Basic Training for New Recruits

[Marcus Caecilius Avitus]

does anyone have any infromation on where and how new recruits were trained. I undestand that new recruits underwent an eight week training period, but where did this take place? Would it be the nearest fortress to recruitment?

Would the recruits then be posted onwards to other legions and or auxillary cohorts?

Who would be reponsible for the training? I assume that the 10th cohort would take have a high proportion of recruits due to seniority of the cohorts, but would this be new postings or raw recruits?

[Kate Gilliver]

Hi Mark. As far as I'm aware, there is no evidence for any specific 'training period' for Roman soldiers, or any particular training programme. Vegetius, writing probably in the 4th century AD, outlines a number of skills that legionaries should learn in an ideal world, and both he and Onasander (writing in the 1st century AD) mention regular route marches which - according to the latter - might include field exercises such as mock battles en route. But to what extent such exercises were actually carried out probably depended on individual unit commanders and provincial governors.

Recruits were posted to their units, receiving travelling expenses (the viaticum) to get there, and are likely to have received any training within their unit.

As for the 10th cohort of a legion being the junior and therefore containing the recruits, I personally don't subscribe to what I consider to be an impracticably complex hierarchy within the legion that Vegetius describes, and prefer instead a flatter hierarchy in which cohorts are basically all of the same level. We don't know where recruits were posted, but my suggestion would be to the cohorts that needed replacements.

There is some useful stuff on recruits and training in Graham Watson's book The Roman Soldier.

[D B Campbell]

As far as I'm aware, there is no evidence for any specific 'training period' for Roman soldiers, or any particular training programme.

Vegetius 2.5 is the source for "daily training of four or more months" for new recruits.
At 1.4, Vegetius states that the new recruit should have time to "learn everything", which he defines as "drill and movements, not to desert their posts, to keep their ranks, to throw their weapons with great force and accuracy, to dig ditches, to plant a palisade with skill, to handle their shield and deflect the oncoming weapons of the enmy by holding it at an angle, to avoid a blow with skill and deliver one with bravery" -- so, all the basic stuff.

Recruits were posted to their units, receiving travelling expenses (the viaticum) to get there, and are likely to have received any training within their unit.

Curiously, it was only after the basic training that the recruit travelled to his unit and was entered onto the books, to become a pukka miles. The implication is that the training took place somewhere other than with the man's final unit. Maybe the main legionary base or provincial capital where the man had enlisted?
(e.g. The well-known case of the Egyptians who arrived to join the fleet at Misenum must have done their basic training in Egypt, perhaps at Alexandria or Nicopolis.)

There is some useful stuff on recruits and training in Graham Watson's book The Roman Soldier.

My favourite book. (But his name's George! )

[Kate Gilliver]

Sorry, wrote the post quickly as I'm trying to write a lecture!!
What I was trying to say is that there's no evidence for a set training programme rather than a set of skills that recruits - in the ideal world of Vegetius should learn.

I'm not wildly enthused by the prospect of local training camps though. What's the evidence for suggesting recruits must have done 'basic' training locally?


George! Sorry - too many Grahams around!!

[D B Campbell]

I'm not wildly enthused by the prospect of local training camps though. What's the evidence for suggesting recruits must have done 'basic' training locally?

Hmmm ... not sure what you mean, Kate.

It seems that (a) a man wasn't enrolled in a unit until he had proved himself fit for service by completing the four months or so basic training (probatio), and (b) he then received travelling money (viaticum) to get him to his unit.

The implication seems to be that there was a separate location for basic training. I've suggested that it might've been whatever provincial capital the man enrolled at, or the nearest legionary base (which would have all the required amenities).

The example that springs to my mind is Apion, an Egyptian who enlisted in Egypt. He presumably undertook his basic training there, as only thus could he have been passed as fit for duty. He tells us that he was shipped to Italy to join the Misenum fleet and received travelling money to cover his expenses. (As he was not yet enrolled in the service, he wasn't drawing any pay, so he would be out of pocket.)

Does that sound reasonable?

[Kate Gilliver]

Where does it say Apion undertook training in Egypt before going to Misenum? I've got BGU 423 at home as I have (the other!!!) Campbell here, but most of my other documentation stuff is at work.

[D B Campbell]

... He presumably undertook his basic training there, as only thus could he have been passed as fit for duty. ...

The purpose of the basic training was, of course, to establish that a man was fit for service. Some weren't. Only those that were would be paid the generous viaticum (didn't Apion get 3 aurei?!) and enrolled in a unit.

Does that seem reasonable?

[zugislander]

Hello, for those of us always looking for new books to plague the Inter library loan department with what are the full title/authors of those two books shorthanded by Kate and aluded to by George concerning "Apion"? Namely "BGU 423" and "Campbell". Plus any others relevent to this story of the Egyptian Marine.

Cordially,

Michael

[D B Campbell]

... what are the full title/authors of those two books shorthanded by Kate and aluded to by George concerning "Apion"?

The letter that Apion wrote describing his experiences is known as BGU II 423. BGU is Berliner griechische Urkunden -- the "II" is optional, as the papyri (afaik) are numbered sequentially throughout the volumes. You'll need a university library for that one!

This particular papyrus is translated in [amazon]The Roman Army, 31 BC-AD 337: a sourcebook[/amazon], by Brian Campbell (no relation).

The wonderful book by the late George (G.R.) Watson is [amazon]The Roman Soldier[/amazon].

[Kate Gilliver]

The Apion letters are available here

Duncan, was it necessary to do anything more than check that a man was in reasonable health, and more significantly, to check his status?
(Pliny Letters 10.38 & 39 highlights the great concern about the status of recruits).


ps. Mark, apologies for hijacking your thread in this way!

[zugislander]

Thank you both so much. I have Watson, but the other two are new to me. I have always been interested in Papyri, there is a very large collection near by I understand, but have never really pursued it much.

Cordially,

Michael

[Marcus Caecilius Avitus]

Kate,

No need to apologise, it's all useful stuff. Being a reenactor I have picked up loads of 'factoids'. recently I've started checking the veracity of these and sometimes find they've been distorted beyond recognition, or more interestingly support another viewpoint.

Another 'factoid' which tends to support the original assumption is that legionaries were posted outside there province of birth/original residence. If this is true I can't beleive that raw recruits would have been sent great distance on expenses without having proved their worth. This may have been less true for auxillia due to the 'client status'.

Can you qualify your statement on the cohort structure being flatter than I suggested. Surely the most qualified and capable centurion is the primus pilus and the first cohort has the prime troops witin it :?

If not the 10th cohort taking on the trainees, how would you see it work? recruits filling the atrition as it arose within the contubernia? Constant reorganistaion of the contuernia and centuries to spread the training load? Surely the Veterans vexillation and any evocatii would be prime trainers. Where would these individuals be within the legion structre?

[D B Campbell]

If this is true I can't beleive that raw recruits would have been sent great distance on expenses without having proved their worth

This was precisely my thinking, Mark.
There is a definite distinction between (1) men who have enlisted and (2) men who have been assigned to a unit. If it were simply a matter of checking that your recruit is breathing and doesn't have a wooden leg, there would be no need for a two-stage process.

Pliny Letters 10.38 & 39 highlights the great concern about the status of recruits

You're right Kate (but it's 10.29-30 -- I know: you were up late last night! ) A recruit also had to be vouched for -- the ubiquitous letters of recommendation.

But Vegetius implies that there was still the basic training before our man was assigned to a unit. At 1.8, he says: "the selected recruit (tiro) must not receive the mark immediately, but must first be examined by exercise to discover if he is really fit for such work." It was clearly a rigorous process -- not just a formality -- as Vegetius goes on to say that "instructions with weapons must be given in exercises each day to the recruits who then receive the mark".

You do trust Vegetius, don't you ..? :wink:

[Kate Gilliver]

Do I trust Vegetius? Hmm, I'll have to think about that one...

Just because something seems sensible to a modern audience doesn't mean it was done in antiquity. Men are going to be sent considerable distances anyway if, for example, a citizen is recruited in a province with no legions. A soldier might not be considered a 'real' soldier until he's received some training, but that doesn't mean he can't do his training within his unit. Why does there have to be some 'basic' training before recruits are sent on to units? You suggest this might have been done at a provincial capital - by whom? Basically I'm asking for the evidence.

Mark - as for cohort structure, there are different schools of thought on the hierarchy of cohorts, ranging from those who adhere to the Vegetian model of each cohort from X to I being of successively senior status (along with each century within the cohort also having different status) to that subscribed to by Goldsworthy and many others, including myself, of a much flatter hierarchy of coh I being of senior status (though not necessarily having soldiers of superior ability), and the remaining 9 cohorts being of equal status. The Vegetian model sees promotions going from the most junior century in Coh X to primus pilus in Coh I ie: 59 steps of promotion in each legion. To me (and many other historians), this is an extremely cumbersome system that would be unworkable in practice because there would never be any continuity of command.

If all the trainees are put in Coh X, you have a very weak cohort which is potentially dangerous on campaign, and you'd need to have something like the very cumbersome promotion system explained above - that I don't subscribe to. I see recruits being posted to fill spaces within centuries and cohorts as needed.

But as you can probably see from the discussion between Duncan and me, we're just interpreting evidence and / or giving opinions which are our views of how we see the Roman army working (or not working!). Factoids often arise when people forget that most of the time all one can do is interpret the past and try to build up a picture from sometimes very poor evidence.

[kistlerj]

I have studied mainly the early roman republic through Punic Wars, and seem to recall sources saying that Roman infantry could only be SO high because armor was mass produced and would not fit especially tall men. So the tall men were encouraged to go into cavalry.

Any truth to this, or just rumors? Of course the Barbarians were always said to be much taller than Roman infantry, so perhaps it was just the general truth that legionaires were a certain height.