Legion reinforcements

[Valerian Pertinax]

Hello all.

I recently read Caesar's Legion (Dando- Collins).

If I am not mistaken, it would appear that a legion on an extended campaign lacked either the resources or the wish to replenish fallen soldiers. Are there any explainations for this? It didnt seem like Caesar had any great difficulties raising new legions when he felt the need, so it seems reasonable (to my 21st century understanding) to first bring your existing legions back to full strength before forming new ones.
The only explanation I can think of is a desire to not dilute the veterancy of crack units. I understand that Caesar tended to introduce new legions to combat gradually, to build their confidence and experience. Still- a unit with a little under 6,000 men at the time of first muster being ground down to perhaps 2,500 by the battle of Pharsalus could have stood reinforcing at some point in a ten year period, right?

[Ariovistus]

Well if Caesar was in Gaul than he would have to wait for fresh recruits coming from Rome or one of it's provinces. "Barbarisation" of the legions did not begin until later. What you said about "diluting" also makes a lot of sense but I don't think that they would go as far as not recruiting new soldiers to preserve that sense of veteran-ship.

[Ariovistus]

Caesar also had many auxiliaries at the Battle of Pharsalus.

[Valerian Pertinax]

Yes, the main difficulty in sending reinforcements would be location and transportation. I mention location because it seems like a generally good idea to have your entire legion come from roughly the same area (to avoid ethnic tensions within the unit and provide another unifying factor). The second difficulty would be marching the new recruits into potentially hostile territory. A century or two or raw recruits marching to a legionary camp would be a tempting target, even during winter.
I would speculate that reinforcements would be trained in the standard way during summer and sent during the "off season", mid fall perhaps. They would then have all winter to train and assimilate into their new legion.

[Ariovistus]

I know I'm a little late on this but I strongly agree with your statement about them coming from the same region to avoid ethnic tensions. Romans felt that the Gauls (and many others) were inferior and I would not doubt that there would be conflict within the legion putting it on the brink of mutiny.

[Nathan Ross]

We had a discussion about this precise question (with reference to Dando Collins) quite a few years ago:

Legion Replacement System

Essentially, D-C is right about the lack of reinforcement for depleted legions during the late Republic - his mistake is to extend this into the imperial era, by which time legions had become standing formations with regular new recruits.

In Caesar's day (a period of great change for the Roman army, with much that we still don't undertand too clearly) most legions seem to have been organised on the old Republican model, raised and discharged en bloc with set terms of service. There are a number of cases in the Commentaries of legions mutinying when the soldiers believe these terms to have been exceeded. I actually wondered in the thread above whether it might have been illegal for a Roman provincial governor to reinforce legions under his command, which might suggest that he was creating a standing army (something against Republican principles) - although there are a few examples of this happening, it seems to have been very much the exception to the rule. A Roman governor probably had the power to raise two new legions a year from citizen recruits in his own province, but not to reinforce pre-existing formations.

Either way, there certainly were some very depleted legions in Caesar's army - the sixth down to half strength at the battle of Zela, for example. Since Caesar at this time had a great number of new legions, and so ample recruits to reinforce his veteran units if required, I think it's safe to say that reinforcement was not considered as a possibility. Things only changed with the Augustan reforms of the army.

[Valerian Pertinax]

Nathan, that thread was *perfect*!!

Many thanks!

[JeffF]

In the Loeb translation of Caesar's Gallic Wars, book VII, para 57, there is mentioned a daft of recruits (supplemento) newly arrived from Italy. Later in para 60 Caesar comments about five cohorts he regarded as least steady for action. Tnis is an indication perhaps of a replacement system. Possibly detachments of recruits on a periodic, probably annual, basis were incorporated into certain cohorts and as a result of the significant level of new recruits these cohorts would be less reliable than the veteran cohorts. Vegetius description of the legion includes a statement that particular cohorts, VII & IX - cohorts of the second line protected by flanking veteran cohorts and another veteran cohort un the center of the second line, were composed of the least steady men, probably mostly recruits. In Caesar's army the three line legion battle formation seems standard. This could mean that the center cohorts of the second and third lines, VI & IX, might be the cohorts most likely to incorporate new troops. In any case some replacement system must have been in place. Aside from battle casualties, pre 20th Century armies suffered significant losses from disease. Even though we know that Caesar's legions could be significantly understrength, 2 together numbering 7000 (book V para 49), regular replacements would be needed even ti keep units up to that approximately 75% strength.

[Nathan Ross]

In the Loeb translation of Caesar's Gallic Wars, book VII, para 57, there is mentioned a daft of recruits (supplemento) newly arrived from Italy.

I believe the recruits here were the result of the mass provinical levy mentioned at the beginning of book VII. As such, they were probably formed into one or more new legions - Keppie suggests two, numbered V and VI, but since Caesar's irregular Alaudae were given the number V some time later, perhaps not. We might suppose that Caesar's vagueness in these matters masked some irregularity in his recruiting practices (in the citzenship status of his recruits from Cisalpine Gaul, for example), but it might just mean that his readers knew that new men were mustered as full legions and he didn't need to stress the point.

Vegetius description of the legion...

Obviously, Vegetius was describing the imperial legion here, of uncertain date. While the example you give of different cohorts in Caesar's force being considered more or less able might suggest a difference in recruiting, using imperial patterns tends to muddy the waters, I think!

In any case some replacement system must have been in place.

I still don't think so! We need to remember that late republican legions were still supposed to be mustered for a relatively short term of service, raised and disbanded together. This being the case, later imperial practices, still less modern practices, tell us little about how Caesar and his contemporaries organised things. The fact that his half-strength Legio VI was not reinforced when Caesar had the manpower to do so implies that such a thing was either not possible or considered unwise.

[JeffF]

Another possibility to explain the very low1000 man strength of Legio VI at that time was that both Pompey and Caesar were both raising large numbers of new legions and all new recruits were being fed into these.

In paragraph 7 of book VII Caesar mentions both the recruits and the Provence levy. The purpose of the 22 cohort levy was to protect it so it is unlikely the detachment of recruits mentioned later was from them. More likely they are the recruits mentioned at the beginning of book VII recruited in Cisalpine Gaul as a response to the Senate mobilizing all the young men of military age in Italy (after the killing of Clodius). Caesar uses the term 'supplemento' in both paragraphs i mentioned. This indicates to me that these troops were intended to strengthen, supplement, existing legions. I'm also wondering what other explanations there would be for some cohorts being less ready than others. Legions VII - XIII had many years of campaiging and if they consisted solely of experienced troops their should be little difference in effectiveness. Also the demobilization of legions never seems complete. Possibly the younger recruits stayed on keeping the legion in existence after the old veterans retired training newer levies.

I don't think we can assume legions of the late Republic were intended for short term service. The acquisition of distant territories forced the legions to become long service units to garrison tbe far flung possesions. The evolution of legions from being composed mostly of land owners to Headcount citizens also probably indicates long term employment of these poorer men.

In WWII, U.S. Divisions at times suffered a medical wastage rate of up to 3-4% per month inaddition to battle casualties requiring a constant stream of replacements. In Napoleonic and American Civil War armies it was even worse. Roman legions campaigning over 8-10+ years as Caesars did thru the Gallic wars would have wasted away to nothing in a few years.

I think Legio VI is likely an example of that. If indeed it was raised from the 22 cohorts of the Provence levy, a lack of supplementary recruits would explain its low 1000 man strength at Alexandria in only a few years.

[Nathan Ross]

Caesar uses the term 'supplemento' in both paragraphs i mentioned. This indicates to me that these troops were intended to strengthen, supplement, existing legions.

Or it could be that the two new legions per years permitted to the provincial governor on campaign were a 'supplement' to the legions he already possessed?

I think Legio VI is likely an example of that. If indeed it was raised from the 22 cohorts of the Provence levy, a lack of supplementary recruits would explain its low 1000 man strength at Alexandria in only a few years.

The 22 cohorts were raised from non-citizens in Transalpine Gaul, and some of them were later embodied as the legio vernacula called the Alaudae, later still given the number V. Legion VI was probably raised in Cisalpine Gaul (which Caesar refers to as 'Italy') in 53.

I don't think we can assume legions of the late Republic were intended for short term service... Roman legions campaigning over 8-10+ years as Caesars did thru the Gallic wars would have wasted away to nothing in a few years.

On the contrary, I think we have to assume just that! This is the only explanation for the series of legion mutinies among the veteran Gallic force in 49-47: some of the legionaries demanded discharge, others wanted bonuses, while others wanted both. Chrissanthos (Caesar and the Mutiny of 47BC, JRS 91, 2001) analyses the legions involved - X and XII were certainly present at the 47BC mutiny at Rome, and while X could have been raised before 60, XII was mustered in 58. Chrissanthos also suggests the involvement of XIII and XIV, probably raised in 57 and 53 respectively. For soldiers to be demanding discharge so few years after enlisting (and in many cases getting it, Chrissanthos believes) indicates a short standard term of service.

The mention of bonuses is important, though - Caesar seems to have kept his veteran legions under arms by periodically promising them cash rewards for extended service. This allowed him to keep a strong army in the field, but gave his soldiers an effective bargaining tool: against an entire legion demanding discharge at the same time, a commander could only offer even further financial incentives. This, in fact, was probably one of the main reasons for Augustus's institution of the standing army with constant recruitment: it took away the means of soldiers effectively blackmailing their commanders!

Incidentally, Chrissanthos also offers further details on the depletion of Caesar's forces: Legio VI, as we've discussed, was raised in c.53 but down to only 1000 men after six years campaigning; Legio XXVII was raised in 49, but after five years was reduced to 2200 men. When Caesar departed Italy for the Pharsalus campaign he left seven cohorts worth of sick and injured Gallic war veterans behind. This dramatic rate of attrition indicates, I think, that legions could not have been substantially reinforced while on campaign.

I'm also wondering what other explanations there would be for some cohorts being less ready than others...

That, I think, is the only plausible suggestion for legions being reinforced by new recruits during this period. But we know that Caesar used the cohort as his basic tactical unit, and often detached cohorts from their parent legions: some will therefore have had more combat experience than others. Also, the recruits of a new legion could well have been graded into different cohorts based on ability, making some cohorts (those intended for the front rank, perhaps) stronger than others.

[Aussum]

I think we are dealing with two different circumstances here.

During the Gallic War, Caesar would benefit from reinforcing his veteran legions because he was restricted in how many legions he could legally raise. If you were limited to 6 or 8 legions, would you want 15-20,000 veterans in rump units or 30-40,000 in normal, effective units.

Once the Civil Wars started, those rules went out the window and he began raising as many legions as possible. At that point, his veteran legions not only become the source of cadres for new legions, but the normal routines of reinforcement are disrupted as well. It seems that the examples of small, veteran legions are from the Civil Wars, not the Gallic War.

As for the mutinies, they seem more motivated for political/financial reasons than any common length of service.

Austin

[Nathan Ross]

During the Gallic War, Caesar would benefit from reinforcing his veteran legions because he was restricted in how many legions he could legally raise.

We would think so - but could he, and did he? Caesar's army apparently increased by two legions for every year of campaigning - this was probably the maximum he could legally raise. Centurions for the new legions would presumably be drawn from veteran units, but we still have no real evidence for new men being introduced into veteran legions.

It seems that the examples of small, veteran legions are from the Civil Wars, not the Gallic War.

This is true enough - but perhaps that just demonstrates that by that point the older veteran formations had been depleted by long service. Clearly they weren't being reinforced.

As for the mutinies, they seem more motivated for political/financial reasons than any common length of service.

Yes - but the complaints of the soldiers were about length of service and non-payment of the promised bonuses. In effect, they were going on strike:

...the civil sedition had been quieted, but another one sprang up against himself in the army because the promises made to them after the battle of Pharsalus had not been kept, and because they had been held in service beyond the term fixed by law. They demanded that they should all be dismissed to their homes. Caesar had made them certain indefinite promises at Pharsalus, and others equally indefinite after the war in Africa should be finished. Now he sent them a definite promise of 1000 drachmas more to each man. They answered him that they did not want any more promises but prompt payment in full...

When he bade them tell what they wanted they were so surprised that they did not even venture to speak openly of the donative in his presence, but they adopted the more moderate course of demanding their discharge from the service, hoping that, since he needed soldiers for the unfinished wars, he would speak about the donative himself. But, contrary to the expectation of all, he replied without hesitation, "I discharge you."
(Appian, Civil Wars, Book II. 92-93)

Significant numbers of troops were indeed discharged either at the time or shortly afterwards, with cash payments and land grants. Clearly they had a legal case!

[JeffF]

Nathan,
When Sabinus' & Cotta's force of 15 cohorts was destroyed it is my opinion that the 5 cohorts aside from those of Legio XIV were probably detachments from one or two of the other legions. Do you agree? Some historians claim they were the cadre of a new legion but given the number of times Caesar assigns odd numbers of cohorts (meaning in numbers other than multiples of ten - i.e. complete legions) I see no reason that these should be extra-legionary. If this was the case do you suppose these cohorts would be replaced? Or would the owning legions soldier on with a reduced number of cohorts? Or perhaps reorganize back into ten much reduced strength cohorts? I'm very interested in your opinion.
Thanks for the very informative exchange.

[Valerian Pertinax]

Bringing up the mutinies that Caesar had to deal with raises an interesting point. We have discussed a great deal about what a transition that the Late Republic was for the Roman army: no longer a militia, not yet a fully professional force.

I can't believe I never thought of the most mind-numbingly simple reason for not reinforcing the legions: money!!

A depleted legion would be significantly easier to pension off than a reinforced one. If I am recalling my history correctly, there was no fund in place specifically to guarantee a legionary's retirement until Augustus set one up, largely out of his own pocket. Reinforcing a legion, while perhaps useful during a campaign, would create an administrative nightmare, especially if no system was in place to swiftly replace the outgoing veterans. This is to say nothing of the potential for corruption and "identity theft" that could and probably would take place without the extensive documentation that would feature in a more professional army.

Daft of me to forget about the money angle!!