Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Legionary Training
#1
Would anyone happen to know how long it took to train a legion (any size) so that it was 100% combat ready? It can be from any era, as long as there's primary sources to testify it. Thanks.
Reply
#2
Vegetius (de Re Militaris II.5) says that new recruits received 'daily training for four or more months' before before formed into a legion. He was writing at the end of the 4th century AD, but drawing on sources from much earlier times. In this case, his source was probably M. Porcius Cato's similarly-named de Re Militaris from the mid 2nd century BC (the recruits are formed into new legions 'under the auspices of the emperor' (ie consul), rather than joining established units as they would usually have done under the empire).

This passage led to an interesting debate some time ago, which also demonstrates that even experts in the field can disagree on interpretation:

Basic Training for New Recruits
Nathan Ross
Reply
#3
As the OP stands, I would say that as far as the sources are concerned, they seem to suggest that continuous training and discipline were necessary. Even "veteran" troops who spent a period of months in luxury or without discipline could be considered not battle worthy, especially by the "praised" generals. It is important that making the men physically fit and disciplined was regarded equally crucial as combat training. There are numerous accounts of generals avoiding engagement until they judged their troops to be ready, but there was no actual fixed time for that. It could be weeks or months -sometimes the first weeks after a general had taken over and before he marched against the enemy, sometimes during winter, when campaigns generally were put on hold-. I guess that raw recruits might need more time to get in shape, but in the sources we keep seeing how much proper condition was valued for experienced troops as well.

If your question has to do with how much time should pass in order for a local boy to know the basics in order for the general to use his legion in the field, this, to my knowledge would be only weeks, as legions were raised and (almost) immediately sent to the field.

If you think that any of my statements adequately answer your question, I, of course can give you examples from sources.
Macedon
MODERATOR
Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Reply
#4
I'm curious, in much of my reading of the Roman legions. It seems that at least in Caesar's era, Legions were recruited en masse, and the casualties weren't replaced, so a legion after some years of campaigning could be massively understrength.

What did they do when the Legion became horrifically understrength? When did Rome adopt the replacements idea to put new troops in to depleted units, and why so long to adopt that practice?

Chris
Reply
#5
Thanks, Nate. I'll take a look at that debate and see if I could post anything tomorrow.
Reply
#6
I still believe that there was no official reinforcement of legions until the institution of a standing army under Augustus. Before this, legions were raised together on the citizen militia principle, and discharged en masse. Reinforcing them with fresh troops would have messed up the discharge dates, and may have been illegal anyway.

So some legions did become very understrength, especially during the civil wars. At Pharsalus Caesar got around this by combining several of his depleted veteran legions into temporary mixed units.

There's a previous thread about this very topic:

Legion%20Reinforcements]
Nathan Ross
Reply
#7
Chris, I think that soldiers weren't fully replaced simply because the recruitment was slow. It was hard to recruit good soldiers, legionaries were elite troops.
[Image: inaciem-bandeau.png]
Reply
#8
Thanks Jori and Nathan! (thanks for the link, I shall look it over)
Chris
Reply
#9
Jori and Chris:

The thread concerning legion reinforcements really helped me out when I had the same question. To us 21st century moderns, keeping units at full paper strength seems correct and natural because we were born into a culture with a long tradition of a professional military. But what makes sense to us did not necessarily apply to the Roman Republic, which until relatively recently had no tradition of military service as a career.
The gap in my knowledge at the time was not understanding that the post Marian, Late Republic Army was an institution in the midst of a transition. As you probably know, the Marian Reforms weren't the overnight, revolutionary change from a militia system to a professional army that some textbooks would have us believe. Even a generation later, legions were raised, used, and discharged as a unit, suggesting that the militia tradition was still somewhat intact, albeit for a much longer term.
Take what you want, and pay for it

-Spanish proverb
Reply
#10
I read the thread and I agree with it. I forgot to mention that I was speaking of imperial army Smile
[Image: inaciem-bandeau.png]
Reply
#11
And of course all this does not make the legion 100% combat ready. It just makes it sufficiently trained for a Roman general to actually dare to use them in battle. Continuous physical and combat training as well as discipline were considered of paramount importance for a legionary army, even of one of veterans, to be really, 100% battle-worthy, a fact attested many times in the sources.
Macedon
MODERATOR
Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Legionary training Marius Aquilinus 7 2,094 10-23-2012, 01:52 PM
Last Post: wolle1301
  Legionary physical training demarthin 2 1,466 05-25-2010, 08:06 PM
Last Post: Medicus matt

Forum Jump: