What if the Marian Reforms never happened?

[Mecanimetales]

The Marian Reforms were the reorganization of the Roman Army (Triarii, Hastati, etc) to the legionnary system, which was one of the most efficient military forces of the ancient world (even better than later medieval armies)

But what if the Reforms never happened ?(for example, the cimbri and teuton tribes never invaded Rome) So which would've the destiny of the Roman military and his future history if the Reforms never happened.
(Like, would they conquer and expand the same way they did in OTL? Or would they keep the size they had post-punic Wars?)

 

[kholieken]

- Marian reforms happen long before Marius
- the crucial reforms is about eliminating wealth limit for recruitment, not tactics.
- if Roman Army stay as middle-class militia, there would be no conquering.

 

[rgroberts]

I think @kholieken is correct in focusing on the removal of the property requirement. On the tactical front, Marius really just formalized changes that were already happening. On the social front, however...removing the property requirement for enlisting was huge. This created a class of professional legionary who was beholden to his general in ways that the middle-class, property-owning legionary of previous centuries was not. These new, "head count" legionaries were the ones who marched on Rome with their generals in later conflicts, because they needed the booty, raises, and rewards only a victorious general could legislate for them.

These same legionaries became emperor makers later, when we see generals vying for the imperial purple and rewarding the armies that took them there. Without the example of Marius, Sulla, Pompeius, Crassus, and Caesar (and a host of others - they were just the biggest names), would we see that happening?

Marius' reforms were undoubtedly what Rome needed at the time. They were short recruits and needed to build an army quickly to face the German threat. However, the long-term repercussions he caused by changing the nature - and the very foundation - of the Roman army were significant. If Marius' reforms were repealed and the property requirement reinstituted after the Germanic threat passed, you'd see a much smaller Roman army in the future. Caesar might not be able to amass his juggernaut to conquer Gaul. If he did, Crassus certainly wouldn't be able to march east at the same time and meet his fate. Caesar and Pompeius wouldn't be flinging so many legions at one another during the civil war, and Augustus may not have had such a large standing army.

The butterflies are almost endless.

 

[Workable Goblin]

If Marius' reforms were repealed and the property requirement reinstituted after the Germanic threat passed, you'd see a much smaller Roman army in the future.

At least in the short term. In the long term, though, the temptation to do away with them again would be hard to resist as Rome involved itself in more and more happenings. Just sticking with the Marian era, Rome will be greatly pressured to return to widespread recruitment once the Social War breaks out--it's hard to see a more aristocratic Rome taking steps to relieve the pressure that was building up among the socii--not to mention Sulla, although lacking these reforms he may not be able to amass the power he did historically. And looking farther down the line there are all sorts of conflicts in the East that Rome is already involved in whether they like it or not...

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

- if Roman Army stay as middle-class militia, there would be no conquering.

Hadn't Rome already conquered Carthage, Illyria, and Greece by then?

 

[Flavius Iulius Nepos]

Hadn't Rome already conquered Carthage, Illyria, and Greece by then?

Plus a good chunk of Spain, Asia, Southern Gaul while also puppetizing the remaining kingdoms around them. By this point they already are the hegemonic nation around the Mediterranean, reforms or not.

 

[kholieken]

Hadn't Rome already conquered Carthage, Illyria, and Greece by then?

Before Marius, various generals in need of bodies had constantly reduce and suspend wealth requirements for troops. Marius eliminating it altogether is simply acknowledgement of standard practice, not something new.

 

[SenatorChickpea]

Yeah, as others have said the current academic consensus is that they never really happened at all, at least as the OP describes them- a response by one general to a sudden crisis.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

On the tactical front, Marius really just formalized changes that were already happening.

Not least because, if the state was recruiting poor people into the army, it pretty much had to provide them with weapons and armour, in which case there was no point not giving the legionaries a standardised set of equipment.

it's hard to see a more aristocratic Rome taking steps to relieve the pressure that was building up among the socii

Not necessarily. One of the main Italian grievances was (probably -- this area is history isn't hugely well known) the various land reforms, which kicked squatters (including Italians) off of public land but only gave land to Roman citizens. Since land reform was a populist cause, it's likely that a more aristocratic Rome would drop the policy as far as possible, resulting in less resentment among the Allies.