RomanArmyTalk

Hi all

I'm very interested in the last decades of the existence of praetorians, especially because Hugh Elton ("Roman military forces from the third to the seventh centuries", C.H.G.R.W., Vol. II, 2007, pp. 270-309, esp. pp. 279-280), Maurizio Colombo ("Constantinus rerum novator: dal comitatus dioclezianeo ai palatini di Valentiniano I", KLIO 90, 2008, pp. 124-161, esp. p. 147), Ross Cowan ("AD 312 - Rome's great battle for Empire and Church", Military History Monthly 21, 2012, pp. 26-31, esp. p. 29) and, aparently, Michael Speidel ("The later roman field army and the guard of the High Empire", Latomus 46, 1987, pp. 375-379, esp. p. 378) have postulated, according to the literary and archaeological evidence, that with the creation of Tetrarchy in 293 the cohortes praetoriae were split between Diocletian, Maximian, Constantius I and Galerius, and then inherited for their respective successors. It seems logical, because the main role of the praetorians was the protection of the emperor, and if since 293 there were four emperors, then they should be split between all tetrarchs. In 2009 in this forum, Cowan wrote that "Carausius' 'legionary' coinage records legio II Parthica and a praetorian cohort -possibly units that had defected to him from the field army of Maximian". We know that the third praetorian cohort was in campaing in north Africa under Maximian in 297, and that the praetorians of Diocletian were doing very nasty things to Christians in Nicomedia in 303. Maybe each emperor had two cohortes praetoriae and the remainder (two cohortes?) remained at Rome. Cowan notes the remainder at Rome felt slighted, hence their support for Maxentius in 306. Elton supposed that Constantine disbanded Maxentius' praetorians after the battle of the Milvian bridge in 312 and Licinius' (and probably his own) after Chrysopolis in 324, but Colombo suggests that Constantine's praetorians (two cohortes inherited from his father, Constantius I) were transformed in the legiones Armigeri Propugnatores and Armigeri Defensores.

What do you think?


Regards,
Marco.

ILS 9073 places IX Praetoria in Numidia at Rusicade for the years 268-70....how about that for odd....

Quote:Maybe each emperor had two cohortes praetoriae and the remainder (two cohortes?) remained at Rome.

It seems quite a satisfying idea, and would possibly match what was happening to the legions in e.g. the Danubian provinces, several of which appear to have split up into roving vexillations with a couple of cohorts or so left back at 'base'.

However, we should perhaps be cautious. Lactantius' 'praetoriani' might have been actual praetorians, or some other bodyguard unit (protectors?) referred to by that name. The men attested in Mauretania under Maximian and Egypt under Galerius might have been detached from their units for some reason...

I think it more likely that the 'praetorians' of Carausius were newly formed by the usurper, although this would actually support the idea that each of the other emperors had their own body of these troops in their comitatus.

We do know that the numbers of the guard in Rome were much reduced - milites pauci (Lactantius again) - at the time of Maxentius's coup. But Lactantius also suggests that this was due to Diocletian himself reducing them! And Galerius was considering disbanding them altogether... Why would they do this, if each emperor had his own body of loyal and effective praetorians? Or was it only the 'depot' in Rome that was going to be disbanded?

Once Maxentius seized power, I think he probably rebuilt the guard in Rome to its traditional size of ten thousand-strong cohorts. Presumably the urban cohorts would have been in Rome anyway, and perhaps also the full strength of the Equites Domini Nostri (who don't seem to have followed the emperors about, despite their name - I wonder why?)... So the 'guard' disbanded by Constantine would have been largely a newly-raised formation, perhaps, albeit based in the traditional barracks and carrying the traditional insignia.

So what did Constantine do with his own praetorian cohorts?

Quote:Colombo suggests that Constantine's praetorians (two cohortes inherited from his father, Constantius I) were transformed in the legiones Armigeri Propugnatores and Armigeri Defensores.

That would answer the question nicely... But what reasons does he give? :unsure:

I've been discussing long on this topic with Ross Cowan and, specially, Raffaele D'Amato. They believe, as Elton and Colombo, that praetorians were divided after the creation of Tetrarchy in 293 between the all emperors, but that each tetrarch had not complete cohortes but maybe vexillationes. Cowan suspects the Castra Praetoria was still the ‘official’ HQ, and that parts of all ten cohortes remained in Rome for policing and symbolic reasons. These remansores proclaimed emperor Maxentius in 306 because Galerius was considering disbanding them. D’Amato believes that Maxentius filled the ranks missing in the cohortes, being all the ten cohortes present at the Milvian bridge, while the praetorians of the tetrarchs still existing outside Rome recived other names after 312 (or before). In fact, Cowan thinks that over the years the idea of the praetorians as a cohesive group diminished and the detachments evolved into new and independent units. So, Colombo suggests Constantine's praetorians (inherited from his father, Constantius I) were transformed in the Armigeri Propugnatores and Armigeri Defensores. Colombo believes the word Armigeri is related with the functions of these soldiers as "ex-praetorians". I asked to Hugh Elton about fate of the praetorians in the east under Licinius (those supposedly inherited via Galerius and Diocletian) and he answered me there’s no evidence for any praetorians of either under Licinius or after 324, so it's a guess that Constantine disbanded Licinius’, but no more than that. Maybe his guess is correct, but is also possible that the praetorians in the east were transformed into new units.

Quote:They believe... that each tetrarch had not complete cohortes but maybe vexillationes... parts of all ten cohortes remained in Rome for policing and symbolic reasons.

Yes, that sounds plausible. But could we ask what the purpose of these praetorian detachments would have been? If they were less than complete cohorts then their effectiveness as battlefield formations would have been rather diminished - the tetrarchs had their own elite infantry units in the Joviani and Herculiani: two cohorts of the latter were certainly with Maximian in Mauretania, others with Diocletian in Egypt, and I think it likely that further strong detachments of one or both legions accompanied the other emperors in the field. For more personal bodyguard duties, meanwhile, there were the Protectores and possibly other new units. So why were these praetorian detachments needed as well?

Quote:D’Amato believes that Maxentius filled the ranks missing in the cohortes, being all the ten cohortes present at the Milvian bridge...

I agree that sounds likely. Maxentius was keen to restore the traditional appurtenances of Roman power (as seen in his coinage and official statuary, amongst other things), and since the praetorians appear to have been both his earliest and his last supporters it seems probable that he rebuilt them to full strength. Interesting to guess where he got the manpower - did he, like Septimius Severus before him, transfer seasoned Danubian troops from the field army of the other (unluckier) Severus? Or did he raise new troops from his loyal domains in Italy?

Quote:Colombo believes the word Armigeri is related with the functions of these soldiers as "ex-praetorians".

I'm still curious about this. What is there about the word armigeri that suggests ex-praetorians? (I really don't know, as I don't understand Latin...!). Are these armigeri attested at some reasonably early date?

Quote:Yes, that sounds plausible. But could we ask what the purpose of these praetorian detachments would have been? If they were less than complete cohorts then their effectiveness as battlefield formations would have been rather diminished - the tetrarchs had their own elite infantry units in the Joviani and Herculiani: two cohorts of the latter were certainly with Maximian in Mauretania, others with Diocletian in Egypt, and I think it likely that further strong detachments of one or both legions accompanied the other emperors in the field. For more personal bodyguard duties, meanwhile, there were the Protectores and possibly other new units. So why were these praetorian detachments needed as well?

I think the purpose of these praetorian detachments for each emperor would been for tradition and, of course, protection -the main role of praetorians. Under the Tetrarchy the cohortes praetoriae were still the most senior units in the whole roman army. This is confirmed by epigraphic evidence, where some soldiers of danubian legions were ascended to the Lanciarii (that supposedly belonged to Diocletian's comitatus) and finally to the cohortes praetoriae. If the tetrarchs were residing in other capitals and not in Rome, then it seems logical the assumption the praetorians were divided between them. Maybe this division is related with Lactantius' suggestion that Diocletian reduced the size of the Guard at Rome?

On his article "The later roman field army and the guard of the High Empire", Latomus 46 (1987), pp. 375-379., Michael Speidel identifies in the arch of Constantine two reliefs of standard bearers as praetorians in Constantine's field army. He writes (p. 378): "They show soldiers in parade cuirasses proudly bearing standards with eagles, crowns, and busts of the Emperors. There is not doubt that these are praetorian signa, and the way they are carried, upright and not lowered, shows they were not captured enemy standards taken from Maxentius' troops, but belonged to Constantine's own army." If this is correct, then it would be another evidence of the division of praetorians between the tetrarchs, and that these praetorians were inherited by Constantine via Constantius I (transformed later in the Armigeri Propugnatores and Armigeri Defensores).


Standard bearers supposedly praetorians in the arch of Constantine

Quote:I'm still curious about this. What is there about the word armigeri that suggests ex-praetorians? (I really don't know, as I don't understand Latin...!). Are these armigeri attested at some reasonably early date?

Sadly Colombo does not give more evidence.

IIRC, Jones draws a connection between the Praetorians and the Scolae, although the latter were purely cavalry. Is this likely?

Quote:some soldiers of danubian legions were ascended to the Lanciarii (that supposedly belonged to Diocletian's comitatus) and finally to the cohortes praetoriae.

Ah yes, Valerius Tertius (CIL VI, 2759) for one. I wonder what his 'Legione Moesiaca' might have been? Herculiani again, perhaps?

Anyway,I'm sure you (and the authors you've cited) are right. There's also the comites ddominorum nnostorum from the Egyptian papyrus (possibly the campaign of Galerius c.295), who are surely the old Equites Singulares (I should have remembered them!)

Quote:Maybe this division is related with Lactantius' suggestion that Diocletian reduced the size of the Guard at Rome?

That would make sense, yes.

Quote:Michael Speidel... writes "They show soldiers in parade cuirasses proudly bearing standards with eagles, crowns, and busts of the Emperors. There is not doubt that these are praetorian signa...

Thanks for the information. I haven't seen this article, but Speidel never fails to come up with bold and often insightful ideas. In this case I'm not totally convinced though - why is there 'no doubt' that the standards are praetorian? Why should they not be legion eagles? Why should the soldiers' 'parade cuirasses' (whatever they might be) indicate that they are praetorians? All the armoured infantry shown on the arch wear the muscle cuirass, including in battle - unless we are to assume that all of them are praetorians too...

But why should an arch erected c.313, after the dishonourable demobilisation of the Guard, show praetorians (albeit those fighting on the 'right' side) in positions of such prominence? Would it not be politically expedient, bearing in mind the associations of their name, to play down their possible role in Constantine's victory?

Quote:IIRC, Jones draws a connection between the Praetorians and the Scolae, although the latter were purely cavalry. Is this likely?

He might have done. Speidel (again!) makes more of a link, in Riding for Caesar, between the old Equites Singulares / Domini Nostri and the later Scholae Palatini, as a mounted bodyguard corps. But the scholae were relatively few in number, at least initially; there may have been other elite cavalry units that predated them. Equites Scutarii, perhaps? Maximinus Daia was supposedly a scutarius before becoming Caesar, so the word possibly referred to a (mounted?) guardsman during the earlier tetrarchy.

Quote:Ah yes, Valerius Tertius (CIL VI, 2759) for one. I wonder what his 'Legione Moesiaca' might have been? Herculiani again, perhaps?

Colombo gives as options the legions I Italica, IV Flavia and VII Claudia. I think these were vexillationes in the field armies of Diocletian or Galerius. I wonder if perhaps such vexillationes became in the legio Moesiaci?

There is another example with Valerius Ursianus (CIL VI 37207: X Gemina, cohors IIII praetoria). Maybe both units were part of Galerius's field army on his war against the persians in 297-298?

Quote:Thanks for the information. I haven't seen this article, but Speidel never fails to come up with bold and often insightful ideas. In this case I'm not totally convinced though - why is there 'no doubt' that the standards are praetorian? Why should they not be legion eagles? Why should the soldiers' 'parade cuirasses' (whatever they might be) indicate that they are praetorians? All the armoured infantry shown on the arch wear the muscle cuirass, including in battle - unless we are to assume that all of them are praetorians too...

Speidel believes these soldiers are praetorians specially because of their standards with a mix of eagles, crowns and busts of emperors, something typical of praetorians standards. If I'm not wrong, legionaries had not mixed standards. For example, the busts of emperors were in an unique standard -the imago.

Quote:But why should an arch erected c.313, after the dishonourable demobilisation of the Guard, show praetorians (albeit those fighting on the 'right' side) in positions of such prominence? Would it not be politically expedient, bearing in mind the associations of their name, to play down their possible role in Constantine's victory?

Only Maxentius' praetorians suffered a dishonourable demobilisation after the battle of the Milvian bridge. I wonder if maybe Constantine's praetorians played a role in the battle and by this reason they were (apparently) depicted on his arch?

Quote:Colombo gives as options the legions I Italica, IV Flavia and VII Claudia.

Also XI Claudia, I would think, from Moesia Inferior, plus I Jovia and II Herculia from Moesia Scythica (perhaps these latter two, as new formations, might be more likely referred to as 'the Moesian legion'?)

Quote:Maybe both units were part of Galerius's field army on his war against the persians in 297-298?

I think it's probable that the new force supposedly gathered by Galerius from the Danube in 297 was based on the 'two vexillations from each province' model which is apparently shown on the Egyptian papyrus from a few years earlier. There were eight legions between Singidunum and the Black Sea, and if each supplied a vexillation of 1000-1200 men this would provide a good legionary core for an army totalling 25000 men.

There was an interesting thread here once about the depiction of the soldiers on the arch of Galerius - several shield designs show images of Hercules and/or an eagle, which might suggest the Jovians and Herculians.

Quote:If I'm not wrong, legionaries had not mixed standards. For example, the busts of emperors were in an unique standard -the imago.

Hmm, maybe. I don't think we can be that sure about praetorian v legionary standards, especially over a century after the last known depiction of either (afaik!). Praetorian standards did feature eagles, but often had a spearhead at the top of the pole (like this one) instead. The two on the arch could be either...

Quote:I wonder if maybe Constantine's praetorians played a role in the battle and by this reason they were (apparently) depicted on his arch?

Again, possibly - it just seems very strange to me that a unit so recently and famously disbanded (no one in Rome could have been unaware of it) should be so grandly commemorated on a major work of imperial sculpture, only a few years later... If Constantine had wanted to preserve the name and reputation of the Guard he might have accentuated their role on his side of the conflict, but as he clearly did not... why would he? Or, more importantly, why would the senatorial elite who actually built the arch do such a thing, when they were surely so eager to curry favour with the new regime and deny all links with the old one?

One idea springs to mind - as the arch was originally erected by Maxentius, perhaps the bases showing these armoured men with standards were originally Maxentian, and depicted his troops (including praetorians) quelling the revolt in Africa? (might those 'barbarian captives' have originally been 'north africans'?)

Quote:There was an interesting thread here once about the depiction of the soldiers on the arch of Galerius - several shield designs show images of Hercules and/or an eagle, which might suggest the Jovians and Herculians.

It's commonly said that soldiers with scale armours and helmets of the type spanhenhelm depicted in the arch of Galerius are cavalrymen. However, I see in this relief only two horses and all the men are standing. I've always believed that these are infantrymen and interestingly in that thread some members, included Ross Cowan, raised the possibility that they are the praetorians of Galerius. We know that, at least since the 3rd century, scale armours were mainly associated with the praetorians. In fact, in the arch of Constantine the praetorians of Maxentius are depicted in scale armours, so these men in scale armours in the arch of Galerius can be certainly praetorians. D'Amato is also convinced these soldiers are absolutely infantrymen, but probably from the legiones Ioviani and Herculiani, although maybe some can be praetorians.

Quote:One idea springs to mind - as the arch was originally erected by Maxentius, perhaps the bases showing these armoured men with standards were originally Maxentian, and depicted his troops (including praetorians) quelling the revolt in Africa? (might those 'barbarian captives' have originally been 'north africans'?)

D'Amato told me he think the soldiers of pilasters were probably taken from a diocletianic monument (maybe the actual Janus arch). So it is most probably that if they are praetorians they are those of the tetrarchs stationed in Rome, the remansores left there after the division of praetorians between the tetrarchs.

Quote:I've always believed that these are infantrymen and interestingly in that thread some members, included Ross Cowan, raised the possibility that they are the praetorians of Galerius.

(The thread in question is this one, for anyone interested...) ;-)

Yes, it's all possible - I like Urselius / Martin's suggestion best, I think, that the soldiers are intended to be men of various units assembled for the adlocutio.

While praetorians do tend to be associated with scale armour, both on sculpture and in (e.g.) Dio's account of the battle at Immae, we know that many others units must have worn it too. The identity of the drowning cavalrymen on Constantine's arch is unclear, beyond their being Maxentian. I would think Equites Domini Nostri more likely, but who knows...?

Quote:D'Amato told me he think the soldiers of pilasters were probably taken from a diocletianic monument (maybe the actual Janus arch).

That would be one possibility. The style of the sculpture is certainly different to the Constantinian carvings on the main frieze.

Quote:Cowan suspects the Castra Praetoria was still the ‘official’ HQ, and that parts of all ten cohortes remained in Rome for policing and symbolic reasons. These remansores proclaimed emperor Maxentius in 306 because Galerius was considering disbanding them. D’Amato believes that Maxentius filled the ranks missing in the cohortes, being all the ten cohortes present at the Milvian bridge, while the praetorians of the tetrarchs still existing outside Rome recived other names after 312 (or before). In fact, Cowan thinks that over the years the idea of the praetorians as a cohesive group diminished and the detachments evolved into new and independent units.

I think it's remarkable that the traditional idea of the Praetorians as a group had faded so quickly after the erection of the Aurelian Walls in the 270s. Were the defenses of Rome already thought to be obsolete, not requiring a standing garrison stong enough to man them? Maxentius certainly didn't make use of them, choosing instead to face Constantine on the field.

~Theo

Quote:Maxentius certainly didn't make use of them, choosing instead to face Constantine on the field.

I believe the walls of Rome were sufficient to deter both Flavius Severus and Galerius - mainly because they hadn't brought large enough armies to encircle the city and lacked siege engines.

Maxentius could have tried the same tactic with Constantine. The sources claim that he sallied out due to his reliance on a prophecy in the Sibylline books (Lactantius and Zosimus) or to 'putting confidence rather in the arts of sorcery than in the devotion of his subjects' (Eusebius). It seems more likely that Maxentius found the people of Rome turning against him, and (more critically) could no longer rely on the loyalty of the senate and nobility if it came to a siege. He needed to defeat Constantine's army in the field, or fall to a pro-Constantianian coup. The vigour with which the senate and people acclaimed Constantine after his victory suggests that Max was correct in his assessment.