Basic Training for New Recruits

[sonic]

I just think that using his work to support an argument is risky, mainly because we have very little supporting evidence and the veracity of his work is open to question.

And you are entitled to your own opinion.
But you seem to have missed the fundamental point of my explanation, which is that Vegetius is demonstrably correct on other aspects of recruitment, so we owe him the courtesy of assuming accuracy on this issue, unless we can prove him wrong.
This is precisely the opposite of your "guilty until proven innocent" stance.

If I am right, then your argument is based upon one line from Vegetius, and, by your own admission, it is better to use Vegetius carefully and in tandem with other evidence!!

But a moment ago, you were cavilling at using Vegetius because his entire work is "open to question". Now, you are happy to use him "in tandem with other evidence". If I hang on long enough, will you change your mind again?!

Let's remember what we're discussing here. The original question -- which seems aeons ago now -- asked about basic training. Everyone acknowledges the requirement for basic training. As far as I know, Vegetius is our only source -- and I don't recall ever concealing the fact -- for basic training linked to probatio. That's one side of the debate. Kate (I believe) suggests that it wasn't linked to probatio and only kicked in later, once the recruits had been sent to their units. Again, as far as I know, there is no source for this theory. No ancient author ever says this. No-one. No evidence at all.

So, we've got a theory based on Vegetius (who can be shown to be correct on other aspects of recruitment), and we've got a theory based on somebody's gut feeling. You can pay your money and take your choice, but I'm going with Vegetius. (... until we can prove him wrong.)

I accept what you are saying, especially that part which compares our only piece of evidence with somebody's 'gut feeling'. In most other cases I would agree with you that it is far better to accept our only evidence. Unfortunately, I had to cover Vegetius in some depth at University and, once we begin to look at his work in a critical way, there are many aspects of it that leave an uneasy feeling about the actual accuracy rather than Vegetius' own 'gut feeling'. There are many holes in Vegetius when looked at historically, and this makes me wary when his work alone is used to support a theory.

Maybe you are right, and it is better to follow Vegetius rather than modern authorities when it comes to troop training, but there is always going to be a nagging feeling in my mind that this is an area where Vegetius may have made it up: as you say yourself, nobody else mentions it and yet other areas of recruitment etc are backed up by other sources. If the other aspects are supported - and it can be argued that these other writers may have been a sourcee of information for Vegetius, either directly or indirectly - then why is there no support for this one?

Oh, and I haven't changed my mind. If other sources agree with Vegetius, then we should use the information. What I have always said is that Vegetius alone cannot be used to support an argument, because a) I do not think that his work is accurate enough in all areas to enable that level of trust and b) whenever possible we should never use only one source to build an hypothesis, because any one writer can be prone to mistakes, both in the original and in translation.

One further point: I have a two year old son and, obviously, the time I have spare to type is limited. As a consequence, I - no doubt like many others - don't have the time to cover all of the details and so make my point ultra-clear. However, if you read my original post you will see that my aim was to point out that Vegetius may not be reliable enough to be used to support an argument without further evidence. I still stick with this viewpoint.

Whilst conceding that, from a historical perspective, you have the superior edge since your view is backed by an ancient source, I would ask you to concede that the use of a solitary source is not the strongest point from which to start, even discounting my own, personal doubts about Vegetius!!

[D B Campbell]

There are many holes in Vegetius when looked at historically, and this makes me wary when his work alone is used to support a theory ... there is always going to be a nagging feeling in my mind that this is an area where Vegetius may have made it up

I'm not a great fan of the theory that Vegetius is complete nonsense unless another source happens to confirm his evidence. I think that argument is too often over-played.

But, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that you're right.
Let's suppose that Vegetius just happened to stumble on a chapter of Tarrutienus Paternus that accurately described all the stages of recruitment, but for some reason -- like those guys who sabotage Wikipedia -- he decided to add a made-up bit about basic training.
Let's suppose.

Where does that leave us?
We've got Roman recruitment officers who are really just interested in checking that their recruits can read a chariot number-plate at 100 yards, and don't have FVG tatooed on their foreheads.
What happens when these recruits reach their units? They've never held a shield in their lives and they march as if they've got two left feet. What happens now?
I'm genuinely interested to hear how that would work.

[sonic]

I'm not a great fan of the theory that Vegetius is complete nonsense unless another source happens to confirm his evidence. I think that argument is too often over-played.

I've made sure of this by re-reading my posts, but I don't think I've ever said that Vegetius is complete nonsense. I have only pointed out that even Milner (the translator) has admitted that Vegetius made intelligent use of his material and extrapolated from it in order to fill in the gaps in his sources. I am suggesting that this may be one of those gaps where he filled in, since the other aspects were covered by earlier sources.

I've said it before - and I'll say it again: the proposal of an hypothesis supported only by a single source must, by its very nature, remain dubious and open to doubt. You have admitted as much yourself when you accepted Kate's stance in opposition to yourself.

Furthermore, for a far more succinct argument on Vegetius, you need to go back in this thread to Kate's post of "Thu 15 Nov 2007, 15:00". Since she completed a PhD on the subject and I haven't, it's not really that surprising!! This more than sums up my wariness over Vegetius.

But, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that you're right.
Let's suppose that Vegetius just happened to stumble on a chapter of Tarrutienus Paternus that accurately described all the stages of recruitment, but for some reason -- like those guys who sabotage Wikipedia -- he decided to add a made-up bit about basic training.
Let's suppose.

Where does that leave us?
We've got Roman recruitment officers who are really just interested in checking that their recruits can read a chariot number-plate at 100 yards, and don't have FVG tatooed on their foreheads.
What happens when these recruits reach their units? They've never held a shield in their lives and they march as if they've got two left feet. What happens now?
I'm genuinely interested to hear how that would work.

Surely that is a question that you needed to discuss with Kate in your earlier posts?

But in an attempt to answer your question, I believe that you are underestimating the 'recruitment' officers. I would suggest that even after one or two days of contact it would be possible for experienced officers to judge which men were fit to send straight on to a unit and which needed a careful eye and slightly more observation time/basic training.

I believe that if you were to ask a modern recruitment officer about recruits, they would be able to predict with a relatively high degree of accuracy which ones would not be able to cope with the rigours of army life.

As a final point, Vegetius was not attempting to sabotage anything, whether Wikipedia-like or not. He was attempting to describe how, to the best of his knowledge, the ancients - who had 'conquered the world' - had done things, and he was suggesting a return to a system that would correct the failings of his own time. His writings were largely political, being directed at the emperor and the court, and the intention was to stir a response in order to rectify the failings of the army. In these circumstances, whether the actual detail was wholly accurate appears not to have mattered as much, since on the whole his proposals made sense. In other words, Vegetius was not writing for a modern audience and intending to mislead them: he was writing for the emperor during his lifetime and suggesting remedies to perceived failings.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

That sounds reasonable to me. keep it going people, this is interesting!!

[Lothia]

Ave Civitas,

In researching for my novel I found a mention of a training camp for recruits (and I believe it was in "Roman Syria" by Butcher.

I just tried finding that passage again to be certain of where it was, but i can't find where I read it. I think it was in Apamea (not Zeugma), Syria.

The book (Roman Syria) did not expound on what type of training was done there, how long the training lasted nor if it was a training site for units in Oriens or a training site for anyone east of Greece.

Me.

[D B Campbell]

Surely that is a question that you needed to discuss with Kate in your earlier posts?

Well it was the whole point of this thread!

... which men were fit to send straight on to a unit and which needed a careful eye and slightly more observation time/basic training.

Sounds a bit like Vegetius' stage 1 basic training!
Are you maybe coming around to the view that he was right after all?

Vegetius was not attempting to sabotage anything, whether Wikipedia-like or not.

Oops -- forgot to add a smiley face to that one.

[M. Demetrius]

senators and equites were sometimes master swordsmen

Not to mention handy with pugiones, eh? :wink:

[sonic]

... which men were fit to send straight on to a unit and which needed a careful eye and slightly more observation time/basic training.

Sounds a bit like Vegetius' stage 1 basic training!
Are you maybe coming around to the view that he was right after all?

Vegetius was not attempting to sabotage anything, whether Wikipedia-like or not.

Oops -- forgot to add a smiley face to that one.

(Unfortunately, due to other commitments I am only able to read and type on the forum for short periods of time: if this post cuts off short, I've simply run out of time!! To help, could you please reference the exact passage where Vegetius states that recruits were trained before being sent to their units?)

I have never disputed that recruits needed training!! :lol: In many respects I agree in theory with Vegetius' proposals. Nor am I in disagreement with the idea that recruits would be on probation for a set time prior to being accepted as career soldiers. Where the disagreement came in was with the question of whether the recruits were trained before being sent to their units, or were dispatched and then trained.

In this, your argument was that Vegetius supports the view that troops were trained before being dispatched to their units.

The concept that troops can first be trained and assessed before being sent to their units is, at least by modern standards, acceptable. Yet what standards are we talking about when we discuss acceptable recruits? Vegetius suggests 'alert eyes, straight neck, broad chest, muscular shoulders, strong arms, long fingers, [flat] stomachs, slender...buttocks, and...calves and feet [without] surplus fat.' Oh, and 'moral quality'!! (All from Veg. 1.6-7.)

So what would Stage 1 training be like? The 'instructors' would need to check that the recruits are strong, relatively fit, can probably march without collapsing after 50 yards and are likely to be able to stand up to the rigours of the army. Therefore, what I would suggest is that, using Vegetius' own guidelines, we are talking a very small amount of training prior to being sent to a unit - 2 to 3 days at most.

Whether they had 'moral quality' would only be found out when they first went into battle, since no training is ever going to simulate the fact that somebody is actually trying to kill you!!

If the recruits failed to fulfill their duty and ran away at the first sight of blood, would the trainers be blamed and punished?? Maybe not: according to the manuals the majority of recruits would have been recommended anyway, so laying the blame for their success or failure squarely on the shoulders of their patrons!! :lol:

[D B Campbell]

We seem to have come full circle, Ian!

I undestand that new recruits underwent an eight week training period, but where did this take place? ... Would the recruits then be posted onwards to other legions and or auxillary cohorts?

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 1.8, 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."

So that answered Mark's query about the training programme.

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.

Now that's the bit that we're all arguing about!

Our disagreement is basically whether our man was sent to a selected unit for his 4 months of basic training, or whether he was trained elsewhere prior to being sent out. I suggested that, as the distances could be large, it might've been more sensible to train a man locally, in case he failed at this first hurdle.

The original question -- which seems aeons ago now -- asked about basic training. Everyone acknowledges the requirement for basic training. As far as I know, Vegetius is our only source -- and I don't recall ever concealing the fact -- for basic training linked to probatio. That's one side of the debate. Kate (I believe) suggests that it wasn't linked to probatio and only kicked in later, once the recruits had been sent to their units.

And, now ...

Therefore, what I would suggest is that, using Vegetius' own guidelines, we are talking a very small amount of training prior to being sent to a unit - 2 to 3 days at most.

[sonic]

D B Campbell":2dgd2p73]We seem to have come full circle, Ian!

me)\\n

Vegetius 2.5 is the source for "daily training of four or more months" for new recruits. ... ... ...
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 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.
Now that's the bit that we're all arguing about!

Our disagreement is basically whether our man was sent to a selected unit for his 4 months of basic training, or whether he was trained elsewhere prior to being sent out. I suggested that, as the distances could be large, it might've been more sensible to train a man locally, in case he failed at this first hurdle.

The original question -- which seems aeons ago now -- asked about basic training. Everyone acknowledges the requirement for basic training. As far as I know, Vegetius is our only source -- and I don't recall ever concealing the fact -- for basic training linked to probatio. That's one side of the debate. Kate (I believe) suggests that it wasn't linked to probatio and only kicked in later, once the recruits had been sent to their units.

And, now ...

Therefore, what I would suggest is that, using Vegetius' own guidelines, we are talking a very small amount of training prior to being sent to a unit - 2 to 3 days at most.

Actually, in that post I was referring to his guidelines on how to select recruits in the first place. :lol:

However, the reason I asked for the specific reference again is because I believe that, as you are referring to Vegetius 2.5, then there is something that you may not be taking into account.

Vegetius is not describing the enlistment and training of new recruits that are to be sent out to replace losses etc in existing units. He was not interested in such small-scale details!!

It is clear from the passage that he is describing the recruitment and training of [size=150:2dgd2p73]whole legions[/size]:

'so when recruits have been selected who excel in mind and body, and after daily training for four or more months, a legion is formed by order and auspices of the invincible emperor.'

In this example there is no need to worry about viaticum or any risk of wasting money on sending unsuitable troops over long distances: the troops are formed into a new legion and sent out to fight.

The example reinforces the opinion that Vegetius was describing things in terms and ways appropriate to somebody with a limited knowledge of the day-to-day functioning of the army. Either that or he wasn't interested, since he was proposing an entire reorganisation of the legionary structure!! :lol: :lol:

He was simply describing how things were done in the enlistment of new, whole legions in the earlier empire and proposing the abolition of the ineffective organisation of his own time after the raising of new legions following 'the methods of the ancients'.

Therefore, the duration of the training may indeed be accurate according to the earlier sources referred to by Vegetius when describing the raising of whole legions, but he should not be used as evidence that recruits were trained locally before being sent out as replacements on a small scale.

Finally, without further evidence we cannot use Vegetius' lone statement as proof that there was a four month training period, since we still do not know whether Vegetius and/or his sources were describing the reality or an ideal that may never have been achieved in reality. All we can state with certainty is that Vegetius and/or others believed that four months was the minimum necessary for the training needed to form an effective legion.

And, as I said before, I don't think it advisable to use a single, unsupported source that is detailing the recruitment of entire legions to justify the assertion that every single soldier received at least four months proper training before being sent to their units.

I would, however, suggest that it makes more economic sense to have individuals sent out to their units once a recruiting officer had checked their references and physical fitness (all possible in one day) and that they would then receive on-the-spot training at the hands of the depot troops at a legionary quarters. I would further suggest that the duration of the training would depend upon the quality of the officers in the unit, the aptitude of the recruit for army training, and the immediate circumstances of the unit in question (on a war footing, a garrison unit concerned mainly with policing/civilian actions, etc)

I do not believe, and there is no evidence for, the rigourous following of an eight-week training ritual, however much we have come to accept this in our modern armies!

I would like to think that this finishes the discussion, but no doubt somebody will now query this.... :lol: :lol: :!:

[Tarbicus]

Going back to the whole gladiatorial training for soldiers thing, I was reading through Davies last night;

Juvenal mentions a virago who indulged in gladiatorial exercises, which included fencing at a post, and there are other literary references to this practice. It is quite possible that this technique was first introduced to the Roman army by P. Rutilius, who was responsible for several important changes in tactics and equipment and helped to form the really efficient army that became so effective in the last century BC. Valerius Maximus records:

The soldiers were taught exercises in handling their weapons by the consul P.Rutilius, the colleague of Cn.Mallius. Rutilius sent for instructors from the gladiatorial training establishments of Cn.Aurelius Scaurus, an unprecedented act on the part of the commander-in-chief. He implanted in his legionaries a more accurate technique of avoiding and inflicting blows and so blended courage with skill and likewise skill with courage, that a soldier's skill was made more brave by the vigour of his courage and his courage more cautious through his knowledge of his skill.

This method of training received the warm approval of Marius and Frontinus.

Roy Davies, Service in the Roman Army.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I've read that somewhere else too....can't recall offhand though!