Roman \'Elite\' units

[Macedon]

Intriguing discussion. I think that Mike raises an interesting question as to how the Romans would designate elite status in their texts. Terming any unit or body of men "elite" (even in 20th and 21st c. armies!) is usually made in an arbitrary way but there should be some words in the sources that would point at such distinction. In the Greek texts (unfortunately I do not know Latin but the Greek texts about Romans are of course as extensive), such words, regarding quality, would be "logades" (defined as chosen/best troops usually grouped in separate units), "epilektoi (chosen) and "aristoi" (best). These words very often are used in defining units but also as men singled out from their units to form one at a moment's notice because of some tactical necessity that had cropped up.

Yet, if by "elite" one only looks for units raising above others in terms of respect, trust or glamor, then things are more fluid and much personal opinion is necessary making things open to debate. Should Otho's praetorian guard be considered elite because of its increased status alone or did its inexperience and performance in the second battle of Cremona take away that right? How about his gladiator unit? Was Caesar's tenth legion elite because of its experience, proven ability, loyalty and renown, even though they were just another legion? Were the cataphracts of Antiochos III elite just because they were more heavily armed than the rest of the cavalry and an impressive sight or were they just another type of troop (yep, a non-Roman example for sure, but useful to make a point)? One has to be very clear when trying to define a word such as "elite" when applying it in historical troops.

[Theodosius the Great]

we tend to think of an 'elite' military force as one with special equipment or training, whereas in the ancient world I think it was more to do with wealth and proximity to power. A unit which accompanied the emperor(s), or was based in Rome, would have more social and military prestige than one based out on the frontiers, whatever their respective battlefield experience.

Another group of bodyguards were the Lictors, about one or two dozen of whom accompanied the emperor wherever he went. I can't think of a more selective group of bodyguards although I'm sure they were not considered true milites.

I think 'tame Batavians' hark to the Gemanics Caesar recruited as his personal bobyguard
during his conquest of Gaul. Perhaps part of his reason for leaving them at home on the Ides of March, to try and appease the whiners in the senate?

Come again? IIRC, Caesar's bodyguard was comprised of Spaniards which Octavian inherited and subsequently replaced with Germans. (Suetonius, Life of Caesar, 86):

Caesar left in the minds of some of his friends the suspicion that he did not wish to live longer and had taken no precautions, because of his failing health; and that therefore he neglected the warnings which came to him from portents and from the reports of his friends. Some think that it was because he had full trust in the last decree of the senators and their oath that he dismissed even the armed bodyguard of Spanish soldiers that formerly attended him.

~Theo

[M. Demetrius]

Theo: Caesar's bodyguard was comprised of Spaniards

This from Gallic Wars, Chapter 42
"Caesar, as he neither wished that the conference should, by an excuse thrown in the way,
be set aside, nor durst trust his life to the cavalry of the Gauls,
decided that it would be most expedient to take away from the Gallic
cavalry all their horses, and thereon to mount the legionary soldiers
of the tenth legion, in which he placed the greatest confidence, in
order that he might have a body-guard as trustworthy as possible,
should there be any need for action.".

Some say this incident is why the 10th was given the surname, "Equestris". Sounds like Caesar didn't trust the Gauls to fight against Ariovistus and his Gaulish soldiers, in the event there was trouble. Therefore, he suspended the Gaulish bodyguards temporarily. No doubt he provided them with a "...I would not want you to have to fight against your brothers and countrymen, so --" kind of speech.

If I have interpreted this all correctly, then, I conclude that the "elite bodyguard" in this instance was pressed into service on the spot, and afterward, they surrendered the horses back to their owners.

[Nathan Ross]

an interesting question as to how the Romans would designate elite status in their texts.

True - the word itself doesn't really exist as such, but I think at least one of the concepts behind the modern understanding of it does. In terms of select or chosen men, the speculatores or frumentarii, drawn from the legions, could be considered a kind of elite, although the ancient mind may not have seen it that way.

There were also, as you say, certain units which at certain times gained a special distinction or favour - Caesar's tenth, or the fourteenth under Nero, or those garlanded with a spectacular number of honorific titles (Cohors I Brittonum milliaria Ulpia torquata Pia Fidelis civium Romanorum, for example, after the Dacian wars). These too could be considered elite for their deeds and reputation, perhaps. Again, though, all these distinctions resulted from the favour of the emperor or commander - he alone could confer honour and prestige. So the principle of proximity to power remains, I think.

The praetorian cohorts of republican commanders were originally select men - Marcus Antonius formed his praetorians solely from former centurions. Although the guard of the principiate were enrolled as such rather than selected, I believe the same principle is in operation - they are close to the leader (praetor), they guard his residence (praetorium) and so they are seen as the elite corps of the army. The word praetorian might actually be the closest in essence to 'elite' in the modern sense.

Should Otho's praetorian guard be considered elite because of its increased status alone or did its inexperience and performance in the second battle of Cremona take away that right?

The praetorians always get a rough deal in senatorial histories, often deservedly, but Otho's guard (formerly Nero's) did fairly well at both battles in 69. At the first they beat the Vitellian cavalry and captured an enemy legion's eagle, and were apparently the staunchest of Otho's units; Antonius Primus lambasted them at the second battle for having 'drained disgrace to the dregs', but having voluntarily returned to the Flavian standards they did well there too: the two soldiers who made the famous suicide attack on the Vitellian catapult were probably praetorians.

This seems unusual, as for the preceding decades the guard had done nothing but loaf about in Rome clapping Nero's musical performances and executing suspected senatorial plotters (for which exploit their commanders received 'triumphal ornaments'!). By rights they should have been rubbish, but clearly they were actually quite a formidable force - why?

Partly, of course, because the guard had elevated Otho themselves, so could have expected short shrift from his successor. But desperation alone does not make for effective troops. I rather suspect that the guard were good because they believed themselves to be good - to be the best, in fact. A perception of themselves as an elite force, however baseless in theory, in practice became self-fulfilling and gave them the morale and cohesion to fight (often) to the death.

[ANTONIVS MAGNVS]

True - the word itself doesn't really exist as such, but I think at least one of the concepts behind the modern understanding of it does. In terms of select or chosen men, the speculatores or frumentarii, drawn from the legions, could be considered a kind of elite, although the ancient mind may not have seen it that way.

The praetorian cohorts of republican commanders were originally select men - Marcus Antonius formed his praetorians solely from former centurions. Although the guard of the principiate were enrolled as such rather than selected, I believe the same principle is in operation - they are close to the leader (praetor), they guard his residence (praetorium) and so they are seen as the elite corps of the army. The word praetorian might actually be the closest in essence to 'elite' in the modern sense.

Yes Antony must have considered them at least a special group if not elite because he honored them on his coinage separately from his regular legions.

LEGIO COHORTIS SPECULATORVM
LEGIO CHOHORTIS PRAETORIARVM

[Theodosius the Great]

Sounds like Caesar didn't trust the Gauls to fight against Ariovistus and his Gaulish soldiers, in the event there was trouble. Therefore, he suspended the Gaulish bodyguards temporarily.

Right, I vaguely remember reading about this incident. I'm sure Caesar employed many units of bodyguards throughout his long career but I hadn't read about him using Batavians in that way during his Proconsulship. So, I'm unsure if there's any continuity between the Batavians (who weren't considered Gauls, IIRC) of Caesar's day and the later unit of imperial horse guards (equites singulares Augusti).

As Gaius said earlier it may have offended his peers' sensibilities to use Germans as bodyguards hence the switch to using Spaniards during his Dictatorship. Though, I'm unsure why Caesar didn't simply use a cohort of praetorians made up of citizen veterans as Jay mentioned in the previous post.

IDK if Caesar was the first to introduce the use of barbarians from specific tribes as a bodyguard. Anyone know?

~Theo

[Macedon]

The praetorians always get a rough deal in senatorial histories, often deservedly, but Otho's guard (formerly Nero's) did fairly well at both battles in 69. At the first they beat the Vitellian cavalry and captured an enemy legion's eagle, and were apparently the staunchest of Otho's units; Antonius Primus lambasted them at the second battle for having 'drained disgrace to the dregs', but having voluntarily returned to the Flavian standards they did well there too: the two soldiers who made the famous suicide attack on the Vitellian catapult were probably praetorians.

I admit of not having studied the Roman sources on the battles of Cremona. I had Plutarch in mind who accused the praetorians of Otho, among others, of having shown most shameful a conduct in the second battle, by fleeing immediately when the enemy marched upon them, putting the whole army in disorder where they stood. He supposedly had discussed the battle with first-hand witnesses, so there has to have been something there... As for the first battle, always according to Plutarch, there was no Othonian infantry involved and claims that the second battle was the praetorians' first. I really do not know which sources on these battles are regarded as most respectable, I just happened to have analyzed Plutarch's version some weeks ago but made no further study on the battles.

Anyways, my point was that they certainly were select troops even if their true military value might have been lower than even regular troops, so "elite" has often nothing to do with actual military prowess.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Forget Sutonius, read the horses mouth.

The incident as mentioned by Dave was so he could deal with Ariovistas.

But the Batavians were a Germanic tribe, not Gauls.

[Nathan Ross]

Plutarch... accused the praetorians of Otho, among others, of having shown most shameful a conduct in the second battle, by fleeing immediately when the enemy marched upon them, putting the whole army in disorder where they stood... I really do not know which sources on these battles are regarded as most respectable

You're quite right, he does! I haven't read Plutarch in years, but he presents a slightly different view of the battle to Tacitus (whose description I was replying on), and in particular a different view of the behaviour of the praetorians, who 'fought more shamefully than any others' and 'fled through the ranks of their still unvanquished comrades, filling them with fear and confusion' (Otho, 12.6).

Actually, rereading Tacitus (Histories, II.44) I notice that he quotes the praetorians saying that 'we beat their cavalry and captured an eagle from one of their legions' - the 'we' here might refer to the army as a whole rather than the guard themselves, and the eagle would therefore be the one of XXI Rapax mentioned elsewhere. In which case, perhaps the praetorians did indeed flee the field...

However, both Tacitus and Plutarch got their information from contemporaries who had fought at the battle, and I have no idea which of them is regarded as more reliable (or least unreliable!) either. Plutarch does seem considerably more anti-Otho (and anti-praetorian) though...