Pro Or Anti Marius Reform.

I'm very intrested to see what evryone has to say on this subject. As for me its a tough choice but i lean more toward Post-Marius organization because much of the conquest acchevied after the reforms (107 b.C.E i beleive) would not have been possible. Also i do not think Julius Caesar would have been nearly as successful. (just to give an example)

I have a hard time voting for this because I find both 'interesting'. I voted Post Marian because of the impact that it had, both in the military and social culture.

I thought that Rome had adopted a standing army after the Gaullic sack in 390 b.c.

I suppose there must have been some reform of the army after 390 b.c., did anything interesting happen?

I agree that "interesting" is the key phrase here. I find the phalangular and manipular legions the most interesting in composition and usage. The titles Hastati, Principes and Triarii excite vivd pictures in my mind. Also the Punic and Macedonian Wars, as well as the early wars against the Hellenist cities in Italy, draw my attention more than later conflicts.

Just a quirk I suppose.

I thought that Rome had adopted a standing army after the Gaullic sack in 390 b.c.

 

I suppose there must have been some reform of the army after 390 b.c., did anything interesting happen?

The Romans seem to have used a Greek-style phalanx system prior to the Gallic invasion. Some have speculated that the move away from this system was motivated by its failure in this invasion, and that is no doubt true. However, it seems that many of the changes adopted were not modeled on the Gallic system but rather on that of their neighbors to the south, the Sabellic peoples of whom the most prominent were the Samnites. The Romans adopted the javelins, shields, and armor of their Sabellic neighbors along with something of their organization, rather than Gallic swords etc. and (lack of?) organization.

I personally find the concept of the Camillan legion to be more fascinating than the Marian legion. However, the Marian legion was easily more useful as a tactical unit.

I have to say my interest in the Roman legions extends mostly to their peaceful activities, as the outposts of Roman civilization in far flung sectors.

The finer aspects of Roman military science don't appeal to me.

Post Marian by far. The birth of the professional, self sustaining legions

It is 107 B.C. and the Grachuss land reforms were probaly the best thing which happened to the legions, to those that dont know what the Gracchus land reforms were it was when Marius decided to change a law which meant men who dident own farms and gaining a profit from them could join the leigions because they were fighting the second punic war (i think) and they needed men

While the reforms of Marius are related to the agrarian laws of the Gracchi (essentially, without them then Marius can't take the steps he did) but your descriptions are off. Marius needed recruits for Africa and to fight the migrating Cimbri and Teutones. Thanks to massive earlier defeats and other armies occupied elsewhere, he had little choice but to recruit from the head count. The previous popular legislation of the Gracchi helped make the social attitude possible but otherwise the relation is only a loose one.

Marius' professional model legions worked fine during the expansion and golden eras, but I think the Romans should have reformed their military (perhaps under Diocletian?) to be more like the republican legion, in the way of recruitment. Or they should have adopted some short of thema style system early on, because the professional, mercenary army was cost to much to the government.

A fully professional army can be highly effective, but it is expensive, the later Empire had to train more and more cavalry and at the same time support the expensive army, which meant that the Roman Empire bankrupted in the west.