Legion replacement system

[John M McDermott]

However, the history of the late Republic shows that Caesar had problems with the 8th, 9th and 10th Legions that would not campaign with him after Pharsalus, and, instead clamored for their discharges, en masse.

I also think that it is a leap of faith to assume that veterans would have been distributed throughout the army.

Also, by the time of the late Republic, legions seem to have been raised locally, that is, from the same area. Some legions were referred to as "Spanish" legions.

[Tarbicus]

A book arrived last week which I only started to read on the train home tonight; Service in the Roman Army, by R. E. Smith (1958, published by the University of Manchester; the University Press; reprinted 1961)

I also think that it is a leap of faith to assume that veterans would have been distributed throughout the army.

Not according to this book. Smith believes that with the reforms of Marius a new breed of soldier was born; i.e., a career soldier and not one just fulfilling his civic duty. It seems that, whenever possible, veterans were always first choice for recruiters and were in high demand, even at the expense of more eligible land-owning candidates, being distributed throughout the legions. Also, there were plenty of veterans volunteering for service because of the rewards it could bring.

As I said, I only started to read it on the train journey home, but by page 12 a lot of what this thread is about was mentioned.

[TraderTrey9785]

Not according to this book. Smith believes that with the reforms of Marius a new breed of soldier was born; i.e., a career soldier and not one just fulfilling his civic duty. It seems that, whenever possible, veterans were always first choice for recruiters and were in high demand, even at the expense of more eligible land-owning candidates, being distributed throughout the legions.

I agree...according to the instruction I received in my Roman History class last year, that was one of the major aspects of the Marian reforms and one of the reasons that civil war later plagued the Republic. I read Caesar's Legion as well and I thought that it was a great narrative, but many of his conclusions just didn't make any sense and were completely new to me. After 20 years of service, specifically in Gaul, I doubt that enough soldiers would be left to fight. They would have to replenish the ranks somehow, but the author defends that on the grounds that when a unit basically reached its combat ineffective capacity, it was combined with another legion of lesser strength. I'd be happier with the book if I was able to find primary sources that were consistent with his conclusions.

Anybody read Nero's Killing Machine? I'm not sure if it is worth purchasing.

[Caius Fabius]

I have a copy, it is holding up one leg of a wobbly table...
:lol: It was worth something, then......

[TraderTrey9785]

Thanks...if I have any run down furniture, I'll be sure to buy a copy :lol:

[Crispvs]

Tarbicus,

If I might offer a little observation, I think it worth pointing out that the selection of veterans by recruiters as you describe would probably be for forming new legions as opposed to reconstituting old ones. It is true that long serving legions would establish an esprit de corp which would help to make a more effective unit, but these veterans who are being recruited are surely former members of older units which have been disbanded, which is why they are available to recruiters. Thus they are being formed into new units rather than being used to supliment old ones. Spreading them out in the new legions would make sense as they would probably be in the minority compared to less experienced men and their experience could be used to train the men around them. A veteran could have acted as a centurio or junior officer in a new unit, giving it an experienced backbone of centurial officers which could lead and train inexperienced men.

This is not the same as using stray veterans to bolster another veteran unit.

During the late republic armies were often still recruited as they had been in earlier times. Unless the soldiers were left as garrison troops to maintain a military presence in a conquered territory, most units would have been disbanded once the campaign was over. This does get more complicated as the situation in the east develops against Mithridates but it also means that at any given time during the first half of the first century BC there must have been a good pool of experienced veterans wanting to join an army again which recruiters could hope to draw from.
These men could be seen as career soldiers but that does not necessarily mean that their military careers were continuous.

Those who did get to have continuous careers in the army probably stayed with the same unit throughout, leaving only when their terms of service ended or when their units were disbanded. Their units might have been very small by this time.

Crispvs

[John M McDermott]

By the time of the later Republic, service was fixed at 16 years, or, so I thought. Veterans were then settled somewhere, frequently on confiscated land, and, were subject to recall for a certain period of time. Additionally, many veterans re-enlisted for another 16 year term.

The issue raised is: Were recalled veterans or re-enlisted veterans scattered out to various new units, or kept in their old numbered legions, which by the time of Caesar began to be permanent formations? I find it tempting to conclude they were kept in the context of their old units, a practice not uncommon in history. In fact, I am under the impression that most armies until recent times followed the practice of keeping men in their original regiments on a permanent basis.

[Praefectusclassis]

Late Republican legionaries were often settled as a group, where almost naturally the centurions would become the town 'elders'. That made these colonies excellent pools of support for their old general; both for military ànd political ambitions. After all, all these veterans were Roman citizens and therefore eligible to vote.
And yes, when called up by a suitable officer, they would come back as a group, reforming old units. Such things certainly happened, for instance, when Octavian came from Greece to claim his inheritance to Caesar. Caesarian veterans flocked to his standards.

[John M McDermott]

The original question posed has been: Due to the fact that legions were raised with one big draft, and, the men tended to stay together for there enlistment terms, how did that reflect on a replacement system, if one existed? As the original draftees term of service expired, and they were settled in military colonies, what became of replacements who had been fed into the depleted units? Were they kept together? Did they form a part of a new unit of the same identity, under a new standard?

[Mitra]

In the imperial sources ,literary and not , we have references to mass dilecti before big campaigns (i remember also a Rostovzev note to problems caused in Spain by Traianic conscription operations).

Personally i think in peace periods only the voluntaries are enlisted , without any particulary effort to maintain the men number of a legion at all cost.
It is important to think to destiny of men conscripted in the same time; only a % of this finish the military service , the others died for war or disease or natural death ( average life low ), deserted or become unfit for wounds.
From a cohesive point of view , it isn't correct mixed a veteran group (a century or contubernium at example) with new conscripts. This destroy the cohesion of unit ; is better use it at low organic. Caesar use a 1000 men legion in Egypt.

[John M McDermott]

The Romans believed in veterans. To them, 1000 veterans were worth 5000 newly trained men.

[Nathan Ross]

The original question posed has been: Due to the fact that legions were raised with one big draft, and, the men tended to stay together for there enlistment terms, how did that reflect on a replacement system, if one existed?

I still think that there basically was no replacement system. Actually, replacing battle losses might have been illegal - I don't know a source for this, but it's generally believed that Caesar's Proconsular authority in Gaul gave him the power to raise two fresh legions per year in his province (Cisalpine Gaul). To replace losses in existing legions, however, would suggest that he was forming a standing army of sorts, which went against the ethos of the republican system (legions being raised for specific campaigns).

Caesar might have got around this legal problem, however, by raising individual cohorts rather than legions. There's a note in Book 5 of the War Commentaries that one of his legions (the fourteenth, probably) went into winter quarters at Aduatuca in 54BC together with 'five other cohorts'. One translation of the Commentaries I read (can't remember which!) noted that these were probably new recruits who had not yet been 'allocated' to a legion - however, Caesar later writes that he raised a number of other cohorts in Transalpine Gaul, and it would seem that these cohorts continued to operate outside of a regular legion framework. Quite possibly they were vernaculae - non-citizens - and Caesar might have used them to support depleted legions, or, as in the case of Aduatuca, legions in exposed positions. Once he became dictator, and could do what he wanted, he seems to have formed several of these loose cohorts into the famous 'Alaudae' legion of Gauls, giving them all citizenship in the process.

Jasper's point about demobilised soldiers being settled in groups is also pertinent here - the former Caesarians settled in 45-44BC only had a matter of months to wait before being reenlisted by the rivals in the civil wars, and were reformed into legions so quickly that they must have retained a lot of their original structure, and even, it seems, weapons. A passage from Appian on Octavian raising troops from the veteran settlements in Campania suggests this:

By giving each recruit (from the military colonies) 500 denarii he increased his force to 10,000 men. They were not properly equipped or organised into units, but resembled a single bodyguard under one standard... On entry (to Rome) Octavian proceeded to the temple of Castor and Pollux, and his men surrounded the temple openly wearing their swords... Some of them asked permission to go back to their homes and equip themselves, saying that they were not happy with any weapons except their own (and so Octavian) sent some of them off to get their arms.
Appian. Civil Wars III 40-42

This implies that the demobilised soldiers kept most or all of their military equipment (i.e. more than just their swords, which they clearly took to Rome with them) in their colonies with them after 'retirement' - after so many years of campaigning, they clearly still regarded themselves as soldiers!

- Nathan

[John M McDermott]

I also agree that it is a modern assumption that the Romans had a replacement system, for the reasons Nathan cites.

I believe the retiring veterans also took their standards with them, as well as their weapons.

[Caius Fabius]

I suspect it depends on the Region and Time period. Blanket statements are always easy to prove if you have one instance, but may not be universal. That is one of my big gripes with Dando-Collin's semi-fictions about legion recruiting and histories. I would bet that there are as many changes in the way things worked between 75BC and AD75 in the legions as are alluded to in auxiliaries, in D.B. Saddington's well researched study. Maybe before Augustus, units were allowed to get way below strength, and used for one campaign, but by the end of Augustus reign, I suspect that legions regularly received drafts of new recruits, and they were trained in their veteran units.
In modern military service we have kids coming out of BT and AIT, but they are still green. They get fed into veteran units, and either they learn or they become casualties. The veterans teach them but time is the true teacher, the longer they have to learn before they see the elephant, and the better their training, the better their chance of survival. That has been true for the last 1000 years, and probably was just as true in the time of Julius Caesar. Claudius or Trajan.

[Mitra]

"Creating and maintaining cohesion requires a firm policy of
relying on small-unit rotation, rather than on individual replacements,
as well as an emphasis on personnel stability within units.
From a management perspective, it is often much more efficient
to assign individual replacements, based upon skills and the needs
of the army. However, treating individual soldiers as "spare
parts" in a large and complex personnel machine fails to recognize
why men fight in combat. Cohesion, that state binding men
together as members of a combat unit capable of enduring the
stress of danger and hardship, is dependent upon personnel stability
within small units.
The creation of a cohesive unit is best accomplished upon its
initial formation, before other norms form that are incongruent
with army values. Creating a cohesive unit requires an intensive
resocialization process. "

Cohesion , the human element in combat - Henderson

At time Henderson write the book on four armies examinated , only US army use admnistrative mentality , Soviet , Israel and NVA army use cohesive mentality.