Roman Military Training and Equipment

[Johannes II August]

I have some questions: generally we all have the idea that Roman military training was superb and unmatched especially after Gaius Marius and 107 B.C. But then, I need some clear answers and research on this subject: what is myth and what is true? How was the average military training during the Late & Early (Pre-Marian) Republic and during the Augustan period. How was the average quality of the Roman army, especially of the Roman infantry, during these periods? Were they individually superior in training and professionalism to most Ancient armies, equal, or even worse?

Suppose we make a comparison: was the average Macedonian phalangite better trained than the Late Republican legionary? Or the opposite? Where were the best quality legions, etc... Feel free to make any comparisons.

And finally, equipment. I know there's a huge controversy about this, but was the switch to Lorica Segmentata a financial move merely or did it actually improve the quality of legionary equipment?

If you can back up your affirmations with detailed studies and sources I can read, then I will be very grateful.

[Carlton Bach]

Welcome. Allow me to be the first to point out that if *you* can answer these questions with finality, you will have earned the gratitude of many members of this forum. Contrary to what you may have heard, we are not omniscient even in our expanding collective. Though I guess that is just a matter of time at this point...

As rehgards the comparison, I am a bit heretical here in my belief that the Roman army's standard of professionalism was less than advertised. Especially in the Late Republic, it would have been impossible to generalise, given the vast differences. Contemporary commanders knew this - cf. Caesar's reliance on 'veteran' legions of known performance. A 'Roman Army' between Marius and Augustus could mean a bunch of recently herded-together callow youths in ill-fitting parental armour being marched unwillingly to an encounter with a rebel slave army or a seasoned fighting force of battle-hardened veterans supremely arrogant in their estimation of their capabilities and loyal to the death, or anything inbetween. Marius, for example, seems to have found it necessary to 'condition' his troops by maneuvering and construction before the battle with the Cimbri and Teutones. I think it was also he who hired gladiators to instruct them in swordplay. Apparently, the standard was not up to what he wanted. Pompey, too, and IIRC both Octavian and Marc Anthony had problems with inexperienced 'green' troops at times. This isn't surprising, given that a 'Roman soldier' was anyone the dilectus caught up with. On the other hand, Roman soldiers on campaign must have been in fine physical shape - they worked extremely hard even before the Marian reforms, and their marches were legendary - and a few encounters with the enemy would have instilled confidence. But in terms of individual training I don't believe they were systematically superior to their enemies until the Principate era. A veteran phalangite or thyromacheiros would have been more than a match for a Roman recruit fresh from Campania, but conversely, a Roman veteran of Lucullus' or Pompey's campaign would have equally outclassed a fresh hire from the Peloponnese mercenary fair.

[Matthew Amt]

Gosh, good answer!

I know there's a huge controversy about this, but was the switch to Lorica Segmentata a financial move merely or did it actually improve the quality of legionary equipment?

Hoo, good question! We've fought long and hard over why the lorica segmentata went away, and a lot of that includes why it appeared in the first place. Dig through the old threads or try a search, and you should turn up 2 or 3 LONG threads about it. One short answer, the segmentata seems to have weighed about 10 pounds less than a hamata--to a man who has to march 20 miles tomorrow, I'd say that's a vast improvement! And the NCOs love it cuz you can make the grunts polish little brass bits for hours on end. Great stuff.

Matthew

[M. Demetrius]

All true AND it would have been much cheaper to mass produce.

[Kate Gilliver]

I am a bit heretical here in my belief that the Roman army's standard of professionalism was less than advertised.

Well, they can burn me as well then!! I'm also doubtful that the Roman army had the standards of training and professionalism that many modern commentators suggest in either the Republic or even in the standing army of the Imperial period. Even allowing for Tacitus' exaggeration about the 'laxity' of the Eastern legions, Corbulo seems to have found it necessary to put his troops through a training and hardening programme before taking them out on campaign against the Parthians.

There is a great deal of evidence - both archaeological and literary - for training in the Roman army, and non-Roman historians such as Polybius and Josephus are particularly impressed with the 'professionalism', discipline and preparedness of the army, but I wonder to what extent this admiration is relative to other contemporary armies? I suspect that it was very much down to the unit commander and / or provincial governor as to how well trained / prepared their units were. Frontinus reports Corbulo disciplining a cavalry praefectus in Armenia for keeping his unit inadequately equipped (Stratagems 4.1.28 ), and I doubt that's an isolated case. In terms of training, discipline and 'professionalism', I suspect that one of Rome's biggest advantages was that relatively speaking, she was a long way ahead of the vast majority of societies she was fighting against in the late Republic to high Empire. I seriously doubt Roman units took training as seriously as modern armies do, or that their soldiers were as fit.

[Paullus Scipio]

I would heartily endorse all the above. Individual armies, individual units even, would have varied enormously, especially over different periods, and , as has been said there would have been a marked difference in both physical and mental qualities of peasant militia in early times, and say professional early Imperial armies. There are several discernible 'peaks' too, when long experience of active service hones the Roman army into a formidable fighting force, such as from the middle of the second Punic War into the'Great Wars' of expansion into the East, again at the time of Caesar and the Civil Wars, and the period of the Principate perhaps, culminating in the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian.
Kate said:-

and non-Roman historians such as Polybius and Josephus are particularly impressed with the 'professionalism', discipline and preparedness of the army, but I wonder to what extent this admiration is relative to other contemporary armies?

......indeed, it is the Roman's organisation and 'system' that these writers admire, implying that other armies too could benefit from it....and it is correct that it is relative to their foes that the Romans were 'efficient'. But it should not be forgotten that the Roman army was in many ways the first 'modern' army, particularly in the Principate, in terms of issued equipment, training, organisation and logistics...even a 'career path' for soldiers - the analogies with modern armies are endless.

I seriously doubt Roman units took training as seriously as modern armies do, or that their soldiers were as fit.

...this is arguably so...modern armies have built on all their traditions and History itself (Renaissance armies/military experts studied Roman manuals hard! ) and technology and 'scientific' training are big advantages....but some things never change, and for fitness, look at the 'Legionary feats of fitness thread'. Few modern troops outside Special Forces could match these feats, carried out by thousands of ordinary milites

[Sardaukar]

Well...I think that Roman military had main strength in organization and discipline over any opponent.

I don't think that individual fighting skills were any different from many contemporaries, but they had ability to get most out of their men because of their organization and discipline (and tactics fitting that organization).

And Principate legions were very modern in military sense...after Roman Empire it took almost 1500 years to produce anything similar in organizational sense. In many ways, one could definitely relate many modern voluntary militaries to Roman Principate/Imperial legion.

[Tarbicus]

I don't think that individual fighting skills were any different from many contemporaries,

I read somewhere that well practiced swordsmanship was a distinguishing feature of the Republican soldier. Can't remember where though.

[Medusa Gladiatrix]

I'm definitely no expert concerning the Roman Army but I read in Junkelmann's book on gladiators that in 105 BC gladiatorial trainers (doctores, magistri) trained soldiers in close combat fighting during the invasion of Cimbri and Teutones into Italia.

Vegetius mentions in his Epitoma Rei Militaris that the basic training against the palus (training pole) was the same for gladiators and soldiers.