03-25-2013, 04:34 AM
Goldsworthy book Punic Wars references several times bodies of recruits used to bring legions up to strength and sometimes to make legions over strength. Twice Caesar made mention of levies of 22 cohorts, the first was a levy raised to defend Transalpine Gaul, the second raised in Cisalpine Gaul. Some historians believe the first group eventually became Legio V Alaude and some add Legio Vi. Caesar's references to supplemental levies thru his book, which in my opinion were used to strengthen existing legions would therefore not be without precedent. Part of the first group is 22 cohorts and in my opinion most or all of the second may also have been used as replacements for legion losses. Goldsworthy's Caesar p.473 states that only men who served their full term were discharged indicating that there was an administrative system to track soldiers who served the traditional 16 year maximum service and therefore legions were not necessarily discharged en masse.
Until the 20th century military losses in the vast majority were due to disease. Without a steady stream of replacements units would not even be maintained at below strength levels. Even If we assume legion discipline was superior in field sanitation to that of all the armies that followed even they suffered significant losses due to medical reasons. The strength report of a milliaria cohort while in garrison in Britain with a high percentage of men in hospital is a good indication of this. For units on campaign as Caesars were in the Gallic Wars losses would have been significantly higher and I'm my opinion the strength of two legions totaling 7000 not only indicates medical and battle losses but also included replacements received. Throughout military history units were almost never at their theoretical full strength levels. Caesar even states Legio XII was never at full strength even when first formed. The percentages of medical losses that we have information on from 18th & 19th century armies from Napoleonic to American Civil War are probably applicable to the legions and even if we assume smaller percentages lost to disease (a big if) legions would dwindle to nothing in a few years of active campaigning without replacements. I think Legio VI dwindling to 1000 men by the time Caesar took it to Alexandria indicates not only battle and medical losses but also a breakdown in the use of replacement cohorts most likely because all the available manpower had been used by both sides to rase new legions.
Until the 20th century military losses in the vast majority were due to disease. Without a steady stream of replacements units would not even be maintained at below strength levels. Even If we assume legion discipline was superior in field sanitation to that of all the armies that followed even they suffered significant losses due to medical reasons. The strength report of a milliaria cohort while in garrison in Britain with a high percentage of men in hospital is a good indication of this. For units on campaign as Caesars were in the Gallic Wars losses would have been significantly higher and I'm my opinion the strength of two legions totaling 7000 not only indicates medical and battle losses but also included replacements received. Throughout military history units were almost never at their theoretical full strength levels. Caesar even states Legio XII was never at full strength even when first formed. The percentages of medical losses that we have information on from 18th & 19th century armies from Napoleonic to American Civil War are probably applicable to the legions and even if we assume smaller percentages lost to disease (a big if) legions would dwindle to nothing in a few years of active campaigning without replacements. I think Legio VI dwindling to 1000 men by the time Caesar took it to Alexandria indicates not only battle and medical losses but also a breakdown in the use of replacement cohorts most likely because all the available manpower had been used by both sides to rase new legions.
