Potemkin wrote:But why did this process of professionalisation occur? It occurred under Marius' reforms because the immiseration of the citizen-soldiers, who had been the military backbone of the early Roman Republic, had rendered them unable to pay for their own armour or weapons. After all, they had no land to farm (the patricians had grabbed it and were using slave labour to farm it) and they had no jobs available in Rome itself, due to the huge influx of slave labour following the end of the Punic Wars. This led to a catastrophic decline of the Roman military, which actually posed an existential threat to the survival of Rome itself. The patrician class, of course, were completely unconcerned by this - after all, they had never been richer. Marius, however, knew that Rome was still surrounded by a sea of enemies, and that something had to be done. So he reformed and professionalised the Roman army, against the wishes of the Senate be it noted.
Lowering the wealth requirement for soldiers by itself did not lead to professionalization. It just meant that the state had to provide the equipment. Under professionalization I understand the following:
- Soldiers are recruited by generals at young age.
- They serve 20 years in some province far away from Rome.
- At the end of their term they receive a piece of land in a province, assigned to them by their general.
The professional Roman soldier likely never participated in a Roman assembly in his entire life*, thus his entire political influence in Rome was "reduced" to that of his general. Needless to say this was true anyway for soldiers recruited in places far away from Rome (unless they were wealthy enough to travel to Rome on a regular basis) and for those who received Roman citizenship for their service. The Marian reforms were aimed at increasing the recruitment base, lowering the wealth requirement was only one part of it.
All that said, the Marian reforms were necessary to secure to vast territory the Republic had acquired. That's why I said the end of the Republic was inevitable.
* The Plebeian Assembly had real political power in Rome. In particular in the late Republic it pushed through laws against the will of the Senate, evidence for that is for example the massive increase of the "welfare state". E.g. tribune Publius Clodius Pulcher had a law passed that made grain free to all Romans (58BC). When Ceasar seized power ~320k (male citizens) in Rome received the free monthly grain handout, which might have fed up to a million people.
Potemkin wrote:...In other words, their connection to the institutions of the Roman Empire were mediated through the person of the Emperor. The Senate could not be trusted to act in anyone's interests but their own.
What I meant to say is that a government loyal to the city of Rome, its people and its oligarchy, was maybe less inclined to act to the benefit of the entire empire. But ultimately Ceasar terminated the Republic because he had the power to do so (he arguably also had some legitimate reasons to be angry at the Senate), not because he had the mandate of the empire.