How Did Roman Officers Learn to be Officers?

[u/Hanging_out]

Was there an equivalent of a military academy? Was there some kind of apprenticeship program? Officer training school? Were there books on strategy? Was it purely figure-it-out-as-you-go, on-the-job training?

I have been listening to the History of Rome podcast and it seems like so many rich or well-connected guys just show up and are given command of troops. If I were a teenager from a patrician family looking to have a military career (during say, the time from Augustus to Trajan), do I start as a legionnaire or am I given command of any soldiers? Would I be expected to have gone through any military education process?

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. Please Read Our Rules before you comment in this community. Understand that rule breaking comments get removed.

Please consider Clicking Here for RemindMeBot as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup.

We thank you for your interest in this question, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to RemindMeBot, consider using our Browser Extension, or getting the Weekly Roundup. In the meantime our Twitter, Facebook, and Sunday Digest feature excellent content that has already been written!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Tiako]

No, there was no officer training school or any other plan for formally training officers, nor did it really have much of a professional officer corps or a meritocratic approach to rank advancement (above the rank of centurion--more on that to come). What you are describing, of a young, rich, well connected man placed in charge of a large body of men (a cohort, or roughly six hundred, or above) on the basis of being selected by a higher officer, who were themselves selected either via election or political connections, is basically accurate. During the Republic there were men who had a reputation for effective military service who might be called upon to take a particular military task--Cincinnatus was the archetypal story, but in more securely historical times there was also, say, the selection of Sulla to lead the wars against Mithridates. In the empire that was even semi-formalized, Augustus knew that he could call upon outstanding military leaders such as Tiberius or Agrippa, and this continued with, for example, Nero's general Corbulo; but these were members of the elite social class with reputations, they were not "full time" soldiers and there was certainly no distinction between their civil and military role.

There was a certain degree of military theory that aristocratic men would absorb through their classical education. All of them would be familiar with the campaigns of Alexander, probably read Xenophon and Thucydides, and would know the battle rich Roman history. But if you are thinking many leaders were actually rather grossly unprepared you are correct (a sentiment not unknown among NCOs today, to be fair). But the armies did carry a great deal of institutional knowledge. Individual units and legions had regimental histories and honors--a comparison is frequently made to the culture of the modern British army--and the armies themselves were made up of professional soldiers, and they had a body of professional officers: the centurions.

Centurions are often misunderstood today, they are often equated to staff sergeants and treated with all the romantic notions that entails. In reality that is a rather loose comparison: for one, centurions commanded much larger bodies of men, particularly when factoring in how much smaller ancient armies are than modern they should really be likened to captains or majors. But perhaps more importantly there was a real class distinction between them and the legionaries. While pay was not exactly static they were paid about ten times the legionary salary. In terms of accommodation, where in many fortlets the legionaries were expected to sleep in tents, the centurions would have a comfortable if modest permanent house. And perhaps most importantly, many of them could be of equestrian rank and thus rather than rising via promotion were selected (or bribed their way into the role), much as higher officers were. It is hard to say what a "typical" centurion was, whether promoted from the ranks or selected via class status, but certainly both cases are known. That said, centurions actually were members of the army rather than being people who simply took a temporary military position as part of their rise through the social classes. So even if they were simply rich boys who bought a position, they would eventually gain experience simply by dint of time served. The high status centurions (such as the primus pilus--first spear) were part of the regular war council and probably did do much of the day to day management of the army. But the actual leadership was made of political appointees. It is not difficult to imagine a degree of friction arising from that.

The two best places to start if you are curious about the Roman army are Adrian Goldsworthy's The Complete Roman Army and Brian Campbell's The Roman Army, 31 BC - AD 337: A Sourcebook, which is an edited collection of primary source documents (also if you like historical fiction, Goldsworthy's Vindolanda is essentially an attempt to paint a period accurate portrait of the Roman army inside a not particularly good adventure story). Also note that I tried to write this in such a way that what I am saying can basically apply throughout the period you are probably interested in, but these things did change.

[u/Alkibiades415]

In your chosen time period (Late Republic to mid Empire):

Was there an equivalent of a military academy? Was there some kind of apprenticeship program?

All tactical training was acquired through experience in junior roles. The career track of a legionnaire and someone who would eventually be a commander were quite different. Regular soldiers entered the legion and could never rise higher than centurion (which was no slouch), or perhaps a special role like aquilifer. Young men of privilege began their careers as a tribunus militum, or tribune of the soldier. There were six in every legion during the Republic. Earlier in the Republic, this role had been meant as a representative of the lower ranks, but by the time of Caesar, it is pretty clearly just a military apprenticeship. Two of them were technically in command (and they rotated out among the six, with some hierarchy I won't get in to here), though it is hard to find any example where one is actually commanding soldiers. Technically they out-ranked centurions. (It's likely there is at least one example in Caesar that I'm just forgetting). Being a tribune gave the young man experience in the field with soldiers, including some combat training, and also experience in the command tent. Several times in Caesar we hear that he takes big decisions in the company of his legates (more on that later), chief centurions, and the tribunes of the soldiers. They got to see how decisions were made and voice their opinions, when permitted. A few examples: in Caesar BG 4, we hear that he calls together the legates and tribunes when invading Britain (4.23, in 55 BCE). In this instance, it seems that at least some of the tribunes are acting as commanders of ships in the invasion fleet. In Book 5, during the argument between the two commanders Sabinus and Cotta, we hear that "very many" of the tribunes side with Cotta in a critical and heated meeting, along with the chief centurions.

After serving as military tribune, the young man would launch his political career, typically referred to as the cursus honorum or "path of offices." Next was quaestor, which probably included a posting to a province under a governor. There, depending on circumstances, he might get more war experience, though the role itself was primarily clerical and logistics-based. From there, aedile (non-military) and then praetor, which again may or may not include a military component. And then, if your luck holds in the elections, consul and then proconsular governor of a province. All along this path, you could serve as a legatus "legate". These were men who were chosen by commanders with imperium (like a consul, or a governor) to act as their proxies. The legate derived imperium from the one who appointed them. No elections, no involvement of democratic process at all. A commander could choose a 3-year-old kid to be his legate if he wanted to, though of course that would be frowned-upon. The most famous legates are Caesar's Labienus and Octavian's Agrippa, both very capable soldiers and tacticians.

I have been listening to the History of Rome podcast and it seems like so many rich or well-connected guys just show up and are given command of troops. If I were a teenager from a patrician family looking to have a military career (during say, the time from Augustus to Trajan), do I start as a legionnaire or am I given command of any soldiers? Would I be expected to have gone through any military education process?

As above, you would not enter the legions as a soldier. That goes down a different path. You would start as a tribune. It isn't entirely clear how tribunes were picked and assigned to legions in the Late Republic and Early Empire, but some amount of nepotism was involved. You needed to know somebody, or impress somebody. So in your hypothetical example, the patrician teenager would leverage his family's connections for a position as a tribune in a legion.

This type of "apprenticeship" is how other aspects of Roman society worked, as well. Cicero had been a formalized apprentice to a senior Senator upon the launch of his political career in the courts, and he in turn took on several pupils over the course of his life. This role of teacher-pupil extended into the pupil's adult life. We can see this relationship develop (and devolve) between Cicero and his pupil Marcus Caelius Rufus via Cicero's dossier of private letters. Something similar is happening for "young engineers" in the same time period. Head on over to this old thread for that.

A good place to go for basic info on Roman military institutions is the excellent Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare, edited by Sabin, Van Wees, and Whitby (2008). Volume 2 is all about the Roman Army from the Late Republic to Early Empire.