07-29-2003, 11:07 PM
JRSCline wrote:<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>Strategy, who also has a long .Org history, always was very annoying to debate! <hr><br>
<br>
Annoying? What DO you mean?<br>
<br>
Just because I require references to archeological and original sources, rather than accepting words out of the encyclopaedia? <br>
<br>
Stickers wrote:<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>What do you mean "modelled correctly"? Praetorian units were used by Scipio - indeed by pretty much every Roman general, since they are headquarters guards - that's what Praetorian means - headquarters - every Roman camp had one!<hr><br>
<br>
Oh dear ... you can't imagine how much I was tempted to be nasty. Just for the record - this kind of statement is exactly the kind of things that I hate to read. Nevertheless, I shall try to be gentle...<br>
<br>
First of all, examine the plentiful evidence which clearly indicates that the headquarters of a Roman official were always organized on an ad-hoc basis, in whichever way the man on the spot felt like it.<br>
<br>
Yes - Scipio the younger did create a bodyguard unit for himself during the siege of Numantia. No - this is not the same as creating a Praetorian guard. The exigencies of sieges necessiated the use of foot troops to protect the General from missile attacks and enemy sorties (e.g., check a similar episode in Scipio the Elder's siege of Kartagenea).<br>
<br>
However, every Roman general would have had the privilege of choosing whatever suitable method he liked for officiating his headquarters - and they did so entirely on the needs of the moment.<br>
<br>
E.g., I'd point you to the famous episode of Julius Caesar meeting with Ariovistus --- if Caesar's army already possessed a Praetorian cohort, why would he feel the need to make up an ad-hoc bodyguard unit from troops of the Xth Legion?<br>
<br>
Again, one can consider Polybius Book VI which <strong>explicitly</strong> spells out the system by which the Praetorium is guarded, namely:<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>each maniple in its turn mounts guard round the consul's tent to protect him from plots and at the same time to add splendour to the dignity of his office.<hr><br>
<br>
What evidence we do have for the bodyguard of Roman generals shows that it was invariably drawn from allied/auxiliary troops; the Extraordinarii (picked cavalry and foot of the allies) during the Republic up to the "reforms" of Marius (and they did not guard the Praetorium), and the allied cavalry during the late Republic (Caesar starts the civil war with a bodyguard unit of 900 <strong>cavalry</strong> - no praetorians here). In general, cavalry were much more useful as a bodyguard than infantry, and it is probably no coincidence that when the Praetorians actually begin to see serious active service under the Flavians, we immediately see the creation of a cavalry arm for the Guard.<br>
<br>
In other words: no, Praetorians did not exist until the abolishment of a citizen army and assumption of despotic powers made it necesarry during the civil wars as a form of reward for veteran service.<br>
<br>
Of course, if you (or anyone else for that matter) knows of a single shred of evidence for the use of "praetorian cohorts" between the siege of Numantia and the time of Caesar, I'd be happy to hear of it.<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>Their degeneracy came much later, but was still mainly political rather than being a problem on the battlefield <hr><br>
<br>
For most of its history, except when a new Emperor effectively re-established it from his veterans the Guard or under the warrior emperors (Trajan+Marcus Aurelius) the quality of the Guard would have been lower than that of the ordinary legion.<br>
<br>
The Guard was primarily recruited from native Italians who enrolled in it because they expected NOT to have to do any fighting. I'm curious as to how one can believe that troops who served for a shorter time (16 as opposed to 25 years), for more pay, saw less active service, and who were probably rarely in the forefront of the fighting even when they were on campaign to be superior to battle-hardened troops who had served up to 25 years on the frontier.<br>
<br>
It is probably no coincidence that in the few instances we know of where Praetorian units get to do a stand-up fight with "real" legionaries, they invariably lost... <br>
<br>
Though perhaps there is some hope in this respect; I do notice that the description also adds: "but not always used to the rigours of campaigning."<br>
<br>
So, sorry to get annoying, but I do <strong>hate</strong> the propagation of popular myth.<br>
<br>
I still look forward to R:TW, though. <p>Strategy <br>
Designer/Developer <br>
Imperium - Rise of Rome</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=strategym>StrategyM</A> at: 7/30/03 1:38 am<br></i>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>Strategy, who also has a long .Org history, always was very annoying to debate! <hr><br>
<br>
Annoying? What DO you mean?<br>
<br>
Just because I require references to archeological and original sources, rather than accepting words out of the encyclopaedia? <br>
<br>
Stickers wrote:<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>What do you mean "modelled correctly"? Praetorian units were used by Scipio - indeed by pretty much every Roman general, since they are headquarters guards - that's what Praetorian means - headquarters - every Roman camp had one!<hr><br>
<br>
Oh dear ... you can't imagine how much I was tempted to be nasty. Just for the record - this kind of statement is exactly the kind of things that I hate to read. Nevertheless, I shall try to be gentle...<br>
<br>
First of all, examine the plentiful evidence which clearly indicates that the headquarters of a Roman official were always organized on an ad-hoc basis, in whichever way the man on the spot felt like it.<br>
<br>
Yes - Scipio the younger did create a bodyguard unit for himself during the siege of Numantia. No - this is not the same as creating a Praetorian guard. The exigencies of sieges necessiated the use of foot troops to protect the General from missile attacks and enemy sorties (e.g., check a similar episode in Scipio the Elder's siege of Kartagenea).<br>
<br>
However, every Roman general would have had the privilege of choosing whatever suitable method he liked for officiating his headquarters - and they did so entirely on the needs of the moment.<br>
<br>
E.g., I'd point you to the famous episode of Julius Caesar meeting with Ariovistus --- if Caesar's army already possessed a Praetorian cohort, why would he feel the need to make up an ad-hoc bodyguard unit from troops of the Xth Legion?<br>
<br>
Again, one can consider Polybius Book VI which <strong>explicitly</strong> spells out the system by which the Praetorium is guarded, namely:<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>each maniple in its turn mounts guard round the consul's tent to protect him from plots and at the same time to add splendour to the dignity of his office.<hr><br>
<br>
What evidence we do have for the bodyguard of Roman generals shows that it was invariably drawn from allied/auxiliary troops; the Extraordinarii (picked cavalry and foot of the allies) during the Republic up to the "reforms" of Marius (and they did not guard the Praetorium), and the allied cavalry during the late Republic (Caesar starts the civil war with a bodyguard unit of 900 <strong>cavalry</strong> - no praetorians here). In general, cavalry were much more useful as a bodyguard than infantry, and it is probably no coincidence that when the Praetorians actually begin to see serious active service under the Flavians, we immediately see the creation of a cavalry arm for the Guard.<br>
<br>
In other words: no, Praetorians did not exist until the abolishment of a citizen army and assumption of despotic powers made it necesarry during the civil wars as a form of reward for veteran service.<br>
<br>
Of course, if you (or anyone else for that matter) knows of a single shred of evidence for the use of "praetorian cohorts" between the siege of Numantia and the time of Caesar, I'd be happy to hear of it.<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>Their degeneracy came much later, but was still mainly political rather than being a problem on the battlefield <hr><br>
<br>
For most of its history, except when a new Emperor effectively re-established it from his veterans the Guard or under the warrior emperors (Trajan+Marcus Aurelius) the quality of the Guard would have been lower than that of the ordinary legion.<br>
<br>
The Guard was primarily recruited from native Italians who enrolled in it because they expected NOT to have to do any fighting. I'm curious as to how one can believe that troops who served for a shorter time (16 as opposed to 25 years), for more pay, saw less active service, and who were probably rarely in the forefront of the fighting even when they were on campaign to be superior to battle-hardened troops who had served up to 25 years on the frontier.<br>
<br>
It is probably no coincidence that in the few instances we know of where Praetorian units get to do a stand-up fight with "real" legionaries, they invariably lost... <br>
<br>
Though perhaps there is some hope in this respect; I do notice that the description also adds: "but not always used to the rigours of campaigning."<br>
<br>
So, sorry to get annoying, but I do <strong>hate</strong> the propagation of popular myth.<br>
<br>
I still look forward to R:TW, though. <p>Strategy <br>
Designer/Developer <br>
Imperium - Rise of Rome</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=strategym>StrategyM</A> at: 7/30/03 1:38 am<br></i>
