Marian Reform

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Trithemius]

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.

Well, I am not really enthusiastic about the general part (the trait system seems pretty complex and sometimes strange things happen - like murderous generals picking up Aesthete all of a sudden...) and I think that the minimum year is superfluous since the requirement of a certain number of latifundia (which need a certain level of settlement + the cash to spend on them + a desire to actually build them) and the conquest of provinces should be effective in restricting the occurrence of the reforms to the desired phase of the game.

[Darkarbiter]

Well i think all reforms should be because the player is losing for a certain reason. For with the marian reforms i think it should be if the player is running out of population in rome and on the italian penisuala or if they get 30 provinces then lose a few back to 25. This would mean that the necessity is there so the reform should be. Just like how you are able to get kataphraktoi after you lose to them as selecuds and bactrians.