0
The Marian reform which abolished the property threshold for the military draft, abolished conscription and made joining the army voluntary and open to the landless poor was not a proper institutional reform. Faced with a war and a shortage of recruits, Marius just recruited anyone regardless of whether they owned land or not. This did away the system of drafting farmers who had small holdings and went back to their farms at the end of the military campaigning season. You no longer had to own land to join. The army became a career path for the masses of the landless urban unemployed. It gave them a sense of belonging and of being taken care of which they did not have in the city. It also gave them a pay and a sort of pension: plot of land to farm on discharge.
An important aspect of the change is that it did not put in place a new system of state-controlled recruitment. Therefore, this was in the hands of military commanders who needed soldiers. Since they were usually rich they could afford to raise an army and fund its expenses and the pay of the soldiers. If they did not have enough money, they could fund this trough the spoils of war. Moreover, the soldiers often spent long periods of time away from Rome (not being tied to land to farm they could be enlisted for longer periods of time), a city in which they did not have a stake. As a result, the soldiers developed a sense of loyalty for their commanders, rather than the Roman state.
The Roman commanders were able to use their army to obtain what they wanted through the treat of the use of military violence. An example of this was in 71 BC, when Crassus and Pompey camped their troops outside Rome to have themselves elected as consuls (the two annually elected heads of the Republic). Pompey was not even eligible on the grounds of being below the required age and of not having served some public offices which were required before the consulship. Disputes between strong men and between opposing political factions developed into civil wars. In the last 64 years of the Republic there were 12 civil wars. This also involved the opposing sides levying legions of their own. During the first civil war between Sulla and Marius supporters of Sulla recruited armies around Italy to fight for him. In 88 BC Sulla entered the city of Rome with his troops, even though Roman religion forbade the bearing of arms within the city walls. Julius Cesar was in charge of four legions when he became governor. He raised six more legions on his own to fight his Gallic Wars in which he conquered Gaul. Caesar then seized power in Rome though his military strength. When he fought his civil wars against the forces of the senate he levied more troops. In total he raised 28 legions.
Still curious? Ask our experts.
Chat with our AI personalities
Coach
Blake
ViviOh, dude, paying poor people to join the Roman army was like the original job fair, you know? It helped boost the military numbers and gave the lower class a chance to earn some coin. Plus, it probably made for some interesting team-building exercises - nothing like fighting side by side with your fellow broke buddies to bond over shared struggles, right?
Ah, the Roman leaders were no fools. By paying those poor folks to serve in the army, they were essentially creating a motivated fighting force. Plus, it gave those struggling individuals a chance to earn some coin and maybe even a bit of glory. It was a win-win situation... well, except for the enemies of Rome, of course.
Well, isn't that just a happy little question! When Roman leaders paid poor people to serve in the army, it gave them a chance for a better life and provided stability for their families. It also helped strengthen the Roman military, creating a sense of loyalty and dedication among the soldiers. Just like adding a touch of bright color to a painting, this practice added depth and strength to the Roman Empire.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
How was the roman republican different from the Estrcan rule?
The Roman republic was a democracy in which the government leaders were elected by the people to speak for them and to rule them. The Etruscan rule was that of a monarchy in which one man ruled and his word was law no matter what the people wanted.The Roman republic was a democracy in which the government leaders were elected by the people to speak for them and to rule them. The Etruscan rule was that of a monarchy in which one man ruled and his word was law no matter what the people wanted.The Roman republic was a democracy in which the government leaders were elected by the people to speak for them and to rule them. The Etruscan rule was that of a monarchy in which one man ruled and his word was law no matter what the people wanted.The Roman republic was a democracy in which the government leaders were elected by the people to speak for them and to rule them. The Etruscan rule was that of a monarchy in which one man ruled and his word was law no matter what the people wanted.The Roman republic was a democracy in which the government leaders were elected by the people to speak for them and to rule them. The Etruscan rule was that of a monarchy in which one man ruled and his word was law no matter what the people wanted.The Roman republic was a democracy in which the government leaders were elected by the people to speak for them and to rule them. The Etruscan rule was that of a monarchy in which one man ruled and his word was law no matter what the people wanted.The Roman republic was a democracy in which the government leaders were elected by the people to speak for them and to rule them. The Etruscan rule was that of a monarchy in which one man ruled and his word was law no matter what the people wanted.The Roman republic was a democracy in which the government leaders were elected by the people to speak for them and to rule them. The Etruscan rule was that of a monarchy in which one man ruled and his word was law no matter what the people wanted.The Roman republic was a democracy in which the government leaders were elected by the people to speak for them and to rule them. The Etruscan rule was that of a monarchy in which one man ruled and his word was law no matter what the people wanted.
Roman leaders were concern that the Roman gods .?
For the most part of their history, the Roman leaders were concerned that their gods would withdraw their support. That's why they sacrificed to them and honored them with their various festivals and temples.
Who preserved Greek and roman writing?
The Greek and Roman writing was preserved by the monks, as the church leaders found nothing in them that was contrary to Christian teachings.The Greek and Roman writing was preserved by the monks, as the church leaders found nothing in them that was contrary to Christian teachings.The Greek and Roman writing was preserved by the monks, as the church leaders found nothing in them that was contrary to Christian teachings.The Greek and Roman writing was preserved by the monks, as the church leaders found nothing in them that was contrary to Christian teachings.The Greek and Roman writing was preserved by the monks, as the church leaders found nothing in them that was contrary to Christian teachings.The Greek and Roman writing was preserved by the monks, as the church leaders found nothing in them that was contrary to Christian teachings.The Greek and Roman writing was preserved by the monks, as the church leaders found nothing in them that was contrary to Christian teachings.The Greek and Roman writing was preserved by the monks, as the church leaders found nothing in them that was contrary to Christian teachings.The Greek and Roman writing was preserved by the monks, as the church leaders found nothing in them that was contrary to Christian teachings.
What effect did barbarian invasions have on the Western Roman Empire?
They weakened Roman law and government
What was seen as a direct descendant of the roman empire?
Its leaders saw themselves as roman emperors, and theirand their government was in many ways a direct continuation of the eastern portion of the late roman empire
