Imperator needs to distinguish between Professional Soldiers and Conscripts

[Esben_DRK]

I think this is key. People tend to conceive of the Roman Legions as fixed formations, when in reality they were raised, disbanded, reformed, destroyed, disbanded again, reformed, etc. multiple times over the course of Roman history. During the wars between the Triumvirs legions were raised whole cloth using cadres of veterans. It wasn't until after the scope of this game that legions began having fixed names and territorial assignments as the rule rather than the exception.

You could also have an interesting dichotomy between established generals and professional soldiers. Historically, time and again professional soldiers defected to generals like Antony over generals like Lepidus because of Antony's reputation among the rank and file. In this way conscripts or raised citizen-soldiers may be more loyal to the player's chosen general since they are less likely to defect to a general they like more.

When I was reading some mid-Republican stories, it always fascinated me how every other year, a Consul (Or Proconsul) could be sent to Spain or Transalpine Gaul with a couple of fresh legions. Every other year, it would require tens of thousands of soldiers to keep those areas occupied? I also saw references to young senators serving ten times by the age of thirty. Ten times of a couple of years each, and they've soon served for longer than they've lived. It puzzled me how this system could ever work... Until I realised how often the early and mid Republic disbanded soldiers, that is. That for the most part, a campaign was a year or even just a season. The long campaigns of Sulla, Pompeius and Caesar were aberrations, essentially, building on the Marian doctrine of soldiers who could serve for longer because they didn't need to go back every other season.
I think it hit me, when I read McCulloughs Masters of Rome series, how little stability was in each individual Legion.
I'd like that to be an actual possibility in R2. An early Rome on campaign would have a war that takes a year or less, and disband their troops. Maybe a few permanent garrisons against the Gauls, but not a standing army. Then, when they had another Samnite War, or another campaign in Cisalpine Gaul, you raise a couple of Legions for pennies, go off campaigning, and then disband. You'll have a conscious choice to stay "easy" in Italy, where a war takes a season and your soldiers stay loyal, or whether you build your empire and need to manage the permanent soldiers and their rebellious commanders.

The division between professional and not means little in the era and people, essentially, wank to the idea of a standing army becaus they imagine a modern military. And they imagine, specifically, the USA. But even in the modern world the distinction between professional and conscript is often minimal. A conscript who serves full time has almost no difference in skills or training than a volunteer, while a part time volunteer is simply going to not be as good as someone who is a full time soldier

In the context of the ancient world, standing armies in the way people equate to modern militaries are vanishingly rare. Imperial Rome did not have one, and this is pre Imperial. A legion garrisoned in its region would commit to... farming and building infrastructure like anyone else in the area.

Even the vaunted Spartans were.... mostly duds who managed to states, wrote poetry, and farmed. Their claim to fame was a ‘mastery’ of the oh so difficult technique of.... marching in formation to music. Something that was beyond most Greeks.

And you have to ask yourself, is there a difference between a person who was conscripted ten years ago and has been fighting with Alexander and someone who ‘volunteered’ for the same period?

I agree that a full time volunteer and a full time conscript are mostly identical in fighting ability, but their pay and place in society may not be. Modern day armies pay their conscripts, the US makes various promises of education stipends or veteran benefits to get people to volunteer, etc. They pay the price for that standing army. The US army would collapse if they required their soldiers to arrive with their own equipment and get paid a pittance, as a part of civic duty. The Roman Republic managed that for centuries.
Naturally that system had some requirements of both society and the wars they were fighting. Mobilising without real pay is fine when the war is over in two months, travel takes a few weeks each way and your family can tend to the farm during the growing season. Mobilising for a year or more means hardship.

However, while I don't think comparisons to modern militaries are in order, I do think Republican Rome ended up having essentially standing armies some time between the Third Punic War and the turn of the century BCE, but without the necessary reforms to deal with that strain. Macedonia, Transalpine Gaul, Cisalpine Gaul, Illyria, Africa, Asia Minor and the Spanish Provinces were all recent conquests (Or inheritance, in case of Asia Minor), with some soldiers serving several years (Just take Numantia as one example). That was one of the issues that gave rise to the Gracchi brothers, and when Marius had to raise legions for Africa, there were no more soldiers to mobilise - they were either in the field already, too old, too young or too dead.
Marius had his soldiers on campaign in Numidia for 3 years (107-104), then against the Cimbri and Teutones for 4 years (104-100). I don't know what you'll call an army in the field for 7 years in total, but in my book that's a standing army. Sulla had his armies in the field during the Social wars (91-88) and the Mithridatic War (87-84) and then his second march on Rome (83-82), or 9 years in total. You can do the same calculations for Pompeius against Sertorius and Mithridates, or Caesar's Gallic Wars, or Lucullus, or... any of the commands longer than a single year since 149, really. Moving several legions back and forth from Iberia or Anatolia was proving to be so impractical, the logistical effort of raising and moving several thousand soldiers back and forth a waste of time, that the soldiers were kept on longer and longer campaigns.
It's no coincidence that social unrest and constitutional crises began just a few decades after these long campaigns began to look permanent. It's no coincidence that the longer campaigns mostly happens after the Marian reforms change the need to get back from campaign to tend to crops. It's no coincidence that the change happened when the Roman provinces could pay for the vast upkeep of these armies.
While each Legion was still disbanded and a new recruited, however, the timescale was changed. From less than a year, to a year, to two, then four and nine... During Caesars CIvil War, some of his oldest legions had served when he went to Gaul the first year, some had just been recruited. Some of those Legions again would serve during Augustus' Civil Wars. What would you call a force raised continually for 10, 15 or a few even 20 years, if not a standing army?

 

[OxfordNik]

It'd be great to see the system like the one suggested by the OP, but I sadly don't see it happening (at least, not in the vanilla game - who knows, perhaps they'll learn from the flaws in Legacy of Rome DLC for CK2 and implement a better standing/conscript army distinction in a future DLC).

What some of the others have hinted at - that often (especially in this time frame, and continuing in the same vein up to the late middle ages) armies were raised for a short campaign and sent home, because, y'know, someone had to e.g. bring the harvest in, and that became tricky with lots of men off serving in an army - is sadly not represented in any way in PDX games, with the slight exception of the ticking malus for having vassal troops raised in CK2.

It'd be awesome if I:R had a mechanic which differentiated between "professional" armies raised for long campaigns - which should be rare - and "conscript" armies raised to fight off a threat or to fight a short campaign, who have to be disbanded by a certain date to bring the crops in, or you end up facing production shortages in your crop-producing provinces (you might even include a production reduction in all other provinces from where you've raised troops, to represent workers being off fighting). There could even be a mechanic which makes the reduction "permanent", with a slow decay, if the conscripts don't come home - because they were killed in the war, or were disbanded in a recently conquered province, helping boost that province's population instead. But this would require I:R to have a detailed pop- and unit-tracking system, so I'm not going to hold my breath...

 

[hkrommel]

It'd be great to see the system like the one suggested by the OP, but I sadly don't see it happening (at least, not in the vanilla game - who knows, perhaps they'll learn from the flaws in Legacy of Rome DLC for CK2 and implement a better standing/conscript army distinction in a future DLC).

What some of the others have hinted at - that often (especially in this time frame, and continuing in the same vein up to the late middle ages) armies were raised for a short campaign and sent home, because, y'know, someone had to e.g. bring the harvest in, and that became tricky with lots of men off serving in an army - is sadly not represented in any way in PDX games, with the slight exception of the ticking malus for having vassal troops raised in CK2.

It'd be awesome if I:R had a mechanic which differentiated between "professional" armies raised for long campaigns - which should be rare - and "conscript" armies raised to fight off a threat or to fight a short campaign, who have to be disbanded by a certain date to bring the crops in, or you end up facing production shortages in your crop-producing provinces (you might even include a production reduction in all other provinces from where you've raised troops, to represent workers being off fighting). There could even be a mechanic which makes the reduction "permanent", with a slow decay, if the conscripts don't come home - because they were killed in the war, or were disbanded in a recently conquered province, helping boost that province's population instead. But this would require I:R to have a detailed pop- and unit-tracking system, so I'm not going to hold my breath...

It would also need to rely on where the soldiers came from. A good deal of the motivation behind the Marian reforms was that there weren’t that many landed freeholding citizens, which constituted the pre-Marian recruitment pool. This was an issue for manpower reasons but also because unless citizens were successful merchants or farmers, they could have a tough time providing their own equipment.

Post-Marius it wasn’t as much of an issue re:the harvest since recruits didn’t draw exclusively from farmers (if memory serves the vast majority did not come from landed freeholders, especially in the late Republic). As such, the harvest was no longer a relevant consideration in many ways.

 

[Dokar]

I think Victoria 2 (And to some extend Crusader Kings) has some good lessons for the military system mechainics, specifically the idea of mobilising your citizenry

God no, please. I love Vicky 2 but the micromanagement hell that was mobilisation was awful. I basically modded mobilisation out of the game to make it playable.

 

[Dokar]

Also, hasn't the idea that a "professional" army is always better than a conscripted one been pretty much abandoned at this point?
I mean, Britain had a professional army during EU-times but it didn't stop them from being consistently inferior in quality to the french/german conscripted farmers. There are a lot of variables in play in terms of what makes an army adept at war.

 

[Esben_DRK]

God no, please. I love Vicky 2 but the micromanagement hell that was mobilisation was awful. I basically modded mobilisation out of the game to make it playable.

I think you should read the parts of my post you didn't quote, rather than assume what I wrote. There's a sentence starting with "Unlike V2" a bit further on that may interest you.
Additionally, the improvements in ease of management in EU4 and CK2 would probably carry over, so even a straight copy of V2 could be easy.

 

[hkrommel]

Also, hasn't the idea that a "professional" army is always better than a conscripted one been pretty much abandoned at this point?
I mean, Britain had a professional army during EU-times but it didn't stop them from being consistently inferior in quality to the french/german conscripted farmers. There are a lot of variables in play in terms of what makes an army adept at war.

There certainly are but, all other things equal, professionals are better than conscripts. What you describe in your example is somewhat of the exception to the rule. Professional standing armies are generally better because they train more, they don’t have other jobs so when there isn’t a war on they generally spend their time preparing for one. The British in your example didn’t do that very well, not least of which because the army didn’t see all that much combat against continental opponents. Conscripts can be just as proficient as a professional army *if* the nation in question goes to war frequently and conscripts the same people, which means they’ll already be experienced. This is what France, Germany, and early-mid Republican Rome did.

So the answer is really “it depends”, but it’s a good rule of thumb that professional soldiers are preferable unless you need numbers greater than they can provide.

Another factor is that until mass production really came into its own, conscripts were generally more poorly equipped than professional armies because you needed to supply large amounts of new equipment in a short time. A good example here is the American Civil War, where musket production was ramped up on both sides in the early war to equip vast numbers of conscripts, when excellent rifles were already being produced by the time of the Mexican War. The Romans dealt with this by only conscripting from citizens, who would supply their own equipment and would generally pass a set of armor and weapons from generation to generation, making improvements and replacements as time went on.

 

[Dokar]

I think you should read the parts of my post you didn't quote, rather than assume what I wrote. There's a sentence starting with "Unlike V2" a bit further on that may interest you.
Additionally, the improvements in ease of management in EU4 and CK2 would probably carry over, so even a straight copy of V2 could be easy.

Ach, it's true. I just saw "Victoria 2" followed shortly by "mobilising" and I panicked. Mea culpa.

 

[Dokar]

[QUOTE="hkrommel]There certainly are but, all other things equal, professionals are better than conscripts. What you describe in your example is somewhat of the exception to the rule. Professional standing armies are generally better because they train more, they don’t have other jobs so when there isn’t a war on they generally spend their time preparing for one. The British in your example didn’t do that very well, not least of which because the army didn’t see all that much combat against continental opponents. Conscripts can be just as proficient as a professional army *if* the nation in question goes to war frequently and conscripts the same people, which means they’ll already be experienced. This is what France, Germany, and early-mid Republican Rome did.

So the answer is really “it depends”, but it’s a good rule of thumb that professional soldiers are preferable unless you need numbers greater than they can provide.

Another factor is that until mass production really came into its own, conscripts were generally more poorly equipped than professional armies because you needed to supply large amounts of new equipment in a short time. A good example here is the American Civil War, where musket production was ramped up on both sides in the early war to equip vast numbers of conscripts, when excellent rifles were already being produced by the time of the Mexican War. The Romans dealt with this by only conscripting from citizens, who would supply their own equipment and would generally pass a set of armor and weapons from generation to generation, making improvements and replacements as time went on.[/QUOTE]

Good points. And I did not mean to say that conscripted armies were "just as good" as professional ones, of course, but simply that in the time period we are dealing with citizen conscripts could be darn effective.

By the way, I guess Sparta would be the most prototypical example of the period for a professional army, as opposed to the citizen-conscript hoplites of other greek states and they were certainly, man for man, skilled soldiers. I do not know enough about the matter though to say whether they were that much more effective than the other greek states that saw a lot of war.

 

[stratigo]

When I was reading some mid-Republican stories, it always fascinated me how every other year, a Consul (Or Proconsul) could be sent to Spain or Transalpine Gaul with a couple of fresh legions. Every other year, it would require tens of thousands of soldiers to keep those areas occupied? I also saw references to young senators serving ten times by the age of thirty. Ten times of a couple of years each, and they've soon served for longer than they've lived. It puzzled me how this system could ever work... Until I realised how often the early and mid Republic disbanded soldiers, that is. That for the most part, a campaign was a year or even just a season. The long campaigns of Sulla, Pompeius and Caesar were aberrations, essentially, building on the Marian doctrine of soldiers who could serve for longer because they didn't need to go back every other season.
I think it hit me, when I read McCulloughs Masters of Rome series, how little stability was in each individual Legion.
I'd like that to be an actual possibility in R2. An early Rome on campaign would have a war that takes a year or less, and disband their troops. Maybe a few permanent garrisons against the Gauls, but not a standing army. Then, when they had another Samnite War, or another campaign in Cisalpine Gaul, you raise a couple of Legions for pennies, go off campaigning, and then disband. You'll have a conscious choice to stay "easy" in Italy, where a war takes a season and your soldiers stay loyal, or whether you build your empire and need to manage the permanent soldiers and their rebellious commanders.

I agree that a full time volunteer and a full time conscript are mostly identical in fighting ability, but their pay and place in society may not be. Modern day armies pay their conscripts, the US makes various promises of education stipends or veteran benefits to get people to volunteer, etc. They pay the price for that standing army. The US army would collapse if they required their soldiers to arrive with their own equipment and get paid a pittance, as a part of civic duty. The Roman Republic managed that for centuries.
Naturally that system had some requirements of both society and the wars they were fighting. Mobilising without real pay is fine when the war is over in two months, travel takes a few weeks each way and your family can tend to the farm during the growing season. Mobilising for a year or more means hardship.

However, while I don't think comparisons to modern militaries are in order, I do think Republican Rome ended up having essentially standing armies some time between the Third Punic War and the turn of the century BCE, but without the necessary reforms to deal with that strain. Macedonia, Transalpine Gaul, Cisalpine Gaul, Illyria, Africa, Asia Minor and the Spanish Provinces were all recent conquests (Or inheritance, in case of Asia Minor), with some soldiers serving several years (Just take Numantia as one example). That was one of the issues that gave rise to the Gracchi brothers, and when Marius had to raise legions for Africa, there were no more soldiers to mobilise - they were either in the field already, too old, too young or too dead.
Marius had his soldiers on campaign in Numidia for 3 years (107-104), then against the Cimbri and Teutones for 4 years (104-100). I don't know what you'll call an army in the field for 7 years in total, but in my book that's a standing army. Sulla had his armies in the field during the Social wars (91-88) and the Mithridatic War (87-84) and then his second march on Rome (83-82), or 9 years in total. You can do the same calculations for Pompeius against Sertorius and Mithridates, or Caesar's Gallic Wars, or Lucullus, or... any of the commands longer than a single year since 149, really. Moving several legions back and forth from Iberia or Anatolia was proving to be so impractical, the logistical effort of raising and moving several thousand soldiers back and forth a waste of time, that the soldiers were kept on longer and longer campaigns.
It's no coincidence that social unrest and constitutional crises began just a few decades after these long campaigns began to look permanent. It's no coincidence that the longer campaigns mostly happens after the Marian reforms change the need to get back from campaign to tend to crops. It's no coincidence that the change happened when the Roman provinces could pay for the vast upkeep of these armies.
While each Legion was still disbanded and a new recruited, however, the timescale was changed. From less than a year, to a year, to two, then four and nine... During Caesars CIvil War, some of his oldest legions had served when he went to Gaul the first year, some had just been recruited. Some of those Legions again would serve during Augustus' Civil Wars. What would you call a force raised continually for 10, 15 or a few even 20 years, if not a standing army?

But they weren’t volunteers. And they weren’t a standing army. An extended campaign and retraining veterans into a legion is not the same as a force of soldiers that spend their time training to be soldiers, which is what people imagine professional means. This did not happen with Roman republican legions, and even into the imperial era where a legion would exist continuously, what legionnaires did was often little related to actually fighting. Indeed the Roman legions was they started having to stay under arms for longer performed WORSE because keeping them under arms too long hollowed out the available body of troops (along with the creation of a plantation system from the overwhelming number of slaves being imported from Roman conquests which allowed rich romans of the eques and senatorial classes to manage increasingly larger lands off the back of slave labor at the expense of the lower Ordos which needed those lands to afford their military equipment. You’d fight for half a decade on a long campaign and come home to find all your land had been taken by rich assholes using the slaves you helped take) you could muster until the state decided on the brilliant idea that rich assholes could simply buy their own legions, and that turned out great for Rome. Just constant civil wars for fifty years and the end of the republic. These standing armies you are enamoured of were worse for Rome than the levy system they had relied on before. And, honestly, not particularly more impressive in battle. Which is the point of this thread, a mythological attraction to the idea of the elite standing soldier, an Uber soldier that is above any levied conscript because his job is war. This was never ever the case in the ancient world. Not even the golden example of this meme in the spartan were examples of this, despite what 300 tells people. I would rather paradox not fall prey to this meme because it is not only factually wrong, it is kind of scary.

Good points. And I did not mean to say that conscripted armies were "just as good" as professional ones, of course, but simply that in the time period we are dealing with citizen conscripts could be darn effective.

By the way, I guess Sparta would be the most prototypical example of the period for a professional army, as opposed to the citizen-conscript hoplites of other greek states and they were certainly, man for man, skilled soldiers. I do not know enough about the matter though to say whether they were that much more effective than the other greek states that saw a lot of war.

That’s the thing, YES citizen levies we just as good at fighting than as a standing army, and NO the Spartans were NOT a standing army. The Spartans were a leisure class atop a slave system, but there is literally no, nil, negative evidence they practiced for combat at all before they were called to war. No texts give us examples of spartan military training, not a one. All training for battle the Spartans got was done on campaign. The Spartans were good because they utilized simple formations while the rest of the Greeks fought in a disorganized mob of men. The Spartans were good because their enemies were all so bad. Not because their profession was soldier. Their profession was rich landholder managing an estate.

There certainly are but, all other things equal, professionals are better than conscripts. What you describe in your example is somewhat of the exception to the rule. Professional standing armies are generally better because they train more, they don’t have other jobs so when there isn’t a war on they generally spend their time preparing for one. The British in your example didn’t do that very well, not least of which because the army didn’t see all that much combat against continental opponents. Conscripts can be just as proficient as a professional army *if* the nation in question goes to war frequently and conscripts the same people, which means they’ll already be experienced. This is what France, Germany, and early-mid Republican Rome did.

So the answer is really “it depends”, but it’s a good rule of thumb that professional soldiers are preferable unless you need numbers greater than they can provide.

Another factor is that until mass production really came into its own, conscripts were generally more poorly equipped than professional armies because you needed to supply large amounts of new equipment in a short time. A good example here is the American Civil War, where musket production was ramped up on both sides in the early war to equip vast numbers of conscripts, when excellent rifles were already being produced by the time of the Mexican War. The Romans dealt with this by only conscripting from citizens, who would supply their own equipment and would generally pass a set of armor and weapons from generation to generation, making improvements and replacements as time went on.

All your examples are modern for a reason. The reason is, what you imagine a professional soldier as is defIned by modernity and is vanishingly rare in the ancient world. Even supposed standing armies did not actually spend all their time training for conflict. Indeed it doesn’t actually take that much time to learn the basics of warfare, eg formation fighting and memorizing simple commands, and such would often be done while on campaign, as it would take a long time to get most places anyways. Just like, you know, boot camp. I mean, how long do you think it takes to train even a navy seal these days?

Also the romans Used a vast number of non citizens in their armies. To a point where half of the legions were not citizens during the gracchi era. This would resolve itself in the aftermath of the social war where all those places the romans were using for manpower revolted, fought a long and brutal war, and were made citizens in the aftermath (the places the romans didn’t burn to the ground), but this was after the Marian reforms anyways

 

[hkrommel]

@stratigo would you mind actually defining your terms? You come up with some baffling statements like:

An extended campaign and retraining veterans into a legion is not the same as a force of soldiers that spend their time training to be soldiers, which is what people imagine professional means. This did not happen with Roman republican legions, and even into the imperial era where a legion would exist continuously, what legionnaires did was often little related to actually fighting.

In what world do soldiers only train for fighting? War is mostly not fighting but preparing to fight, maneuvering, foraging, building, raiding, scouting, etc. to be in the best possible situation upon arriving at the battlefield. Your definitions of things seem rather confused so it's hard to have a productive discussion here until you actually make some sense.

 

[Esben_DRK]

I'd like to start with saying I don't know where this rant came from. I think you're reading something into my posts that isn't there. So if it seems like we're largely in agreement that's actually because we are, and you can go back and re-read my posts to confirm it.

But they weren’t volunteers.

The soldiers post-Marian reforms were volunteers. They didn't have to sign up, but did for the promise of pay and a pension. Volunteer is a contrast to a conscripted army, where it's not a choice whether you join or not (Such as the civic duty of soldiers pre-Marian reforms).

And they weren’t a standing army. An extended campaign and retraining veterans into a legion is not the same as a force of soldiers that spend their time training to be soldiers, which is what people imagine professional means.

What would you call a person whose career is being a legionnaire for 5-10-15 years in a unit raised continually, who is employed full-time and paid for it with wages and pensions? I'd call that a professional legionnaire, and I fail to see the essential difference you try to point out. If we're not allowed to use words to describe certain things because someone might imagine it in a modern context, you might as well block every user on the forum.
The "job" of soldier in the Roman Legions was varied, yes. Especially garrison duty ended up being only tangentially related to fighting. That doesn't mean they were non-professionals at those varied tasks. Contrast with hobbyist or part-time.
A standing army is a contrast to a mobilised army. If your army is raised when you go to war, and disbanded when you settle, that's not a standing army, but a mobilised one. If your army is raised in peacetime, sent to different farflung regions and is capable of being moved from war to war with peace inbetween, that's a standing army. After roughly 150 BCE, the Roman provinces meant that Rome had armies raised continually for extended (Starting with 1+ years) time, and after the post-Marian reforms that time was often 5, 10 or even 15+ years. Legions were recruited long before old ones were disbanded.
As I use the terms, the Romans went from conscripted, non-professional mobilised armies before 150 BCE, over half a century of gradual changes until the reforms of Marius around 100 BCE, where they generally became volunteer, professional standing armies. Now if you use those words differently please clarify your terms.

This did not happen with Roman republican legions, and even into the imperial era where a legion would exist continuously, what legionnaires did was often little related to actually fighting.

I don't see the relevance?

Indeed the Roman legions was they started having to stay under arms for longer performed WORSE because keeping them under arms too long hollowed out the available body of troops (along with the creation of a plantation system from the overwhelming number of slaves being imported from Roman conquests which allowed rich romans of the eques and senatorial classes to manage increasingly larger lands off the back of slave labor at the expense of the lower Ordos which needed those lands to afford their military equipment. You’d fight for half a decade on a long campaign and come home to find all your land had been taken by rich assholes using the slaves you helped take) you could muster until the state decided on the brilliant idea that rich assholes could simply buy their own legions, and that turned out great for Rome. Just constant civil wars for fifty years and the end of the republic.

Thanks for the support for my argument about the difference between mobilised and standing armies and the consequences it had. If you're in doubt, you can go back and re-read my posts, starting with lines such as:

You'll have a conscious choice to stay "easy" in Italy, where a war takes a season and your soldiers stay loyal, or whether you build your empire and need to manage the permanent soldiers and their rebellious commanders.

This is the difference between mobilised and standing armies that I'd like the game to simulate; an empire needs a standing army but has to deal with the consequences while a citystate or regional power can rely on the levies and disband them in peacetime.

These standing armies you are enamoured of were worse for Rome than the levy system they had relied on before.

I don't know why you need to project a weird strawman into my posts. I don't think I've ever given the impression that I'm enamoured with the standing armies, that's your own deliberate misreading. The institutional change from mobilised to standing armies was necessary if the Romans wanted to keep their empire, and as the primary benefactor of the empire was the ruling class who made the decision, even people we associate with Optimates joined the bandwagon. Mobilising armies to send out of Italy for years meant social and economic ruin, leading to the near-collapse of the entire social class mobilisation relied on. At that point, a few important military blunders lead to the need of new armies without the ability to mobilise, so the choice was fairly obvious and the shift towards standing armies of (Mostly) Capite Censi was a fact.
That change had a number of dire consequences down the road which, alongside the absurd riches coming from the provinces to (Largely) the rich few of the Senatorial and Equestrian classes, lead to first civil strife and then civil wars that tore the Republic apart. It's not a coincidence that the first Roman general to attack Rome was Sulla and the army he used was a volunteer, professional and standing army loyal to their commander Sulla personally before any loyalty to the Republic. It's also no coincidence that this was the army he took East in the first Mithridatic War, or back home again for his second civil war, or that it was only disbanded after Sulla had slaughtered his political rivals and (By my calculation) some 9 years of service.

And, honestly, not particularly more impressive in battle. Which is the point of this thread, a mythological attraction to the idea of the elite standing soldier, an Uber soldier that is above any levied conscript because his job is war. This was never ever the case in the ancient world. Not even the golden example of this meme in the spartan were examples of this, despite what 300 tells people. I would rather paradox not fall prey to this meme because it is not only factually wrong, it is kind of scary.

I think the most telling part here is that you feel the need to be Captain Obvious about this in response to my post. In the post you quoted:

I agree that a full time volunteer and a full time conscript are mostly identical in fighting ability,

It's not the method of recruitment that changes the combat ability of a soldier, but equipment, logistics, training, experience, leadership etc. - things that mostly didn't change with the Marian reforms.
So except the part where we disagree about what to call some things, where I don't see the need to limit our vocabulary because it might be misunderstood outside this forum, it seems all substantial disagreements are ones that you read into my posts, rather than actual disagreements between the two of us.