03-22-2013, 02:17 AM
As the OP stands, I would say that as far as the sources are concerned, they seem to suggest that continuous training and discipline were necessary. Even "veteran" troops who spent a period of months in luxury or without discipline could be considered not battle worthy, especially by the "praised" generals. It is important that making the men physically fit and disciplined was regarded equally crucial as combat training. There are numerous accounts of generals avoiding engagement until they judged their troops to be ready, but there was no actual fixed time for that. It could be weeks or months -sometimes the first weeks after a general had taken over and before he marched against the enemy, sometimes during winter, when campaigns generally were put on hold-. I guess that raw recruits might need more time to get in shape, but in the sources we keep seeing how much proper condition was valued for experienced troops as well.
If your question has to do with how much time should pass in order for a local boy to know the basics in order for the general to use his legion in the field, this, to my knowledge would be only weeks, as legions were raised and (almost) immediately sent to the field.
If you think that any of my statements adequately answer your question, I, of course can give you examples from sources.
If your question has to do with how much time should pass in order for a local boy to know the basics in order for the general to use his legion in the field, this, to my knowledge would be only weeks, as legions were raised and (almost) immediately sent to the field.
If you think that any of my statements adequately answer your question, I, of course can give you examples from sources.
