Historical Accuracy Of Simon Scarrow Novels

[Targa]

I just finished "Caesar's Legion", the history of the Tenth Legion, and it makes several points about recruitment of Legions that are contradicted in "Under the Eagle", Scarrow's first novel. For instance, legions were recruited all at one time, in one location, and all the recruits were of the same age, 20 years old in the mid-First centry A.D. The term of enlistment was 20 years and the recruit signed a contract with the State that specified the pay, bonuses, and pension--- land granted to the veteran upon completion of the 20 year enlistment.

Legions did not add new recruits unless they had been virtually wiped out, which happened infrequently. Casualties were generally not replaced with new recruits, and a legion would simply get smaller over the years through attrition. So, after 15 years or so, it wasn't unusual for a veteran legion to number 2,500 or so versus its original strength of 4,800. In other words, there wasn't a steady stream of replacments to replace casualties.

Last night, I enthusiastically started to read Under the Eagle and was immediately turned off by the historical inaccuracy of the manner in which Cato came to become part of the second legion. A convoy of 200 new recruits arrives at the fort and they include convicts who chose military service over imprisonment. First, recruits were not added in that manner unless on a wholesale basis after a major disaster. Second, I believe convicts were not eligible to join because they would have been deemed undesirable by the reruiting officers. Third, They would have been all from the same location and the same age. Also, a recruiting class would have received equipment and training in the recuiting location and would have trained on the march to join the legion. This happened when a legion's enlistment term expired. It was common for many of the legionnires to reenlist for a second term and remain with the legion. The new recruiting class would march to join them. So, in these cases, the legion would have two age groups -- 20 year-olds and 40 year-olds.

However, as I kept reading I became involved in the story and am enjoying it. I'm wondering if I can expect other literary liberties to be taken for the sake of the storyline. Or, is it mainly historically accurate? I read all of the Sharpe novels years ago and am looking forward to ripping into this series depsite the initial turn-off. What can I expect?

[Phil]

Dando-Collins book is seriously flawed, in a number of ways - not least, it purports to tell the story of Legio X Equestris (later Gemina), but the author erroneously attributes some of the actions of anothr legion altogether - Legio X Fretensis. This is just one example of what's wrong with the book...

The idea that all recruits were the same age, and from the same place, and that legions recieved no 'new recruits' afterwards is just laughable, and flies in the face of lots and lots of contemporary evidence.

Scarrow's 'history' is better. Enjoy!

And find a better book or two on the Roman army! Anything by Goldsworthy - 'The Complete Roman Army' covers a lot of ground pretty well. Keppie's 'Making of the Roman Army' is good too. As are Ross Cowan's 'Roman Legionary' Ospreys.

Phil

[Titus Flavius]

I read 'All the Legions of Rome' or whatever it is, or at least dipped into it. Same author. Was struck by the fact that, although the narrative history bits read pretty well, Dando-Collins was quite obviously making bits up as he went along. Maybe that's too strong, but you just can't be so sure of what happened 2000 years ago when the literary sources (which concentrate largely on the rich and don't say too much about the poor bloody infantry) are silent about it.

Besides, wasn't the tenth raised for the Gallic war? I.e. in the first century B.C., not the first century A.D. after the Augustan reforms of the army?

[Morsleib]

Simon Scarrow is (or was) a history teacher who turned his knowledge into writing. He does inevitably take liberties with history in the interest of story telling but I believe pretty much of what you read has at least a basis in fact. Bear in mind that we don't know for sure a lot of the 'facts' which we take for granted.

Why don't you take your concerns up with the Under the Eagles forum on the Scarrow brothers website: http://scarrow.forumco.com/forum.asp?FORUM_ID=2
Not that you aren't welcome to discuss it here, it's just that there are a lot of helpful people there with specific knowledge about the Eagles series (including Simon himself).

Terry

[Targa]

Daddo-Collins is an historian, while Scarrow is a novelist. I haven't been able to find criticism of Dando-Collins' scholarship . Dando-Collins lists his extensive bibliography and explains his conclusions --- what some would call "making bits up". Livy and Tacitus "made bits up" as well because they were not there as actual witnesses. Collins has made the history of the legions his specialty. He is interpreting various sources, classical and contemporary -- quite a large number of them. He explains his conclusions in the Appendices to the book, and they are worth reading.

On the naming of legions, Gemina was a common title meaning "twin" that was typically given when two legions were combined into one. When Octavian defeated Antony, he inherited 59 legions and immediately reduced them to 28. One reason is that many were seriously understrength from years of fighting -- they obviously didn't have a steady stream of replacements. He gives examples of 10 different legions bearing the name Gemina and examples of legions with the same number that co-existed. That is the basis for the 1Oth Gemina, not the 10th Equestris which is the subject of his book. There never was a 10th Legion Fretensis. The 10th that served in Judea was one in the same as the 10th Equestris. Collins states that no classical author attributes Fretensis to the 10th Legion. Fretensis was an informal nickname some attached to Equestris based on it's involvement in a battle. Any mention of the 10th Fretensis is referring to the same legion--- the 10th Equestris.

What is the contemporary evidence to support the notion that Legions benefited from a regular replacement stream? Perhaps it is an assumption based on modern military practice. Keep in mind that Dando-Collins isn't saying that there were never new recruits to a legion. He is saying that new recruits were part of a new enlistment for a legion, done in order to replace the legionnaires whose term of enlistment was up and chose not to re-enlist. It is possible that historians framed that practice in the perspective of modern recruiting and replacement practice. And, I would ask that it be examined on a "more probable than not" basis. Is it probable that the highly efficient and organized Roman system had a system of regularly replacing losses in the legions, and at the same time, so many routinely fought at half strength? Or, is it more probable than not that the system described by Dando-Collins is accurate?

[mikeland]

@Targa
Whilst much of Dando-Collins book is very good, readable and beautifully presented (I admit I borrowed it from the Library so didn't read it cover to cover) you have to be a little bit careful in accepting everything he presents as solid facts. Read the online reviews of this book and you will find a number of factual errors, but I won't go into that now and list them.

As regarding the replenishment of Legions there is very little hard evidence either way, I think to be fair Dando-Collins is just giving it his best guess. It is impossible to say for a fact either way. We do know that
a. (As you have said) Legions were often merged to get them back up to strength

b. The ethnic make up of legions (Particularly Auxiliaries) did change over time due to local recruitment to replenish troops

c. Livy cites examples of (in the late republican era) legions being brought up to strength
" In that province there were not more than two legions: they were each to be brought up to the full strength of 6000 infantry and 300 cavalry; the rest of the infantry and cavalry were to be distributed amongst the various garrisons; those who were unfit for military service were to be discharged."
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/Livy/Livy44.html [44.21])

I imagine that during times of peace a garrisoned legion would have relatively small amounts of losses and would gradually be whittled down over the 20 years of service and it would be possible as Dando-Collins suggest replaced en mass every 20 years.

However during a time of unrest, (wars or civil war) or a non-peaceful part of the empire things would be quite different and there would be a huge demand for fresh troops.

So back going back to Simon Scarrows books, given the total lack of solid evidence it seems perfectly reasonable to have the legions that were being earmarked for a big, new campaign like the invasion of Britain, being replenished with fresh troops to make them up to strength.

The other problem with Dando-Collins theory is would be that it would be very hard to sustain a recruitment cycle based on a 20 year term all the time. It would be devastating for any community to loose 5000 young men all in one go! If it were a farming community a whole generation of those in the prime of youth would be taken into the army, leaving a huge gap in manpower to work the farms. And present a logistical nightmare for recruiting officers.

Bear in mind it has been estimated Rome could have been needing between 15000 - 20000 new recruits a year at the height of the empire, (Dr W. Scheidel "Marriage, families, and survival in the Roman imperial army:") to effectively manage the empire that would mean 4 new legions a year had to be entirely raised a new!

Scarrow therefore uses a reasonable assumption to create the dramatic partnering of Cato and Marco, around which he bases his series of novels. Historical novels are to be taken as such, novels, and therefore when an area of history is a bit fuzzy or undocumented it should be seen as fine for the author use it to his own ends.

If it really bothers you I would suggest not proceeding with the books any further (trust me he does take further liberties), or just suspend disbelief, take the books for what they are and enjoy the romp!

[Targa]

Mikeland: It doesn't bother me. I'm still reading the first novel and I have downloaded the second to my Kindle. I'm looking at this as an intellectual exercise on the topic of recruiting legions.

An annual requirement of 15,000 to 20,000 new recruits per year can easily be explained by 4-8 of the 28 legions having to replace expired enlistments with new enlistments. For instance, a 16 year veteran legion retires en masse when their 16 year enlistment is up. That requires a new enlistment of 4,800 legionnaires x 4 legions = the figure listed --- between 15,000-20,000. If the legion had been whittled down to half strength of approx. 2,500, and half of those chose to re-enlist for a second 16 year term, then the new enlistment requirement would be approx. 3,600. Recruitment was done in a region or province, not a small community. 4,800 17 year-olds every 16-20 years wouldn't be a huge drain on a province, and because of veterans re-enlisting, it could be far less than 4,800.

Being a legionnaire was a not an undesirable option. It was a career, with a contractual guarantee of a regular salary, bonuses, a pension, and a guaranteed land-grant at the expiration of the term. There was also the promise of plunder. The recruiting centurions turned away recruits who did not meet the physical requirements, and they were stigmatized by the shame of it. Legionnaires were volunteers, not conscripts.

The quote from Livy can also be explained by understrength legions with expiring enlistments being brought up to strength with a new enlistment. Unfortunately, he doesn't get more specific than that such as naming the legions.

The recruiting of Legions and Auxiliaries were different. Legions were made up of Roman citizens only, auxiliaries were not. The later could be raised anywhere.

There are numerous instances of entire legions being released when their terms had expired and they were no longer needed. How would that be possible if the Legion included the original enlistees and replacements added over the years that had not yet completed their 16 year contractual terms? Were they given a pass on 2, 4, 6, 10 years of their term? I don't think so.

Having a standard recruiting age makes sense and simplifies the administration: everyone has the same start date and enlistment end-date. 17 as the age makes sense because those who re-enlist for a second 16 year term would still be relatively young at 33. The camaraderie of all being the same age makes sense as well. The downside is that very green new legions of 17 year-olds were a liability in battle, but they were placed in line with more experienced legions on their flanks.

We can agree to disagree. I find Dando-Collins' conclusions sensible and supported.

Thanks,

[mikeland]

We can agree to disagree. I find Dando-Collins' conclusions sensible and supported.

Sure thing, though I am not sure I entirely disagree with Dando-Collins (or your own well thought out conclusions). After all we know of some legions that stayed based in a particular location for more than 100 years, In such cases I can see a system of refreshing the troops every 20 years would be possible, I just think it perhaps can't be stated as absolute fact that this was the only way legions were ever replenished, and that there was no flexibility in it.

I agree it is a very interesting subject though, and probably one that will be debated for some time.

Though I'm sure if this theory were to be adopted widely in the wargaming community everybody would be fielding legions of veterans rather than an army full of wet behind the ears 17 year olds!

Glad you are enjoying the Marco and Cato books, as I said you will probably find quite a few examples of Simon Scarrow 'stretching' things a bit (occasionally I have winced a bit) to make them fit the story, but they are good fun. Cheers mike

[Cubster]

Am I allowed to break the non-swearing rule if the second word is 'off'?

[Phil]

Am I allowed to break the non-swearing rule if the second word is 'off'?

Don't even think about it!!!!! I've just spent ages deleting adverts for sunglasses and banning folks - so I have a hair trigger at the moment.
Phil