Training programs for conscripts

[hellheaven1987]

Just curious, did Greeks and Republic Roman had central training programs for their conscripts during peace time. I have this question after read "Early Carolingian Warfare" by Bernard S. Bachrach. In the book, Bachrach argues that Carolingian conscripts, which fought in phalanx formation, had seasonal training program during peaceful time for learning how to fight in phalanx. He also argues that those conscripts might also learn the technic of storming fortification, and certain conscripts might be picked for permanunt military service during the training. It brings quite an interesting question - did Greek and early Roman, who were using conscripts as their main force, did exactly same thing as Carolingian?

[Tiberius Tosi]

The Romans did have a basic training (I am talking about Post-Marian legions here, Polybian legions were trained as needed when war broke out), one of the most challenging aspects was the 18 mile march with all equipment in less than 5 hours in the middle of summer (so as to make it that much harder). Swimming, jumping, running were all part of the initial stages of the "basic training". Then they would move on to combat training using wooden weapons. They would fight, march, etc. Even once they were in the army, they were constantly doing training routines, usually marching in large units (the entire legion would generally not be in one single place at once, so it was likely that their marching would be small scale but would mimic a legion manuevres that they would need). Training kept the legionnaires busy when they weren't fighting or doing contruction works (roads, defenses, etc.) so it was vital to the Roman army. There are also, interestingly, records of Roman camp schedules, for things like Latrine duty and such that have survived, showing that the Roman army was highly organized and schedule with their routines.

I don't know much about the Greeks, but I do know the Athenians for example required all males to undergo a summer of military training when they were (I think) 18, and war was so common (and so short, usually timed perfectly for when fields didn't need to be tended to generally) between the City States that they probably didn't train all that much, although I am not positive on this. I think we all know the Spartan training, though this was far from the norm.

[hellheaven1987]

The Romans did have a basic training (I am talking about Post-Marian legions here, Polybian legions were trained as needed when war broke out), one of the most challenging aspects was the 18 mile march with all equipment in less than 5 hours in the middle of summer (so as to make it that much harder). Swimming, jumping, running were all part of the initial stages of the "basic training". Then they would move on to combat training using wooden weapons. They would fight, march, etc. Even once they were in the army, they were constantly doing training routines, usually marching in large units (the entire legion would generally not be in one single place at once, so it was likely that their marching would be small scale but would mimic a legion manuevres that they would need). Training kept the legionnaires busy when they weren't fighting or doing contruction works (roads, defenses, etc.) so it was vital to the Roman army. There are also, interestingly, records of Roman camp schedules, for things like Latrine duty and such that have survived, showing that the Roman army was highly organized and schedule with their routines.

Post-Marian legionnaires were professional soldiers hence had plenty of time for military training (it was their job), and in fact it seems recruits were like modern military, recieved basic training in near by training ground before assigned to the units, which would provide advanced training.

It seems Polybian Legion only started their training after they were pressed into service, as we know Scipio trained his men hard and with schedule.

I don't know much about the Greeks, but I do know the Athenians for example required all males to undergo a summer of military training when they were (I think) 18, and war was so common (and so short, usually timed perfectly for when fields didn't need to be tended to generally) between the City States that they probably didn't train all that much, although I am not positive on this. I think we all know the Spartan training, though this was far from the norm.

Pressing civilians into war is a dangerous move, and we all know how Soviet did it in WWII.

[0N3]

Pressing civilians into war is a dangerous move, and we all know how Soviet did it in WWII.

Very well, they defeated Germany an their allies in eastern-europe almost singlehandedly

[athanaric]

Very well, they defeated Germany an their allies in eastern-europe almost singlehandedly

At an obscenely high cost of human life and everything else.

[Oklop]

At an obscenely high cost of human life and everything else.

Not that they had any choice. Die fighting for a chance to live, or surrender and be exterminated as "lower race".

Are there recorded ways of training for the middle ages?

I mean not for knights and nobles who obviously had lessons and instructors but for levied men. What kinds of training would a (more reasonable) noble institute?

I suppose the basic holding of formation and pointing spears in the right direction but is there any description?

[cpdwane]

Pressing civilians into war is a dangerous move, and we all know how Soviet did it in WWII.

It is not really appropriate to describe Greek armies by the standards of more modern conscription forms.

In ancient Greece, regardless of whether they were in a democracy, an oligarchy or a tryanny, it would have been in every citizen's interest (if they were rich enough to) to fight, as the consiquences of victory or defeat would have had a massive inluence on their lives. If a City State won a battle against a rival, they would often occupy some of the defeated state's farmland, thereby increasing the cities wealth, which was good for its citizens. They would also be looked upon more favourably by the other states, and Greek national pride was such that they would always want their city state to be considered "the best". If they lost, their livelihood would be under threat as there were often cases of Greek cities enslaving their defeated rivals ( Sparta is probably the best example of this) or forcing them to accept being ruled by a foreign power, which no patriotic Greek would wish for.

The time when Greek conscripts became unwilling to fight were when they were fighting a long way from home, or if the war dragged on (for example if there was a lengthy seige), as most Greek citizens were farmers and would have needed to go home to tend their crops.

[Demetrios of Messene]

...there were often cases of Greek cities enslaving their defeated rivals ( Sparta is probably the best example of this)

Sorry for the off topic, but Sparta is probably the worst example of a Greek city enslaving defeated rivals. True, they enslaved the Messenians and kept them under their rule with an iron hand, but they did not repeat anything like that when they had similar opportunities vs Argos and later vs Athens.

I believe that a better example would be Athens who grew a habit out of enslaving and then colonising defeated cities (Aegina, Milos etc).

The wrath of athenian democracy was more dreadful than the wrath of the spartan oligarchy.

[The.Delegate]

Just curious, did Greeks and Republic Roman had central training programs for their conscripts during peace time. I have this question after read "Early Carolingian Warfare" by Bernard S. Bachrach. In the book, Bachrach argues that Carolingian conscripts, which fought in phalanx formation, had seasonal training program during peaceful time for learning how to fight in phalanx. He also argues that those conscripts might also learn the technic of storming fortification, and certain conscripts might be picked for permanunt military service during the training. It brings quite an interesting question - did Greek and early Roman, who were using conscripts as their main force, did exactly same thing as Carolingian?

Are you thinking of Carthaginian? The Carthaginians were contemporary's of the Romans and Greeks. Carolingian is a reference to a Frankish royal dynasty in the dark ages.

[konny]

Just curious, did Greeks and Republic Roman had central training programs for their conscripts during peace time. I have this question after read "Early Carolingian Warfare" by Bernard S. Bachrach. In the book, Bachrach argues that Carolingian conscripts, which fought in phalanx formation, had seasonal training program during peaceful time for learning how to fight in phalanx. He also argues that those conscripts might also learn the technic of storming fortification, and certain conscripts might be picked for permanunt military service during the training.

Carolingian "conscripts" (means levy?) being trained? Where and by whom? They were trained to fight in phalanx? What phalanx? Does this read "shieldwall"?

[Lysimachus]

Carolingian "conscripts" (means levy?) being trained? Where and by whom? They were trained to fight in phalanx? What phalanx? Does this read "shieldwall"?

I think he means Carthaginian.

Also, I read that in the Polybian legions that since they wern't a professional force that every time the Romans went to war and the soldiers were trained, they had to repeat the same procedures again and again (so if you had been called up, then Rome went to peace and then went to war again, you would have to go through exactly the same training).

[konny]

I think he means Carthaginian.

Not when talking about "Early Carolingian Warfare" by Bernard S. Bachrach. Carthago did not have a conscript army either.

[athanaric]

Bachrach is more of a Dark Ages scholar, he wouldn't write about Carthage. I'm just reading "A History of the Alans in the West" by this author.

[konny]

Yes, I know this author, at least by name. I haven't read anything of him myself so far. If he really claims the Carlongians had a conscript army which recruits were trained in phalanx combat by the crown, I would be pretty confident that this would not be the 'communis opinio', so to say.

[hellheaven1987]

Carolingian "conscripts" (means levy?) being trained? Where and by whom? They were trained to fight in phalanx? What phalanx? Does this read "shieldwall"?

Konny, you know I generally did not make up stuff I don't know, so...

Bachrach suggests that men were summoned to local training centers seasonally for combat training, and yes, they fought in phalanx, with short sword (gladii) and large round shield.

Highly recommond you to read this book.

[konny]

Konny, you know I generally did not make up stuff I don't know, so...

Bachrach suggests that men were summoned to local training centers seasonally for combat training, and yes, they fought in phalanx, with short sword (gladii) and large round shield.

Oh sorry, I didn't want to leave the impression you had made something up. I am certain that you can back this up with Bachrach's book.

I am rather questioning his conclusions:

The idea of training centers is completly unheard of for the European Middle Ages. The Carolingian levy did exist at least until the early 12th Century and disappeared with the further professionalization of the military in Western Europe during that century. There are absolutly no hints that there were any traces of an older training system for the levy. Military training was personal training taught individually and on tournaments. The peasant levy seemed to have been completly untrained.

This was, of course, also a matter of experince: in Carolingian times the levy was raised very frequently what would have made it rather experinced. The levy in that periode also included the richer landowners that would have been able to donate more time in training. In the later periode the levy would have been raised only in cases of emergency, that way it would only have been really "fit for service" in border regions, like Saxony. The rich landowners in that periode would have either become part of the nobility themselves or lost their freedom; anyways this class had more or less disappeared.

Another point is that, when the men of the peasant levy would expect to be drafted to the army time and again, they would volountary do some military training on base of their village or closer neighbourhood; this is nothing exceptional and the same with most militia forces in history, also with the urban militias of the late MA. This "sunday training" might indeed occasionally be supervised by the local count.

There would also be training at the beginning of a campaign, for example when the levy of a duchy gathered at a certain spot it would have taken weeks to have all men appeared. This time would not have been wasted, but exercises would have been held with the men that allready were there.


All this is, of course, not the same as having "training centers for recruits". AFAIK, such things cannot be attested in Europe until the late 17th/early 18th Century when the first standing armies were raised.


Concerning the "phalanx": The shieldwall is well attested for the entire dark ages until the Late MA, that is as long as European infantry was using shields at all. It indeed required training to be half way effective. But the deployement would have been anyways that the decisive first ranks would have been composed of nobles and professionals. Swords were insanly expensive in Carolingian times and you would not expect to see this weapon in the hands of a peasant.

The lesser soldiers, in means of arms, armour, but also experince and training, would have been placed into the rear ranks where they would add to the pushing force of the shieldwall and would be throwing javelins or shooting arrows over the heads of the front ranks ("friendly fire" seemed to have been a problem), or use their spears to stab through gabs in the front ranks.

This style of combat does not require any centralized training either: Migration periode Germanics, Viking, or the English levy had been fighting that way over Centuries without them having any "training centers" to school it.

[Steve Holt]

Rome conscripted? I thought they enlisted.

[Timoleon of Korinthos]

Up to the end of the 5th century BC, there was no training of hoplites anywhere in Greece but Sparta. We have to remember that the hoplite battle had emerged under Homeric cultural pressure as a simplification of heroic combat by introducing a semi-ritualised form of clash, which was seen as a the most ideal in real world (as opposed to the epics) competition in excellence between men and by extent cities, as much as it was seen am means of projecting geopolitical might. Courage was viewed as an innate trait of man's nature and as such was not subjected to training, the battle was to serve as a mirror reflecting the valor of man's true nature. Besides, the formation of phalanx was an excellent method of tranfering the critical weight of combat from skill and technique in arms, which the agrarian soldiers had nor the time neither the intention to be taught, to discipline, solidarity and passive courage, which would have been already cultivated in the minds of the hoplites by the collective aspects of civic life in their polis. And the nature of hoplite combat was so tight and crammed, that as Xenophon put it, it was impossible for a soldier fighting in the front lines to miss the target; the hard part was to meet the physical and psychological demands. And what is more, many customs and cultural preoccupations of peace time, for example sports and dances such as wrestling, hoplitodromos, pyrrhic dance, were intened to prepare the hoplite for various stages of the battle (othismos, dromedary charge, handling the spear and shield in response to signals respectively). Only after one phalanx had crumbled and the mass arrays had loosened or completely dissolved did one require special fighting skills to save his ass or put retreating enemies to sword and gain glory. And for this purpose there were instructors called hoplomachoi, who roamed Greece and taught fighting techniques to those that could afford it. The fact that Spartans used to spend countless hours in drills and gymnasia did not so much result in making them superior individual fighters, but in allowing their phalanx to peform difficult and complex maneuvers that other Greeks could not even dream of executing. Most cities, Argos, Thebes, Athens, Syracuse would field 'picked' men already from the archaic period, but only Sparta fielded trained men. However, as the perceptions on hoplite battle were challenged during the 5th century, around the twist of it more and more cities started to initiate training programms and create professional standing forces. Argos already had one since before 418BC. Thebes, Mantineia, Pherae, Macedon would follow in the next century. In Athens compulsory hoplite training would not be institutionalised by the state until the introduction of ephebeia in the 330s, but even before this date the city was renowned for mercenary generals that were famous for forcing constant drills and iron discipline upon their soldiers, like Iphicrates and Chabrias. But even in the 4rth century you could say that mainting the readiness and fighting prowess of the soldiers through drills depended on the liveliness of the commander much more than any civic constitution or social norm.
Oddly enough, training programms for cavalry existed long before such a step was taken by infantry. Judging from the example of mid 5th century Athens, cities that could sustain cavalry forces subjected them to frequent drills, which rather resembled in nature competitions in horsemanship between individuals and discipline and organisation between squadrons; the cities also expected from individual horsemen to practise on their own and tested each of them on an annual basis before recruting in the cavalry body. For lands that were traditionally considered realms of the horse, Boetia to some extent and primarily Thessaly and Macedon, the picture gets blurr, but the impression is that horsemanship was ancestral and more like a national sport to those regional cultures, so as with the hoplite in southern Geece, it's difficult to see how could they have utilised official training programms before the attested professionalism of the 4th century.


As far as the Romans are concerned, in book VI, which goes in great length to describe all aspects of military life, from the procedure of recruitment to the banners of the officers, Polybius does not make any references to the Roman conscripts undergoing any initiative training programm either. Most probably because it did not exist. The very way the battle formation, the manipular legion, had been structured also seems to suggest at this, for it was organised in ages sets, whose array aimed specifically at providing the younger combatants with battle experience and also giving them the opportunity to display their virtus and earn fame and praise by the seniors.

[Steve Holt]

Napoleon used conscripts as well.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Timoleon is spot on right here. Greek Armies waaay up to the latter half of the IV century BC were dens of amateurism, both in organization and in procedure.