Legionary Literacy

[sylla]

At some point, the Roman Army included more than four hundred thousand legionaries and auxilia.

The required documentation was immense, not only because of the magnitude of financial and administrative issues, but also because the status of each soldier was recorded in an archive; each one was identified by name, filiation, tribe, origin and date of enlist.

As pointed out by Phang, records going back 16 years in the Praetorian Guard, 20 to 25 years in the legions and auxilia, and 28 in the fleet were a minimum necessity.

 

Even if only a tiny fraction of these documents have survived, they are quite enlightening.

Most of these records were probably used by relatively few professional clerks (like financial accounts, recruitment, personnel management, mission reports).

However, there were many documents that clearly implied their lecture and filling by regular soldiers, like the giving and confirmation of orders, daily tasks, general duty and guard duty rosters, daily and pridiana (yearly) reports and so on.

 

Literacy was hardly considered a luxury for the regular Roman soldiers, even the auxilia.

[Kosmo]

It is hard for me to believe that roman soldiers were often in a place where the centurion could not shout at them so he needed to write them letters.

[sylla]

It is hard for me to believe that roman soldiers were often in a place where the centurion could not shout at them so he needed to write them letters.

One example among many: the document RMR 9 from the Legio III Cyrenaica (Egypt) from about 90

[Formosus Viriustus]

Salvete !

 

I really find it hard to believe that you had so much trouble learning to read and write, Kosmo.

Did they have to torture you or what ?

 

By the way, you don't need any paper to learn to read and write. I didn't need any. I learned it on a little blackboard with a piece of chalk. Or with just about anything on anything else really, as you do when you are five years old. And books ? How many books you think I had read at the time ? Or how many I needed to scribble away on my little blackboard ? Yes, I'll let you in on a little secret : I could already read and write a bit before I entered first grade. Alright, I was a little ahead of average but I was far from an exception : there were at least a couple of other kids in my kindergarten class who could. And all the rest learned it within a few months in the first grade.

 

Why do you suppose that to learn anything at all you of necessity need years and years of formal training or schooling ? The evidence to the contrary is just everywhere. If that was the case I wouldn't be talking to you here. Where did I learn English ? I sure didn't learn it at school. Or to use a computer, at least well enough to get most things I want done ? In school ? I am sure there are loads and loads of things you have learned by yourself that are far more difficult than memorizing 22 symbols and the sounds they represent.

 

The Romans would really have been complete morons if they hadn't seen the enormous advantages of a relatively literate population and, not least, soldiers. Why try to run an enterprise like the Empire almost entirely just by word-of-mouth (if it was even possible) while you have something as simple and advantageous as the written word around ?

 

Formosus

[sylla]

Salvete !

 

I really find it hard to believe that you had so much trouble learning to read and write, Kosmo.

Did they have to torture you or what ?

 

By the way, you don't need any paper to learn to read and write. I didn't need any. I learned it on a little blackboard with a piece of chalk. Or with just about anything on anything else really, as you do when you are five years old. And books ? How many books you think I had read at the time ? Or how many I needed to scribble away on my little blackboard ? Yes, I'll let you in on a little secret : I could already read and write a bit before I entered first grade. Alright, I was a little ahead of average but I was far from an exception : there were at least a couple of other kids in my kindergarten class who could. And all the rest learned it within a few months in the first grade.

 

Why do you suppose that to learn anything at all you of necessity need years and years of formal training or schooling ? The evidence to the contrary is just everywhere. If that was the case I wouldn't be talking to you here. Where did I learn English ? I sure didn't learn it at school. Or to use a computer, at least well enough to get most things I want done ? In school ? I am sure there are loads and loads of things you have learned by yourself that are far more difficult than memorizing 22 symbols and the sounds they represent.

 

The Romans would really have been complete morons if they hadn't seen the enormous advantages of a relatively literate population and, not least, soldiers. Why try to run an enterprise like the Empire almost entirely just by word-of-mouth (if it was even possible) while you have something as simple and advantageous as the written word around ?

 

Formosus

That's a gross underestimation of the immense ongoing effort developed at almost any level for the education of the peoples all over the world.

Even if it might seem as natural as breathing to us, social alphabetization has never been spontaneous, and it has been considered a regular public issue just for the last two centuries at most.

As virtually any state previous to the European Enlightenment, the ancient Rome never had anything remotely similar to an alphabetization policy for its civil population.

Even if we lack any kind of statistics, there is some useful indirect information available; we have abundant evidence on the administrative and military literacy, and also of a relatively high educational level for the elite and even some urban popular sectors; but that is orders of magnitude away from the status of any modern developed country.

Just think that the vast majority of peasants were most likely unable to read, not to mention most slaves and most women from any social level.

Edited April 30, 2009 by sylla

[Formosus Viriustus]

Salvete Omnes !

 

MDCLXVI ? Quid ?

 

Are we suggesting here that most Romans couldn't count either ? Because to do that they had to know one third of the alphabet already. Where would they learn that ? Would it be beyond most people to learn what those other 14 signs meant ? Did they need schooling for that ?

 

To learn to read, write and count a Roman only had to learn 21 signs, if I'm correct. They only used majuscules and they used letters for counting. We use at least 3 alphabets, pretty much at random : majuscules, minuscules and handwriting. Some letters are very similar but others are quite different. There is no reason why you would automatically see that 'D' is the same as 'd' or 'R' the same as 'r'. Yet we use them intermittently, as required, without even thinking about it. On top we have 10 numerical symbols plus at least as many mathematical symbols, punctuation and so on.

 

 

I was not trying to belittle the importance of education in today's world, or any other. To acquire the level of literacy and overall education expected today, most children need some formal schooling, alas. And therefore, if you are not willing to leave a large proportion of people 'behind', schools are a necessary evil.

 

('Education' and the 'educational system' are two entirely different things : our educational system today is more designed to breed model citizens with no critical sense left in them at all, than to educate. And I'm not sure if it was ever otherwise or even meant to be otherwise. Children are by nature usually very inquisitive and critical, they are natural learners. But by the time they are twelve, most of them have little of that left. That has been 'disciplined' out of them at school.)

 

I remain convinced that not a small number of people, then as now, would learn to read and write perfectly or reasonably well without any schooling. I am not trying to be boastful or ridicule anybody here, but I would certainly count myself into that number and so would I do with all the members of UNRV I have met so far here - and by who's depth of knowledge of history I feel very much humbled, by the way. If any of you however thinks that he or she would be illiterate now, if not for the benefits of the modern 'educational / child torturing

[sylla]

Salvete Omnes !

As to societies with illiteracy rates of 70 or even 90 %. We are talking here again I think by today's high Western standards. Because, if you go by the UNESCO definition, how can you call that a society ? If the vast majority of the population can not function properly within it ? That is not a society, that is chaos and anarchy. That may be the case in some area's of the world, now as well as in the past. But I think that is not a fair standard.

 

Valete bene, Formosus

That's a good point. Literacy increases the average functional level of any society (western, eastern, south, north or center) to levels unaccessible for their ancestors. That's why a minimum educational level is required from us for any or almost any job.

 

Intentionally or not, you're definitively belittling the importance of modern, Roman and any other world education and education systems, essentially by ignoring most of the available evidence, even from our daily life.

 

Social mammals have complex conduct and activities that are at least partially acquired (ie, teach and learned); for humans, that means virtually anything from sphincter control onwards; just check on feral children. Teaching, in or out of schools, has always been a necessary evil.

 

Some gifted autodidacts like Franklin or Edison may excel over the average education; that's exactly what made them such extraordinary individuals. Experience has consistently shown that learning, both at home and at school, are not alternative but complementary to each other. If required, home learning might reach high educational levels; this is clearly the exception that confirms the rule.

 

Literacy is not an inherited skill like oral language; humans have been here for millions of years, and writing for just some millennia at most. The alphabet is presumably the most important human invention even; with just a few signs thousands of words, millions of phrases and countless concepts can be recorded. Using alphabetic signs for counting is not literacy by any measure. Mastering these skills at a basic (

[Formosus Viriustus]

I think I missed the idea beneath the comparison of the XXV century BC Egyptians with other ancient (contemporary?) populations like the Spaniards, Gauls, Britons or Dacians.

 

Salve mi Sylla,

 

By the time of the Principate there had been intense contact for well over a millenium between these regions and Egypt and the rest of the Middle East, where literacy levels were undoubtedly much higher than in the West originally, since our script originated there. By the time of the Principate Spain had been famous for its rich mineral resources for centuries. Same thing with Southern Britain with its metal works and arms manufacturing.

 

There might at the time have been large pockets of still quite uncivilised people - I think that Caldrail stated that and I agree.

 

But how long did it take the completely illiterate Mongols to adopt a script when they turned from carefree herding nomads into world conquerers in the 13

[sylla]

Salve mi FV.

But how long did it take the completely illiterate Mongols to adopt a script when they turned from carefree herding nomads into world conquerers in the 13

[Northern Neil]

As we are getting farther and farther away from the original question, maybe we should begin another thread to continue with this argument.

In amicitia,

Sylla

...Or simply declare elements of the last two posts and continue merrily with the discussion on legionary literacy.

[sylla]

As we are getting farther and farther away from the original question, maybe we should begin another thread to continue with this argument.

In amicitia,

Sylla

...Or simply declare elements of the last two posts and continue merrily with the discussion on legionary literacy.

Well, everything began in topic; how important was (or wasn't) literacy for the Roman soldiers.

 

I hope my position is clear by now; even if indirect, the available evidence strongly suggests that a minimum of literacy was required for the regular performance of legionaries (and auxilia); it didn't seem to have been a luxury for them.

[Kosmo]

You made a convincing case. Could it be that the romans educated their soldiers?

[sylla]

You made a convincing case. Could it be that the romans educated their soldiers?

Excellent question. I have found no evidence yet. Personally, I don't think so.

Education seems to have never been contemplated as a public responsibility in the Classical Antiquity.

My impression is that the Romans would probably have considered literacy as one of the personal qualities that each soldier ought to cultivate if they really hope to ascend someday; a Darwinian approach, if you like.

My guess is that illiterate soldiers (especially auxilia) would have had no other chance but to rely on literate comrades to try to improve their abilities.

[caldrail]

You made a convincing case. Could it be that the romans educated their soldiers?

 

There's no evidence that soldiers were taught to read and write. I don't think that ability was as widespread as some have hinted, especially since many recruits were rural in origin which typically has a lower educational background anyway. Even Vegetius, the most optimistic of commentators on Roman legions, makes no such claim. Recruits were either literate or not. If so, they had an easy life doing the bookkeeping the officers would rather not bother with. If not, they built aqueducts like everyone else.

 

Look at it like this. Any Roman soldier who could read and write had an advantage. His skills gave him a cushy job in a warm office. Why would he reduce his chances of staying there by teaching his rivals the same skills? If the centurion suggested he should, a few coins might change his mind.

 

I also think the record keeping is possibly over emphasised. Yes, there was a lot of it, but remember that the handful of men given the job weren't going to be sat there drinking coffee with their feet up all day. Granted they'd probably do as little as piossible if they could get away with it, but if they ain't busy, there's plenty of aqueduct still unfinished. In the back of my mind I can't help thinking that the record-keeping was done on an as-needed basis, rather than a formal set of bureaucratic obligations, especially since the legion was effectively autonomous and did not ordinarily report much of this information to a higher authority. Therefore, the paperwork requirement had more to do with circumstance and the attitude of officers. In peace-time, I suspect there was more of it. Once on campaign, of what use is a clerk?

[sylla]

...remember that the handful of men given the job weren't going to be sat there drinking coffee with their feet up all day.

Especially because coffee was unknown to the Romans.