns - created the conditions in which the reform process occurred historically.

[Foot]

True, but these actions that the player may take that can be measured would in truth have taken time before their effects would've been felt upon the general populace and roman social system. But RTW cannot model that, the effects would be instantaneous rather than gradual. Hopefully the scripters can put a time-delay on the process so that once reaching the required number of provinces, armies, victories or whatever the change is not immediate but takes a certain number of turns before the marian reforms take place.

Foot

[Trithemius]

True, but these actions that the player may take that can be measured would in truth have taken time before their effects would've been felt upon the general populace and roman social system. But RTW cannot model that, the effects would be instantaneous rather than gradual. Hopefully the scripters can put a time-delay on the process so that once reaching the required number of provinces, armies, victories or whatever the change is not immediate but takes a certain number of turns before the marian reforms take place.

Indeed! Is there a random number generator function accessible? Combining predictable triggers with a randomly generated delay (doesn't RTW vanilla do this for their Marian Reform?) might be ideal. Other "events" might be included which pop up as the requirements are met - indicating some of the social changes and upheavals that took place before the reforms finally expressed themselves.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

We already have three reforms.

• Polybian
• Marian
• Augustan

These represent the major changes in society as well as the military. the Camilian->Polybian and Marian->Augustan differences are not that great in terms of gameplay.

What what I can see we have dates in there, but there are also some pretty specific conditions as well.

[BigTex]

I don't see how a completely dynamic reform would be unhistoric. Having a roman faction expand at triple speed and engulfing africa spain and parts of gual by 180 bc would make it unhistoric if they werent near the marian reforms. One of the main problems the marian reform solved was the reliance on levied army's. A levied army is just unrealistic to have if their away from home for 2 decades at a time. In game having that much land makes it unrealistic to be shiping back legions of levied troops to italia. I do recall playing on VH/VH as romani taking out carthage southern gual and starting on spain by 200 bc. The slug match that insued was quite historic, but after taking spain by 170 BC it just became insane to be having that much land and still have an unprofessional army.

It might seem unhistoric for reforms to happen early but if the criteria is historic then it makes the game very historic.
_______________
Speak softly and carry tactical nukes.

BigTex

Ridicolus
"Hilary Clinton is the devil"
~Texas proverb

[cunctator]

The reforms are also used to show changes in roman society and some technical progress, as better artillery, which can't be accelerated ad infinitum simply by conquering territories faster than in history. However they can happen much earlier in game than in RL.

[Zaknafien]

You could make the argument that accelerated conquests of regions outside of Italia would prompt accelerated technological advances but I am in favor of generally historical reforms, simply for the sake of continuity and balance--generally, that is. I could see a range of +/- 50 years or so as a good range. The true cause of the "reforms" were a lack of land-owning citizens able to be recruited into the Republic's army. This was a direct result of the Second Punic War.

Hannibal had destroyed many farms and those surviving faced competition from cheaper produce which was now available in the provinces. Many peasants did not have the skill or resources to switch to other forms of production, and whilst the level of competition was not sufficient in itself to make viable farms untenable, it did prevent the restoration of many of the
farms destroyed by Hannibal. Many veterans' farms had been bought out by the state and wealthy equites, developed into plantations. (latifunda).

This severely lessened the amount of land-owning citizens who would qualify for military service.

What if there was not an Invasion of Italy, and the citizen-farmer persisted into the 1st century BC?

[-Praetor-]

You could make the argument that accelerated conquests of regions outside of Italia would prompt accelerated technological advances but I am in favor of generally historical reforms, simply for the sake of continuity and balance--generally, that is. I could see a range of +/- 50 years or so as a good range. The true cause of the "reforms" were a lack of land-owning citizens able to be recruited into the Republic's army. This was a direct result of the Second Punic War.

I think that the perfect trigger for the reform, together with the condition of an X number of years, is the conquering of an X number of provinces. The pre-marian roman armies, comprised of citizens and allied contingents, were not suited for long campaigns into distant lands. So, if the Roman Army conquers provinces that are too far away from home, which will inevitable happen when conquering 20+ or 30+ provinces, then the citizen armies will be unsuited for the task, since they have to be only a reasonable amount of months/years in service, in order to return home to continue with their agriculture ocupations...

Why not making that the triggers for the reform are both a number of years / provinces conquered?

Relative to the topic about the causes of the marian reforms, IMO they were many, amongst them:

-The increasing number of the army (given the increasing necessity of defense because of the extensive borders), and lack of citizens to fill their ranks.
-Horrendous defeats in the hands of the Cimbrii, Teutons and Gauls (Garumna, etc.).
-Extension of the empire.

One cannot restrict the cause of the reforms to one or two. But nevertheless I agree with Zaknafien about the fact that the lack of citizens was one of the most important cause of that reform. But the cause of the lack of citizens is debatable. (IMHO )

Bye!!!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Marius' reforms had nothing to do with actually creating a professional army. They were about increasing the Legion's mobility to allow them to better match Jugatha in Africa and opening recruitment up to compensate for manpower problems.

In point of fact there was nothing wrong with the way the old army operated. It might not have been hugely felxable, but that is really a minor issue. Alexander's Army was basically designed to do just one thing, but he is still considered one of the greates generals ever.

If anything eliminating the Triarii was a BAD thing.

[Zaknafien]

That being said though, the reforms were not merely manpower and technological-related. The reforms would require a man of great foresight and tactical ability as well to enact them, a general who, for instance, could possess "Great Tactician" or "Knoweldge of Tactics" traits, and with alot of influence. Marius enacted many changes aside from legal ones--Changes were made to fighting formations with all the infantry now being armed alike. His restructuring of the army into cohorts, although practised previously, was regularised to form the basic unit of the legion. He was also particularly astute in developing a ‘regimental’ loyalty amongst the legions by providing a legionary eagle to act as a figurehead and rallying point for the troops. This one act clearly demonstrates his skill at command and remained a feature of legionary armies throughout the empire, perhaps being best exemplified during Caesar’s attack on Britain then the eagle-bearer of the 10th legion rallied the troops and “began to bear the eagle against the enemy.” The training of Marius’s soldiers is also a key feature in his reforms, with the men now being drilled along gladiatorial lines. They became better equipped with standardised equipment (no doubt drawing on Marius’s personal copper-mines in Spain), and changes to the design of their hasta into pilum meant that the enemy could no longer re-use them. Expecting the soldiers to carry at least some of their own equipment also reduced the army’s dependency on its baggage train.

[Trithemius]

The reforms are also used to show changes in roman society and some technical progress, as better artillery, which can't be accelerated ad infinitum simply by conquering territories faster than in history. However they can happen much earlier in game than in RL.

Since province accquistion is the principal form of economic expansion in the game, I would argue that they can be tied to expansion. Technical process does not happen without economic inputs and neither does expansion of the military capacity.

[Trithemius]

What if there was not an Invasion of Italy, and the citizen-farmer persisted into the 1st century BC?

I believed that the changes were caused by military successes and the economic dividends (and social class problems) these brought. I am interested in hearing other arguments however! :)

[-Praetor-]

What if there was not an Invasion of Italy, and the citizen-farmer persisted into the 1st century BC?

I believed that the changes were caused by military successes and the economic dividends (and social class problems) these brought. I am interested in hearing other arguments however! :)

The native agricultors couldn`t compete with the low price grain coming from Sicily and Egypt. Simple.

Is like what happened in my country with the shoes and textiles factories after the signing of the commerce treaties with China.

They also couldn`t compete against the latifundia, because of the increase of slave labor, which made possible the production of high quantitys of... everything, with extremely low costs.

So they ended up going into Rome and making part of the sloppy proletary class, and getting bread for free.

[Avicenna]

You should read this:

That is all I know, it will probably occur like vannila - it will happen after date Y if you have met criteria X.

Uhh.. thank you for repeating what I said?

k raso: wouldn't the latifundia be in Italy somewhere?

[cunctator]

Since province accquistion is the principal form of economic expansion in the game, I would argue that they can be tied to expansion. Technical process does not happen without economic inputs and neither does expansion of the military capacity.

We have a certain number of controlled provinces as well as a certain number of latifundia in Italia as conditions, besides a minimum year, a general with certain traits and some other things.