Roman army basic training

[guy]

 

Here is an interesting video on the Roman army basic training:

 

 

[caldrail]

The idea that the Roman legions somehow represent a parallel of modern practice does not easily die does it? I know how popular the idea of the 'military machine' is to some people, including some academics, but that idea is flawed because the sources indicate a less procedural reality.

Was there any real standardised basic training? No, just an expected ideal that relied on conformal activity from legionary commanders and centurions. The legion was not a regiment. There was no single organisation called the 'Roman Army'. Each legion was a separate packet of military power which was formed to a standard pattern but capability was always more variable than a required standard, though there was a tendency for training to be more complete for new formations. In cases where the recruits are joining established legions, the training relied more on the newbie soldiers learning from peers than formal education. The Romans would not interrupt normal duties simply to train a few recruits who would have their assigned contubernium help get them up to speed.

You will often see De Re Militaris (Vegetius) described as a military manual when it was nothing of the sort, it was an essay to suggest how the Roman military could be improved by quoting from examples of good ideas about training and practice - not all legions did all those things all of the time.

Remember, to illustrate a known extreme, Corbulo went to Syria to collect an army to march to Armenia, only to discover soldiers that had never done any basic military drills at all.

 

Edited June 17, 2022 by caldrail

[caldrail]

After some thought on the subject, here's an outline of why 'basic training' is a flawed idea when discussing Roman legions.

In a modern army, there is usually a central training organisation, units, or bases dedicated for the purpose of initial training. Having learned how to be a soldier, the individual is then posted to his assigned unit.

That did not happen in Roman times. They did not have centralised training. It was not possible therefore to guarantee standards in basic training of raw recruits.

Legions recruited individually, either at their own initiative or via the elite Roman to whom command of the legion has been allocated. Any training was conducted within the legion. There was no guarantee of a standard basic training. If the legion was at their home fort on peace time duty, a recruit might be given more attention and fitting in with the men would be simpler. If the recruit joins at a time when the legion mobilisations, tough, he's in the legion and must march to war as best he can. This is where the contubernium system serves admirably, because the soldier is introduced to a familia, a brotherhood of seven other men (the Contubernium was NOT a squad in modern parlance, it was not assigned duty or sent into combat as a unit, far too small for useful application other than a buddy system for morale and support).

Also the role of the Centurion has to be emphasised. Despite much opinion that various Roman ranks and military titles were 'the equivalent of NCO's', there is no actual comparison. Rome did not like giving responsibility or command duty to men of lesser station, they had enough issues keeping them loyal and disciplined without letting them develop ideas of their own. Virtually all the Roman military titles below Centurion were jobs, not ranks, denoting either specialist categories or pay grades, but with levels of status - not command. The Centurion is the boss, the alpha dog, the organised version of a raider chieftain from Rome's earliest days. He is responsible for the leadership and training of his men. He has, in fact, considerable leeway in tactics and initiative, even given territorial responsibility sometimes. Technically the Optio "Chosen Man" is a job too rather than a rank in modern terms, one who serves as a 'right hand man' under the Centurion's authority, not his own.