Legion replacement system

[Praefectusclassis]

To replace losses in existing legions, however, would suggest that he was forming a standing army of sorts, which went against the ethos of the republican system (legions being raised for specific campaigns).

RE Smith, Service in the Post-Marian Roman Army has shown that provincial governors often took new recruits to their provinces to bring the army there back up to strength. It comes in fact down to a standing army to garrison Rome's provinces. However, he has also shown that their appeared to become in fact two types of legions: garrison units, which were for all accounts and purposes standing units, and 'emergency' or campaign legions which theoretically were disbanded at the end of the campaign. It may indeed be the case that those legions were not regularly reinforced.

[Caius Fabius]

I read some of his stuff, one book back in 1985. He was not really writing about the complete US Military, nor were his observations on the Soviet Army based in reality. He was looking at an unusual situation "Viet Nam" where a strange replacement policy was in use. His mis-information on the Soviet system showed a complete lack of understanding of the hazing, abuse and turnover rates, which were not common knowledge at the time, in the West.

Colonel Henderson had an agenda. He was trying to change the system of sending soldiers to a combat zone for 12-13 months and then pulling them out as individuals. It was not about sending recruits to a military unit and letting them become members and learn their job OJT. If you were to send a green soldier to a veteran unit, where the veterans only had a few more week in country, then there is a failure of training and cohesion, because the new guys are looked upon as fresh meat and no one becomes friendly with them. The old guys just want to survive and go home, and new guys can get veterans killed. (The same mentality was happening in the Soviet Army in Afghanistan, 1980's). How do I know? I have had long conversations with ex-Soviet veterans of that conflict and read many of their personal diaries and books.

Bringing new troops into an established unit in a sitruation where the veterans are going to be around for a while, is totally different. The veteran is looking at the long term, the NCO's and Officers are professionals with a career, not green lieutenants with fresh faces (especially not in the Roman Army) and they take time to break in the new troops, and the new troops learn from the veterans. Using Henderson's work as a similie for the Roman Army is very suspect.

Using his work to show that replacements don't work well in a combat unit is only valid for a style of replacement that was being used in general U.S. infantry units in Viet Nam in the late 1960's and early 1970's.

The Roman replacement went into a unit where people served for 16-20-24+ years and was part of the group starting as a low, know-nothing, and learning as he went along. This is not the same as what Col. Henderson was talking about, the conscript army of the United States (and the Soviet Union), where most were serving less than 5 years and leaving, and you spend a fixed time in the combat zone, then went home, knowing to the day how long you had left. 2 digit midgets (people with less than 100 days left) didn't 'bond' with 'fresh fish', in most cases, and the survivors formed groups that didn't usually admit 'body bag filler' into their exclusive veteran's club.

By the way, with 20/20 hindsight, the NVA also had a severe replacement problem, but it didn't help Col. Henderson prove his point. Looking back, several of his conclusions were not completely valid, but they helped drive increased military spending on OSUT and the Buddy system training, where replacements went as groups from basic training to advanced training to their units, instead of being dropped into units as individuals when a spot was vacant.

His three books, (all that I have in my library) are out of date, even though they are reprinted, and quoted by several people who wish to use their 'facts' for their thesis. It is all about context. It is like taking facts from one point in time, and one place, and using them to make a broad statement about unit cohesion, when all of the other factors are not equal.

That's just one opinion, of course. You can feel free to disagree. :lol:

[Mitra]

It is like taking facts from one point in time, and one place, and using them to make a broad statement about unit cohesion, when all of the other factors are not equal.

True Caius ; but this is true also for your affirmation ".. That has been true for the last 1000 years, and probably was just as true in the time of Julius Caesar. Claudius or Trajan. " .

[John M McDermott]

As an interesting sideline, the US Army used (or abused) the replacement system as far back as WWII, when newly trained divisions were stripped of their trained personell to be fed into the replacement pipeline for depleted divisions already committed to combat. The new divisions were then brought up to strength with a levy of men just out of basic training. The most infamous example was the 106th Division that was destroyed at the Battle of the Bulge. A great tragedy occurred there in that the levy used to accomplish this was made up of high quality personnel that were surplus left over from enlisted men with high IQs that were intended for the Manhattan project.

Two masters compete with one another in this instance. First, we have the goal of having veteran units, which, according to Roman practice, was very important.

Then, we have the goal of keeping units with enough strength to keep them in the field. Veteran units can actually fight themselves out of existence, or 'disappear' because of an epidemic.

It would appear from the Vindolanda roster that some system of personnel administration, which included replacements, may have been in use, because the unit seemed to be at full strength. Or was it? Phony names could also have been used so that the amount of pay flowing into the unit did not diminish.

We shall never know.

[Aryaman2]

Hi all
Very interesting topic, as many has pointed out, legions changed along time. Imperial legions were long standing units, so no doubt they received replacements regularly. Early republican legions were disbanded after the end of campaign season, so in all probability no replacements. In between, the period from the Punic Wars to the Principate. In the Punic Wars legions were kept for longer periods, but with some exceptions *like the Cannae legions( they were disbanded after some years, and still more important, they are not numbered and seem not to keep any individual identity as units, and at the same time new legions were recruited almost every year in the war, regularly the 2 legiones urbanae, that after serving a year as Rome garrison were sent to active service,so I would say that in this period replacements would be not the rule, but they could be sent in the form of reinforcements, for example there are a number of troops recorded as sent to Spain, but the number of legions remained at 2, so those reinforcements either filled empty places in the existing legions or added as individual cohortes.
After Marius reform, legions increasingly become units with their own identity, and they probably don't receive replacements, they are in service for as long as they remained of operative size, then they are either disbanded or merged with another unit.
I see here an historical pattern
1 Early republican armies are a levy resembling the social organization
2 Late republican legions are profesional units that can be compared with the armies of Europe in XVI until mid XVII Europe, they follow a similar pattern, units are raised and remain as single entities, when they become too small through attrition they are disbanded or reformed.New recruits were always recruited in freshly raised regiments. Units disbanded after the end of a war remained latent, in contact with contractors, so they could be raised as required in a very short time, like the legions recruited in the Civil Wars.
3 From mid XVII century afterwards regiments were increasingly more permanent, and they received replacements regularly. This was senn by military theoric writers of the time, like Santa Cruz or Saxe as the good new way, as opposed as the bad old way of raising new units as replacements.

[Antek]

Hmm I see that this topic has been dead for a long time, it's a pity because it's very interesting. So perhaps I would be able to reanimate it by putting some of my own arguments. First of all, in my opinion the legionary replace system was not fully shaped durning years of Marius and Caesar. There are many evidences on that. Caesar probobly didn't replace his loses. Nathan gave few, but not all exemples. For instance while he was moving his two legions to aid Cicero who was under siedge by Ambioriks, Gaius mantioned that one night they set up a camp for both legions. What is interesting he also wrote that in this camp was about 7 200 men. (BG, V. 48-49) So my first thought was that the legions were so short of soldiers because of battle loses and diseases. But afterward I realised that it was winter, so perhaps some of the legioners where sowhere else, for example they left winter camps and went to Province. What do you think about it? I guess that it's quite posible, but it means that almost half of legioneres left their camps, what isn't rather acceptable. So the result is: 1:0 for the thesis that both legions where short of men because they weren't replaced.

On the other hand there is another Roman relation written by Salustius. He indicates that after reaching Africa Marius not only brought with him his new legions, but also repleced loses in the army that was already there under Metellus (BJ, § 87). So it seems that there is 1:1, but there is circumstance that deny this opinion. BJ § 86 Salustius mentioned that thanks to the fact that he recruit "capite caensi", Marius had even more soldiers than only entitled to him consular legions. So perhaps there were more soldiers, but not enough to create another legion, or Marius didn't have senate permission to create another legion ergo he used those reserves to fill up alredy existing forces. Regardless the true I don't understand one thing. How was it posible that legioners of an old type (Polibian) agreed to accept plebeians in their ranks? Maybe it emerged from the fact that simple soldiers loved their new consule (as Sallustius wrote supra), or maybe they had to follow new orders. Now in my opinion it's 2:1

And the last thing I want to mantion. Were the legions recruited on definite period of time, or maybe on a one fixed campaing? In my opinion the second part of last sentece is true. Why? because it's more probable that Polibian system worked in a new realm of warfare that was created by Marius. Here is an exemple: Plutarch in "Live of Marius" (§ 13) wrote that betwen war in Africa and Battle at Aquae Sextiae Marius trained his soldiers ergo he dissmised old troops and convoked new levy.

That's all for now but I'll be back with more... hope so

[Crispvs]

Regarding your suggestion of the impact of plebians on the morale of an existing unit, it is worth noting that by the time of Marius, for a long time the main social divide was not between patricians and plebians but simply between rich and poor. The 'struggle of the orders' was a feature of a much earlier age and so is not relevant to the discussion of late republican armies.

For your reference to BG, V. 48-49, I could offer another couple of suggestions: that Caesar may have kept some troops in reserve at another location or that in conquering areas of Gaul and then moving on, he was forced to leave a proportion of his troops in any conquered area as an occupying force. Then again, his units could simply have been below strength.

Crispvs

[Caius Fabius]

and ... they might have been awaiting replacements... LOL

[Antek]

Crispvs

Regarding your suggestion of the impact of plebians on the morale of an existing unit, it is worth noting that by the time of Marius, for a long time the main social divide was not between patricians and plebians but simply between rich and poor. The 'struggle of the orders' was a feature of a much earlier age and so is not relevant to the discussion of late republican armies.

Yes but I was rather thiniking of a totally new situation that has appeared. First time in history almost everyone could join the ranks of the Roman army, so there could be many old fashiond soldiers that dislaked new changes. That is of course only a poor theory, we will never know what simple soilders were thinking about it.

For your reference to BG, V. 48-49, I could offer another couple of suggestions: that Caesar may have kept some troops in reserve at another location or that in conquering areas of Gaul and then moving on, he was forced to leave a proportion of his troops in any conquered area as an occupying force. Then again, his units could simply have been below strength.

Yes but Gaius used to write when he was spliting his troops on cohortes ( f. ex. V. 24, 36) , it's little possible that he took only some part of his legions with him, especcially when we know that he wanted to take 3 legions on this task, but Labienus managed to send him only two. Also, according to what is written in V. 24 we know that in winter 54/53 all legions were kept in one part - exaption was legion XIV which was not only whole but also aid by 5 unknown kohortes (maybe auxilia???)

Caius Fabius

and ... they might have been awaiting replacements... LOL

Yeah maybe... we can never be sure of that But there is another fragment that negates replacement fact. In Book VIII. 8 Hiricius wrote that legion XI contained only of soldiers who had the same time of service (8 years), so he indicates that the loses where not replaced since it was created in 58 BC. However, I found an interesting excerption that may indicate some moves beetwen cohotres and legions. In VI, 40 Caesar wrote that he used the best solidiers from weteran legions to create officer staff for newly created legion.

[Aryaman2]

Well, Caesar talks twice of fresh recruits (supplementa) from Italy, in VII 7, and VII 57. It is not clear, however that they were used as replacements for the veteran legions, in the first occasion they are used to bolster the Provincial defence of Narbonensis, in the second they are ordered to guard the Baggage.

[Antek]

Aryaman2
Yes I know about that, but as you have already marked , they were used as additional garrisons, so I guess that their had never filled up ranks of the field legiones. However in the same place Caesar told also something about reinforcemnts from Pompeius (BG VI, 1 + Cicero "Ad Atticus" IV. 1). From what I know it was I legion (VIII, 52) and here is my question. If it was a veteran legion, where did it serve before it was dissbanded? I suppse that in Asia Minor, but some pieces of information will be welcomed.