The Australian digger established an enviable reputation as a fighter during the Great War and, at least according to Charles Bean, he was already half a soldier even before donning a uniform. This popularly held opinion has been buttressed by the claims of veterans such as the Victorian country lad who observed: ‘Seeing I was brought up in Stawell, I could run…I was a farmer and so I could shoot and because we had no bulldozers then we could make holes and excavate. If you could run, shoot and dig a hole you've got the makings of a good soldier.’ This received wisdom has been generally accepted by popular historians, and the role of training remains one of the great voids in AIF history.

While it is true that early twentieth-century rural life was a tougher existence than that of today's average city-dweller, and many features of that life undoubtedly helped to transition civilians to military life, this did not necessarily make them soldiers. Aside from the fact that most volunteers came from urban backgrounds, the same veteran quoted above also admitted that he and his mates did not receive enough training before Gallipoli. So where does the truth lie: were the division's men naturals requiring little preparation, or did they require substantial training so that they could function under the stress of battle?