ABSTRACT
I hold that in order to understand properly the role played by the army in the revolution we have fi rst of all to give full recognition to the fact that that role was played out over roughly two generations. We speak of a period which stretched from the time of Marius and Sulla2 to that of Octavian who became Augustus. This I submit should at least lead us to wonder if, over such a stretch of time, there is not the possibility for development and change and that the static view of the revolutionary army as something fully formed and unchanging from its inception may not fi t the case. We are fortunate in being able to pinpoint the exact moment revolutionary potential was revealed but we can also see clearly that further innovations were to follow. We can put the point in a kind of shorthand by reference to those who commanded these armies. Sulla was not Caesar.3 And Octavian was not Caesar.4 In other words, a statement that is valid for one age and its representative revolutionary fi gure may not be valid for another.
