Legionary Training

[Gaius Octavius]

From: "The Roman Soldier"; G.R. Watson; Cornel University Press, 1969; pp 68-69.

 

"How severe field training could be we learn from Appian and Tacitus. Both describe the measures taken by an energetic commander and a keen disciplinarian to restore the morale of undisciplined troops. Appian is concerned with the action of Scipio Africanus the Younger against the Numantines in 134 BC.

 

"On his arrival he drove out all the merchants, the camp followers, the soothsayers and fortune tellers, for the soldiers had been demoralized by their lack of success and were continually resorting to these people. He ordered that in future nothing except what was essential should be brought in, not even a sacrificial animal for the purposes of divination. He also gave orders for the sale of all wagons, and all their unnecessary contents, and of all pack animals, apart from a few exceptions which he made himself. No one was to have any cooking equipment apart from a spit, a bronze cooking pot, and a single drinking vessel. He had their food confined by regulation to plain boiled and roasted meats. He forbade them beds, and he himself set an example by sleeping on straw. He did not allow them to ride on mules when on the march. 'For what can you expect in wartime', he said, 'from men who cannot even walk?' He made them bathe and oil themselves by themselves, for, as he said in scorn, only mules which had no hands, needed others to rub them down. In this way he quickly restored their morale, and made them respect and fear him, by being hard to approach and grudging with his favors, espeially those favors which were against regulations. He often said that generals who were strict and conscientious about regulations are good for their own side, but generals who were easy going and free with privileges were a great help to the other side. For these latter generals, he said, had followers who were contented but contemptuous, whereas the former had men who were sullen but obedient, and ready for any emergency.

 

"He did not, however, dare to open his campaign before he had made his men fit by hard training. He went over all the low-lying ground nearby, and every day he had one camp after another first fortified and then razed, deep trenches dug and then filled in, high walls built up and then pulled down, while he himself watched over the work from dawn till dusk. On route marches he always had his men march in block formations to prevent them from straggling as they had done before, and nobody was permitted to leave the position assigned to him. He used to go up and down the column of march, and often visit the rear. If any men were sick, he would have them mounted in place of the cavalrymen, if any loads were too heavy for the mules, he had them shared out amongst the infantrymen. Whenever he pitched camp he made those who formed the vanguard during the day take up position after the march around the circuit of the camp, and a different squardron ride around on patrol. The rest were assigned their duties; some dug the ditch, others built up the rampart, others pitched the tents. He had the time required for these tasks measured and determined."

Edited July 25, 2006 by Gaius Octavius

[Lost_Warrior]

::grins:: I like this guy!

 

How is it, that being that rough on everyone would *improve* morale though? I don't quite get that.

[Gaius Octavius]

::grins:: I like this guy!

 

How is it, that being that rough on everyone would *improve* morale though? I don't quite get that.

I guess it is what you mean by morale. If you were going to be thrashed and trashed by your fellows, you would think twice about laying down on the job - so long as duty and punishment were equal and just.

Relate this to the 'good' and 'bad' generals above.

[Lost_Warrior]

Ah. Now see, I would call that "discipline". And I'd define "morale" as "good spirits"

[M. Porcius Cato]

Ah. Now see, I would call that "discipline". And I'd define "morale" as "good spirits"

 

Generally, I'd presume that a well-organized and efficient force has better morale than the opposite because its soldiers are enlivened by pride and by the expectation that they could overcome any future obstacles or threats. Insofar as discipline increases organization and efficiency, it would also increase morale.

[Gaius Octavius]

To add to MPC's post. Discipline is a part of morale. Morale is 'espirit de corps'. If troopers are aware that they can count on their fellows at all times and that they are competant to handle all situations in the field; if justice is meted out equably, then the corps will be 'happy'.

 

If the reverse is the case, the corps will be demoralized. The members of special corps, today, are trained, as above, to be able to handle all the tasks of the corps. This creates a comraderie amongst the troopers (and sailors).

 

Hopefully, a post on Corbolo will soon follow.

Edited July 26, 2006 by Gaius Octavius

[Lost_Warrior]

Generally, I'd presume that a well-organized and efficient force has better morale than the opposite because its soldiers are enlivened by pride and by the expectation that they could overcome any future obstacles or threats. Insofar as discipline increases organization and efficiency, it would also increase morale.

 

That's true, I was thinking of something like that but I couldn't think of how to put it into words

[caldrail]

To add to MPC's post. Discipline is a part of morale. Morale is 'espirit de corps'. If troopers are aware that they can count on their fellows at all times and that they are competant to handle all situations in the field; if justice is meted out equably, then the corps will be 'happy'.

 

Morale isn't just esprit de corps. That results from a sense of belonging, which requires an organisation with traditions. Morale is the mental state of your men. This can be affected by a number of factors. Faith in your leadership, discipline, availabiltiy of food and water, enviromental hardship, rewards of victory, punishments of defeat or cowardice, allied support... all sorts of things. If one factor goes awry then perhaps you can compensate. If too many factors are involved then eventually the men will get depressed or angry. Caesar - Its time to make that rousing speech I think.

[Virgil61]

To add to MPC's post. Discipline is a part of morale. Morale is 'espirit de corps'. If troopers are aware that they can count on their fellows at all times and that they are competant to handle all situations in the field; if justice is meted out equably, then the corps will be 'happy'.

 

Morale isn't just esprit de corps. That results from a sense of belonging, which requires an organisation with traditions. Morale is the mental state of your men. This can be affected by a number of factors. Faith in your leadership, discipline, availabiltiy of food and water, enviromental hardship, rewards of victory, punishments of defeat or cowardice, allied support... all sorts of things. If one factor goes awry then perhaps you can compensate. If too many factors are involved then eventually the men will get depressed or angry. Caesar - Its time to make that rousing speech I think.

 

I'd have to agree with this in general. Once combat operations start--road marches, actual combat, building fortifications, siegework, etc another factor comes in to morale I think and that's training. To put MPC's comment in another way; nothing builds morale more in a hostile environment than soldiers confident in their ability to defeat an enemy due to their awareness of their own skills (and of course also in their leadership). Once some of those other factors go awry--and they always seem to--you can bank on training to compensate to a large extent.

 

Scipio essentially did what most leaders still do when taking over a dispirited and under-performing unit; he reinstituted tough standards and met them himself as well. I can imagine that while some younger or more inexperienced soldiers may have grumbled initially there were a few old-timers among the centurians and ranks who nodded in appreciation of what he was doing.