Just how much training did an ancient army require?

[Patrick Waterson]

There are a whole set of nested questions here.

What were the key points of advantage of trained and/or experienced troops?  We can agree, I expect, that untrained and inexperinced is bad and trained and experienced is good but where do the advantages lie in between?  Are well trained inexperienced troops better than badly trained troops with some combat experience? 

Not a particularly easy question to answer, but one might attempt to do so.  The classic case would seem to be Marathon, 490 BC, although this involves a few assumptions, namely that the Greeks were well-trained but inexperienced and the Achaemenids were experienced but not really trained.  The scale would come down heavily on the side of training (as Nicholas earlier hinted).  A few more cases might be desirable to avoid drawing premature conclusions.

How well was experience and training distributed.  Andreas and Patrick have demonstrated that Greece had a period where there was always something going on, even if there was no major war.  But was this experience equally spread, or were there communities who rarely fought and ones who had a near constant level of low level war?  Did mercenaries come from all communities or were they the speciality of only some?  This would be important in the refreshing of communities experience of war even if not actually at war.

There seem to have been major and minor players.  Smaller cities generally belonged to a league or similar either for their own safety or because they had been made an offer they could not refuse.  As such, unless (like most members of the Delian League) they bought themselves out of military service, they would benefit from inter-league techniques and experience.  (Allies of Thebes might actually be disadvantaged when the Thebans went into their typical deep formation, leaving the allied wing to be outflanked and defeated.)

Once mercenaries became popular they came from most if not all cities; unless fighting other Greeks, it was usually albeit not invariably an easy and comparatively risk-free occupation and paid well.  Some city-states, notably Athens, quickly turned mercenary hire into a business, usually contracting for a complete package of troops plus generals already organised into contingents.  The (usually Achaemenid) hirer could provide armour and weapons, especially if they were keen on appearances and/or Iphicratean reforms.  The Egyptian revolts of the 4th century BC and consequent Persian campaigns of attempted reconquest turned mercenary hire into big business.  And in all of this activity we also have the Xenophons of this world writing their recommendations and the likes of Iphicrates teaching their troops.  Knowledge of war was being established on an intra-cultural basis, the forerunner of the tactical manuals of the Hellenistic era and the books on stratagems of the early Roman Empire.

And a related point, which Patrick has touched on, which is the importance of leaders with experience (from generals to nco-equivalents).  The availability of combat-tested leaders seems to me to be a constant theme when it comes to what we might refer to as citizen armies, where the army is drawn from obligated civilians rather than a social or professional military caste.

The selection (or in some cases election) of generals was productive of variable results.  Sparta relied primarily on its kings for command; these were traditionally cautious and conservative, but on occasion a Spartan officer with an independent command would distinguish himself and practically win a war on his own.  Athens threw up a variety of generals ranging from the excellent to the abysmal; Thebes muddled along with the adequate until Epaminodas turned up, while Argos, Corinth, Megara etc. never seemed to produce a military leader of note.  There does seem to have been a strong and close correlation between the fortunes of a given city-state and the quality of its military leadership: Athens owed its rise to Themistocles, Cimon and Pericles; Sparta to Lysander and Agesilaus; Thebes to Epaminondas.  So, a good point.

[Mark G]

There may be some value in looking at what Hannibal did with his Gauls once he had both captured roman equipment and time to retrain them in it.

But I would suggest that it could be said to reinforce what Roy was looking at.  That learning to be a fighter is one level of training, and learning to fight in an optimal tactical manner is another.

How many years longbow archery practice before you were of use on campaign?

How many months did Frederick need to take the useless cavalry he inherited and turn them into the best in Europe?

How many months on the channel  coast did napoleon need to produce the grand armee of austerlitz?

How long did it take to build the British army in World War One?  Did the Tsar need? Did Stalin need 27 years later?

It all depends on the sort of tactical method you want, on the physical quality of the men you start with,how motivated are they? on the type of weapons they are given, and most importantly of all, on how much time you have and how many you can let die before you have to win.

[Patrick Waterson]

An important factor in the classical period which was often absent in later centuries (particularly in the gunpowder era) was the continuity of military tradition and practice.

There may be some value in looking at what Hannibal did with his Gauls once he had both captured roman equipment and time to retrain them in it.

Indeed.  He hung onto what he had acquired and waited until the winter of 217-216 BC to issue it and settle his veterans into it and the tactical prodcedures involved.  This indicates he could not retrain them on the march, but needed a few weeks undisturbed to get on with the job.  (This seems to be something of a constant: to train or retrain soldiers generally seems to take about six weeks or, at most, one winter.)

But I would suggest that it could be said to reinforce what Roy was looking at.  That learning to be a fighter is one level of training, and learning to fight in an optimal tactical manner is another.

In the classical world, the two seem to go together.  Every culture has its mix of equipment and tactics, with the former usually optimised for the latter.  Hence the Roman legionary would spend his morning drilling with his unit for collective coordination and his afternoon fighting a stake for individual improvement.

How many years longbow archery practice before you were of use on campaign?

Add up the number of Sundays in a year, discounting holy days ... about six weeks of collective shooting time?

We are always told about how longbowmen needed years to train to shoot properly.  Maybe so; but in a population which grows up shooting longbows (or bows, with mature physical specimens using the full longbow) we can take individual archery for granted and the only significant feature is how well they are trained to shoot collectively.  Most classical cultures trained with weapons from a fairly early age; Spartans were distinguished by doing so all the time.

How many months did Frederick need to take the useless cavalry he inherited and turn them into the best in Europe?

He discovered their limitations at Mollwitz (10th April 1741) and they were fully reconfigured before Chotusitz (17th May 1742), although this does not entirely answer the question of how long the actual remounting and retraining took.  We can say 'between the campaign seasons of 1741 and 1742'.

How many months on the channel  coast did napoleon need to produce the grand armee of austerlitz?

I think this is more a question of: how long did they get, and how much did they need?  They were not bad when he started and good when he finished.  My impression is that he had them train to fill in time rather than because he felt they needed it.

How long did it take to build the British army in World War One?  Did the Tsar need? Did Stalin need 27 years later?

The British Army came ready-trained to World War One, as it demonstrated at Mons, Le Cateau, etc.  Similarly the Russian army (although its command left something to be desired).  Each had been retrained starting around 1906, although administrative inertia meant that the Russian army would not have finished reconfiguring itself until 1916.  (The raising of wartime troops was more an administrative and logistical limitation than one of training, although the need for the latter was initially overlooked.)  Stalin, of course, never bothered training men he sent into action*: that was up to commanders of individual formations, and only if they were allowed the time.  In 1941, this was not usually the case.

*The exception being pilots, who were merely taught to take off and land before being posted to the front.  Unsurprisingly, the Germans shot them down in droves before the survivors picked up skills the hard way.

It all depends on the sort of tactical method you want, on the physical quality of the men you start with,how motivated are they? on the type of weapons they are given, and most importantly of all, on how much time you have and how many you can let die before you have to win.

For most of history it seemed to depend more upon what your culture was doing at the time.  Your ability to pick physical quality was limited to what you had (although in a pre-industrial era this was generally good), your tactical method was the one handed down by your culture, as was your weapon system, and time was rarely lacking, because there was always a winter between one campaign season and the next.  Sometimes there was spring, too.  On occasion, when Achaemenid administrators were gathering resources for a campaign, you might have a whole year.

The question of how long to retrain arises when one changes one's system, like Cleomenes III before Sellasia and Philopoemen convincing the Achaeans to adopt the phalanx.  Again, one winter seems to have sufficed for the conversion.

[Erpingham]

How many years longbow archery practice before you were of use on campaign?

We can attempt an answer here based on Henry VIII's laws.  Archery practice was mandated from the age of seven.  At the age of 17, a man became responsible for providing his own bow.  At the age of 24, laws about minimum shooting distances applied.  So, we might suggest 17 years training to be fully effective.  I'd guess though that men in their late teens would be effective enough for most purposes.

This of course plays into many of our previous points.  This is individual training to achieve weapon competence.  It made adequate raw material, not combat ready soldiers.  Other aspects of training were missing, like close combat weapon use or operating in conjunction with others.  Rapid shooting might also be missing.  The same statutes of Henry VIII show that under seventeens had two practice arrows, while adults had four.  Being let loose with whole sheafs of arrows in groups was something learned on campaign or in garrison.

[Nick Harbud]

... one in which chaps sit in garrisons or ponce around the palace or get blind drunk in the mead hall and do a bit of hunting.

Sounds rather like the Brigade of Guards, but how does one factor in that the troops are led by complete idiots and too stupid to run away?

This is not an entirely academic nor anachronistic question.  I mean, the Swiss vorhut at Grandson had to wait 2 hours for the rest of the army to put in an appearance, and at Murten the reason Charles sent his troops off for their pay was because the Swiss had been so disorganised during the previous days with various bits of their army marching towards the Burgundians, realising no one was following them, then turning back.  Yet still the troops saved the officers from a nasty defeat on both occasions... 

[Patrick Waterson]

How many years longbow archery practice before you were of use on campaign?

We can attempt an answer here based on Henry VIII's laws.  Archery practice was mandated from the age of seven.  At the age of 17, a man became responsible for providing his own bow.  At the age of 24, laws about minimum shooting distances applied.  So, we might suggest 17 years training to be fully effective.  I'd guess though that men in their late teens would be effective enough for most purposes.

The useful part is that the 17 years' training was built into the way the men grew up.  As a result, although lengthy (and we can probably use Anthony's 17-year figure as a guide to how long it take to produce dedicated specialists like Balearic slingers) the training is comparatively painless and does not dislocate society.

Other aspects of training were missing, like close combat weapon use or operating in conjunction with others.  Rapid shooting might also be missing.  The same statutes of Henry VIII show that under seventeens had two practice arrows, while adults had four.  Being let loose with whole sheafs of arrows in groups was something learned on campaign or in garrison.

The classical world appears to have built in a fair amount of this: I remember Jim detailing Polybius' account of Bomilcar's attempted coup in Carthage bringing to light mention that the young men had been practising with their armaments in the gymnasium during the day.  The Romans conducted annual exercises on the Field of Mars.  While our sources are somewhat quiet on the topic of unit training (except for mention of the Spartans being at it all the time), one gets the impression that armies began campaigns fully trained, or as trained as they were going to get.  This collective training seems to have taken weeks rather than months or years, although it is worth remembering that most men going through it would have done so before and their presence and experience helped to bring the new additions through with minimum fuss and/or misunderstanding.

[gavindbm]

I have a trace memory that says Roman Legions, around the end of the Republic, were considered newly raised until they had spent a year (or winter) together...

Thus, at the end of the Republic, a Legion was considered combat ready after a winter (or the year after it was raised). 

What the time was required for is another matter - stamina, esprit de corps, trust in your companions/mates/unit....?

We might say that such a force represents the professional style army - rather than part-time/small-band soldiers/warriors - and levies...

[Patrick Waterson]

... how does one factor in that the troops are led by complete idiots and too stupid to run away?

Run by committee, perhaps?  (Um ... maybe I should not have said that ... )

I have a trace memory that says Roman Legions, around the end of the Republic, were considered newly raised until they had spent a year (or winter) together...

Probably true; the old rules for raising them had pretty much gone out of the window by then and raw troops were being conscripted wholesale, for example about half of Pompey's legions at Pharsalus.  By that time (c.50-48 BC) it seems the fashion was to raise clusters of cohorts from scratch and then assemble them into legions.  This presumably meant they missed out on the traditional integration into formations consisting partly or mainly of men who already knew what to do and hence took noticeably longer to shake down.

Just to get a feel, I checked out the basic training time for US infantry (the only army for which I could find instant information online).  This is being raised from 14 to 22 weeks, although the reasons for doing so were not clearly stated.  Typically, the US Army trains people in Basic Combat Training for 10 weeks and the balance is for Advanced Individual Training, where the recruit masters, or at last gets, a Military Occupational Speciality.  Unlike classical armies, it does not train recruits together with experienced men who are all going to be part of the same unit, resulting in longer training times and more effort for less result.  (By contrast, a WW2 German division would assimilate 80% raw recruits and rebuild from 20% to full strength and combat effectiveness in 4-6 weeks.)

[Jim Webster]

b

Just to get a feel, I checked out the basic training time for US infantry (the only army for which I could find instant information online).  This is being raised from 14 to 22 weeks, although the reasons for doing so were not clearly stated.  Typically, the US Army trains people in Basic Combat Training for 10 weeks and the balance is for Advanced Individual Training, where the recruit masters, or at last gets, a Military Occupational Speciality.  Unlike classical armies, it does not train recruits together with experienced men who are all going to be part of the same unit, resulting in longer training times and more effort for less result.  (By contrast, a WW2 German division would assimilate 80% raw recruits and rebuild from 20% to full strength and combat effectiveness in 4-6 weeks.)

I think that's the difference between peace time and war time
A lot of things happen differently in wartime. For a start we could build a submarine in six weeks. Admittedly after the war virtually all of them were scrapped

UK National Service men got six weeks basic training before being sent out to their units, which might be in combat

[aligern]

Its also a matter of the tactical configuration. A German WW2 infantry unit need experienced men to operate the MG42......you are dead if the no 2 cannot change a barrel. The other squad members need to be able to shoot in a direction and do basic fieldcraft. The tactical choices are made by the NCOs and the LMG crew.
The research carried out after WW2 concluded that in American units the killing was done by NCOs and BAR men and presumably the 30 cal crew. The systems tgat inducted new recruits were geared to them learning on the job. So a couple of weeks rifle training produces a marksman. It likely takes longer to get to a sniper who need many more skills. However the basic infantryman is delivering covering fire whilst tge LMG moves or an NCO or vet bombs a bunker.

In Ancientvarmies one suppises that the first two men in a file and the last need to be skilled. In the middle the experience can vary and the system copes, so I expect advancing Romans chant Look out here I come or sme such when taking the running paces that lead to a pilum throw. The tyros can folliw their leader to do this. Its going to be a major problem in any context when everybody is inexperienced. Tgat's the point at which you heed to blood the soldiers gradually to build up technique and confidence and when a formation might be very fragile.
Roy

[Erpingham]

A few observations

We should be careful with contexts when making comparisons.  A training regime when the main need is to replace individuals coming to the end of short enlistments may be different to when raising whole new formations from scratch or rebuilding decimated units from cadres. 

Roy has what I suspect is a widely applicable concept that the burden of fighting a unit does not fall equally on everyone.   Having the best men at the front seems to have been a commonplace, with the common herd in a supporting role behind.  As said, this enabled the inexperienced to learn on the job in the relative safety of the middle ranks.  How formalised this was doubtless varied from army to army; you might be at the front because of experience or because of social expectation, for example.

[Patrick Waterson]

A training regime when the main need is to replace individuals coming to the end of short enlistments may be different to when raising whole new formations from scratch or rebuilding decimated units from cadres.

The regime may well differ; the need for six weeks (thanks, Jim; this is also the figure I remember) to instil basic soldiering skills appears to be pretty much a constant.  Four weeks' preliminary square-bashing and cross-country running is essentially optional.  A subsequent 4-12 weeks learning weapon/branch specialisation appears to be more relevant to present-day armies than their classical counterparts.

Roy has what I suspect is a widely applicable concept that the burden of fighting a unit does not fall equally on everyone.   Having the best men at the front seems to have been a commonplace, with the common herd in a supporting role behind.  As said, this enabled the inexperienced to learn on the job in the relative safety of the middle ranks.  How formalised this was doubtless varied from army to army; you might be at the front because of experience or because of social expectation, for example.

Indeed.  Naturally, the Romans did things differently, at least on the surface.

The Roman system (under the Republic) placed the hastati, who were the least experienced troops, in the front line.  The experienced principes formed the second line; the veteran triarii the third.

That said, the front rankers included the centurions, who were perforce the best fighters in their unit, or likely to be.  Hence the hastati would include a spread of experience, with the least experienced probably tucked into the middle of each file, awaiting the time when they would count as sufficiently experienced to fight in the front rank (which could of course happen in unplanned fashion if their side was losing badly, but in such an eventuality line relief would already have kicked in).  If things went right, they could pick up experience quickly, and if not, there were always the principes and triarii to retrieve the situation.

It's going to be a major problem in any context when everybody is inexperienced. That's the point at which you need to blood the soldiers gradually to build up technique and confidence and when a formation might be very fragile.

Too true (as illustrated by Luftwaffe Field Divisions and US Army Vietnam deployments), and usually this sort of thing was avoided as a matter of course in classical times.  The chaps of a polis would anyway tend to train together, as would the varying-experience enlistees of a Republican legion and the veterans-plus-new-intake of an Imperial legion.  The raw troops would start off training with their battle-wise comrades and experience - and confidence - would swiftly even out.

[Dangun]

We can attempt an answer here based on Henry VIII's laws.  Archery practice was mandated from the age of seven.  At the age of 17, a man became responsible for providing his own bow.

This thread needs more negativity.  Allow me...

I don't think we can assume compliance or enforcement.
More broadly, I think we should deeply discount any elite's take on military culture, or similarly any demand by a king that, when an army turns up, it should know what it's doing.

Consider the numbers. If England had a population of 3.5mn in the mid 16th century, compliance with that law would suggest there were about  800,000 longbows kicking around in England. Quite apart from the deforestation, it doesn't gel with the Wikipedia fact that  only 120 of those bows surviving to the current day.

Similarly, our Greek historians are among the elite of the elite, so when they qualitatively describe the martial character of a people, it's as likely an aspiration of the elite and may not tell us anything about the great unwashed.

[Duncan Head]

We can attempt an answer here based on Henry VIII's laws.  Archery practice was mandated from the age of seven.  At the age of 17, a man became responsible for providing his own bow.

This thread needs more negativity.  Allow me...

Your negativity needs to have some more negativity applied to it 

It doesn't matter how many men followed the law, rigorously or occasionally. Surely that's not the point. The main point is as a guideline to what sort of time was thought to be required.

Consider the numbers. If England had a population of 3.5mn in the mid 16th century, compliance with that law would suggest there were about  800,000 longbows kicking around in England.

There were certain exclusions - "the kynges subjectes, not lame nor havynge no lawfull impedment"; "except spirituall men, Justices, &c. and barons of the escheker". I don't know what that would do to your figures - what degree of disability is required? how many clergy were there in England?

Quite apart from the deforestation, it doesn't gel with the Wikipedia fact that only 120 of those bows surviving to the current day.

This point I seriously doubt. An old bow is just a stick, useful for firewood or whittling down into something more useful. It's hard to see why any should survive at all, except in circumstances like the Mary Rose. As a timber-based comparison, there is said to be one surviving Tudor bed. (I'm not sure how that can be quite correct - isn't the Great Bed of Ware Tudor? - but there can't be very many.)

[Erpingham]

I don't think we can assume compliance or enforcement.

Agreed.  Enforcement in particular was weak.  Compliance is a different matter.  We have loads of evidence that archery pratice was a popular pastime in England into the 17th century, well after official military usage had ended.  Did everyone practice with heavy bows at longer distances?  Perhaps not, as 16th century military writers complain about the quality of archers they had (but not numbers - there were enough archers just not enough good ones).  We might note muster records from the 15th century that show by no means everybody who should have had a bow brought one along or was considered competent with one, which again suggests compliance was patchy.

Consider the numbers. If England had a population of 3.5mn in the mid 16th century, compliance with that law would suggest there were about  800,000 longbows kicking around in England. Quite apart from the deforestation, it doesn't gel with the Wikipedia fact that  only 120 of those bows surviving to the current day.

England, of course, imported a lot of its bowstaves, which caused the deforestation to happen in central Europe.  Large areas had their yew stocks depleted.  Non-military standard bows were deliberately made from a variety of "mean" woods to ensure that cheaper practice bows remained available.  It was possible to make practice bows from coppiced poles, especially the lower weight ones suitable for younger archers.  But ensuring supplies was a strategic issue for English regimes and probably featured in more legislation that longbow practice.

On survival, bows were very biodegradeable.  None of the parts normally survive.  They were also disposable - if they broke you threw them away.  Think about how many spear shafts and lances we still have, as opposed to spear and lance heads.


[/quote]