02-29-2004, 01:28 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-26-2017, 02:03 AM by Nathan Ross.)
Actually, not so BS - loathe as I am to give any support to Mr Dando-Collins, he was dealing with the period of the late republic, when such a system does seem to have been in operation - albeit rapidly replaced with the more familiar Augustan system of constant recruitment.<br>
<br>
Under the old republican system, as described by Polybius, legions were raised by the consuls, served for the period of a campaign and then were demobilised until the republic once more had need of them. This system was already breaking down by the early 1st century, when units like Sulla's 'Valerians' (I do hope this is the correct name - I don't have my copy of Plutarch to hand!) stayed under arms for a long period and became rather wedded to their commander in the process. By Caesar's day, legions seemed to be kept up far beyond a single campaign - at the start of the Gallic war there were several available to him of (it seems) a high level of experience. Where these legions came from is a debatable point - Collins pretends to have the facts, saying that the tenth were raised in Spain etc, but nobody knows (although one can hypothesise - see below!)<br>
<br>
Reading Caesar's Commentaries, it becomes clear that he still used a form of the old Republican recruitment system - he raises several new legions of recruits, but never mentions his original legions - those he refers to as 'veteran' - being reinforced. Indeed, the very notion that an entire legion can be classed as veteran indicates that these men have not had their initial draft diluted by the introduction of new levies - these levies are instead formed into new legions. This does lead to a severe depletion of numbers - the sixth legion at Zela are described by Caesar as being down to about half their original number, but rather than build the legion up again to full strength with recruits, he forms these recruits (ex Pompeians, mainly) into new legions, numbered up to around XXXV or so. How many of the old tenth legion may have survived to be demobilised in 45 is unknown, but I would guess that a strong veteran formation would lose less men in combat that a raw and untested one, and thus after a few years of campaigning would reach a level. This is a guess though.<br>
<br>
Appian describes how Antony and Octavian reorganised their armies after Philippi - all the veterans were retired to colonies in Italy, and the remaining men reformed into eleven new legions (some of which took the names of the old Caesarian formations). While Appian might exaggerate - surely these legions would need experienced centurions, for example - this does suggest that the triumvirs were still using a form of the Republican system. Very soon afterwards, however, this was discarded, and the legions that Octavian raised to fight S. Pompey (including X Fretensis, for one) were maintained as standing formations through the Imperial age. I think what the Augustan system produced was in effect a standing Roman army, doing away with the republican system, which still harked back to the idea of men being levied only for specific campaigns.<br>
<br>
Incidentally, a few people here have complained of Collins' statement that the tenth legion were raised in Spain. With the same reservations about supporting the nonsense of this book, I would mention that Appian (BC III.83) says that the tenth legion were 'recruited from non-Italians'. This could mean many things, but since so many of Caesar's legions were raised in Cisalpine Gaul, for instance, I think it unlikely that Appian means that the tenth were raised there - far more likely that he is referring to an initial recruitment in either Transalpine Gaul (where they were based during the incident Appian describes) or Spain. Of course, there's nothing to say that the legion didn't originally come from the east, but I believe at this time it was unusual for legions to be moved from one side of the empire to another. As Caesar puts such store by the tenth so early in the Gallic war, it would be tempting to imagine their having been one of those legions that he raised himself during his governorship of Spain in 60 - perhaps even a 'legio vernacular' like the later 'fifth Alaudae' - and used to subdue the Iberians. Collins, I believe, states this as fact, and of course it is no such thing - it is, however, a reasonable hypothesis.
<p></p><i></i>
<br>
Under the old republican system, as described by Polybius, legions were raised by the consuls, served for the period of a campaign and then were demobilised until the republic once more had need of them. This system was already breaking down by the early 1st century, when units like Sulla's 'Valerians' (I do hope this is the correct name - I don't have my copy of Plutarch to hand!) stayed under arms for a long period and became rather wedded to their commander in the process. By Caesar's day, legions seemed to be kept up far beyond a single campaign - at the start of the Gallic war there were several available to him of (it seems) a high level of experience. Where these legions came from is a debatable point - Collins pretends to have the facts, saying that the tenth were raised in Spain etc, but nobody knows (although one can hypothesise - see below!)<br>
<br>
Reading Caesar's Commentaries, it becomes clear that he still used a form of the old Republican recruitment system - he raises several new legions of recruits, but never mentions his original legions - those he refers to as 'veteran' - being reinforced. Indeed, the very notion that an entire legion can be classed as veteran indicates that these men have not had their initial draft diluted by the introduction of new levies - these levies are instead formed into new legions. This does lead to a severe depletion of numbers - the sixth legion at Zela are described by Caesar as being down to about half their original number, but rather than build the legion up again to full strength with recruits, he forms these recruits (ex Pompeians, mainly) into new legions, numbered up to around XXXV or so. How many of the old tenth legion may have survived to be demobilised in 45 is unknown, but I would guess that a strong veteran formation would lose less men in combat that a raw and untested one, and thus after a few years of campaigning would reach a level. This is a guess though.<br>
<br>
Appian describes how Antony and Octavian reorganised their armies after Philippi - all the veterans were retired to colonies in Italy, and the remaining men reformed into eleven new legions (some of which took the names of the old Caesarian formations). While Appian might exaggerate - surely these legions would need experienced centurions, for example - this does suggest that the triumvirs were still using a form of the Republican system. Very soon afterwards, however, this was discarded, and the legions that Octavian raised to fight S. Pompey (including X Fretensis, for one) were maintained as standing formations through the Imperial age. I think what the Augustan system produced was in effect a standing Roman army, doing away with the republican system, which still harked back to the idea of men being levied only for specific campaigns.<br>
<br>
Incidentally, a few people here have complained of Collins' statement that the tenth legion were raised in Spain. With the same reservations about supporting the nonsense of this book, I would mention that Appian (BC III.83) says that the tenth legion were 'recruited from non-Italians'. This could mean many things, but since so many of Caesar's legions were raised in Cisalpine Gaul, for instance, I think it unlikely that Appian means that the tenth were raised there - far more likely that he is referring to an initial recruitment in either Transalpine Gaul (where they were based during the incident Appian describes) or Spain. Of course, there's nothing to say that the legion didn't originally come from the east, but I believe at this time it was unusual for legions to be moved from one side of the empire to another. As Caesar puts such store by the tenth so early in the Gallic war, it would be tempting to imagine their having been one of those legions that he raised himself during his governorship of Spain in 60 - perhaps even a 'legio vernacular' like the later 'fifth Alaudae' - and used to subdue the Iberians. Collins, I believe, states this as fact, and of course it is no such thing - it is, however, a reasonable hypothesis.
<p></p><i></i>
Nathan Ross
