Roman \'Special Forces\'?

[LvpvsRomanvs]

Salvete

The thought of the Romans having some forms of 'special forces' groups has been on my mind for a while, and I just wanted to see others' views on the matter. The term has been used in documentries and some texts. Did these 'special forces' exist? Were there specific units designed for sabotage, hostage taking etc.? Perhaps I may be inlfuenced by modern ideas of the modern military too much, but it may be probable, nevertheless. Did the Romans really need 'special forces' groups? It appears that scouting, recons and strikes behind enemy lines etc. were performed mostly by auxliary groups.

Any views on this?

Vale

- Lorenzo/Virilis

[jvrjenivs]

We certainly know of special trained scouts and messengers, like the exploratores. I'll check the refereces when I'm at home, but I think to remember there were some Ancient-warfare articles on this.

[john m roberts]

Ah, yes. The famous "Bronze Berets."

[Quintius Clavus]

The Batavians come to mind as troops who had a particular skill the Roman army utilized, but... that does not mean that they were some sort of separate elite/special forces unit like US Navy Seals or US Army Rangers who ARE separate special forces units. The Batavians' skills were a function of their tribal homeland on the lower Rhine and thus are noted for amphibious operations -swimming their horses across rivers.
However, in actions like Suetonius Paulinus' assault on Mona, I know that auxiliaries were sent across the strait to the island by swimming their horses, but, I would have to dig out my Tacitus to see if the particular units are mentioned. The rest of the time, the Batavians functioned just like all the other auxiliary units - such as garrison at Vindolanda - with nothing to set them apart from any othe auxiliary unit. Several auxiliary units continued to draw recruits from their home areas - likely the Batavians (as they were not formally part of the Empire, but had close ties and formal oblgations to provide troops) or Hamian and other eastern archers. But that, again, does not make them "special forces" as we think of them today. The skills these had were part of their respective cultures.

[nina]

Some examples of special units:speculatores - used as scouts, frumentarii - a secret service in the Roman Empire or vigiles - firefighters and police in Rome
There are also: cataphractarii, the pretorian guard,cohortes urbanae and others.

[Vindex]

Ah, yes. The famous "Bronze Berets."

Dammit...I have tea all over my key board!!! :lol:

Perhaps Vexillations count too...chosen for a "special" mission, I suppose they may have had special elements included.

Think one needs to be wary of imposing modern military ideas here, though.

[Arminius Primus]

Fratres,

I came across "Cohors electorum" , I took that to be troops selected for a specific duty. Might that apply in this case??

Regards from a very cool early morning in Scupi, Arminius Primus aka Al

[LvpvsRomanvs]

It seems that, generally, when it came to tasks that modern armies deploy special forces for, the auxiliaries were used. The Batavians, as mentioned before, could serve as an example with their specialty in crossing rivers, the Tungrians for fighting in mountainous terrain. Perhaps the Romans had no need for what we call 'special forces' as it was usually auxiliaries that carried out reconnaissance, intelligence and sabotage. I think that cavalry detachments would have been best suited to this as they could travel lightly and also move swiftly. Auxiliaries seem to be the natural culprit for this roles.

But are we comparing the Roman military too much with the modern military? It does seem somewhat of a tendency.

- Lorenzo/Virilis

[Maximinus243]

I don't think the Romans ever had the notion of creating special forces units as we know it today. Today's special forces are a dedicated unit sent deep into enemy lines, and beyond the army lines of supplies to perform missions that sabotage the enemy. Which isn't really feasible, given that there's no such a thing like helicopters or planes that exist in Roman times to insert those troops to begin with.

I think idea of a special forces is too modern for the Roman army, or any army before the invention of planes and helicopters.

[D B Campbell]

I came across "Cohors electorum" , I took that to be troops selected for a specific duty.

Interesting. I don't think I've ever come across this. Can you remember the reference?

Of course, there is the well known career inscription of Gaius Nonius Caepianus (CIL XI, 393 = ILS 2739), who was entrusted with the role of praepositus numeri equitum electo[rum] ex Illyrico ("commander of the unit of horsemen selected from Illyricum"). The usual interpretation has Caepianus commanding a combined vexillation drawn from the cavalry units stationed in Illyricum. (There appears to have been a semi-permanent vexillatio equitum Illyricorum which released veterans in the early years of Hadrian, possibly suggesting that it might originally have been formed for service in Trajan's Dacian Wars. It seems still to have existed during the reign of Antoninus Pius.)

[Quintus Marius Lucullus]

I think idea of a special forces is too modern for the Roman army, or any army before the invention of planes and helicopters.

Not what I had in mind as a first post, but I like to jump into things with both feet first anyway.

The idea and use of "Special Forces" definitely predates the tactical use of the helicopter (mid-1950s, Operation Musketeer) and certainly the use of airplanes. Now, if by "Special Forces" you are referring to fast roping, hostage rescuing ninjas then that idea really only came around during the 1970s, after the Munich Massacre. But "Special Forces", as defined by Websters, as "élite, highly trained military forces, specially selected to work on difficult missions" then you can arguably trace the lineage of the idea back to the Persian Immortals. Whether through specialized military training or inbred native skill, Generals throughout history have had access to special troops for special missions. Special Forces, at least in the United States, trace their lineage back to Roger's Rangers, a Colonial Unit that was highly successful during the 7 Years War (1750s)

Many of the tasks now performed by "Special Forces" such as deep raids behind enemy lines, scouting, and surprise attacks from unexpected areas were traditionally performed by Cavalry. Even the use of Special Forces to train local forces to fight an enemy is a fairly old concept. In more modern times the British and Russians (moreso the Brits) did this quite often during The Great Game and was handled by Officers on leave or specially trained diplomats cum adventurers.

As technology has progressed the Battlespace has shrunk thus requiring ever smaller, and more stealthy units in order to maximize the odds of mission completion and unit survival. Add to it modern force multipliers like high explosives, the machine gun, close air support, mines, etc. and you see that a small force can inflict a disproportionate amount of damage and then exfiltrate to strike again. While the size and tools may have changed, the idea behind it is very much the same.

[LvpvsRomanvs]

But "Special Forces", as defined by Websters, as "élite, highly trained military forces, specially selected to work on difficult missions" then you can arguably trace the lineage of the idea back to the Persian Immortals. Whether through specialized military training or inbred native skill, Generals throughout history have had access to special troops for special missions.

Well observed Lucullus, and welcome to RAT. Examples for specialised native troops could be the Cretan archers, elite missile troops of their day, along with Balearic slingers. The Batavians were the elite amphibious assault troops, and if I remember correctly, Gallic cavalry had a very good reputation also. But can we consider these troops special forces?

Concerning Roman special forces however, I came across an interesting theory as I was discussing the subject with someone. Apparently, though I myself must look more into it, there was some form of Roman 'special forces' group stationed in Deva (Chester, UK) for a planned assault on Hibernia (Ireland), which, supposedly, never happened in the end. However, this is mere conjecture until something is actually found that can support the thoery. Has anyone else come across this theory before?

- Lorenzo/Virilis

[Spurius Papirius Cursor]

Hi Lupus

Don't know anything about invading Ireland, but came across the following while looking at all sorts of stuff to do with 3rd - 4th Century.

First, a couple of plates I found on a Russian site ("Roman Glory"). You might be able to locate the relevant Osprey books (I don't have them - wish I did) and find something of interest in the text to the plates.

(A) Illustration of two Late Roman Cavalrymen, probably scouts, evidently engaged in reconnaissance. (Link = [url:34sdbtrj]http://www.roman-glory.com/images/osprey-warrior-15/img02.jpg[/url]). From Late Roman Cavalryman, 236-565 AD. Warrior 15. Osprey Publishing, 1995.

(B) Illustration of Late Roman infantry, apparently what we'd today think of as a combat reconnaissance patrol, interrogating prisoners. (Link = [url:34sdbtrj]http://www.roman-glory.com/images/osprey-warrior-9/img01.jpg[/url]). From Late Roman Infantryman, 236–565 AD. Warrior 9. Osprey Publishing, 1994.

Then, there's this anecdote I remember from Ammianus but it's also readable at Google Books (Late Roman Infantryman, 236–565 AD, page 55). (Link = [url:34sdbtrj]http://books.google.com.au/books?id=ccgLIklIheAC&pg=PA68&dq=Late+Roman+Infantryman,+236%E2%80%93565+AD.+Warrior+9.+Osprey+Publishing,+1994&hl=en&ei=IPqyTK6xBIL-vQPc3rT_Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false[/url]).

Julian learned from prisoners that a group of Alemanni he'd been pursuing were holed up on some islands in the Rhine. He encouraged one Bainobaudes, a Tribune of the Cornuti, to lead a raiding-party of hand-picked men against them. Apparently, the raid was very successful with the raiders slaughtering "like sheep" everyone they came across. There seems to have been a lot of improvisation on the part of the raiders, with the use of shields for floatation and commandeering found boats to enhance the attack.

Where today's special units have mottoes (I gather many don't) the aspirations implicit in them are interesting to note and compare with what motivated Bainobaudes and his men. (Some examples from Wikipedia)

Australia: SAS: "Who Dares Wins"; 1st Commando Regiment: "Strike Swiftly"; 2nd Commando Regiment: "Without warning";
Britain - Special Boat Service: "By strength and guile"; SAS: "Who Dares Wins".
France: 1st Marine Infantry Parachute Regiment: "Who Dares Wins"; 13th Parachute Dragoon Regiment: "Beyond the possible"; French commando frogmen: "Honour, Homeland, Valour, Discipline".
Poland: GROM (Operational Mobile Reaction Group): "For you Homeland".
South Africa: Special Forces Brigade: "We fear naught but God".

Some mottoes appeal to a sense of duty to country, and I'd maybe argue these could only inspire in ages when national identity was a clear concept. Others, however, show a valuing of speed, surprise, sneakiness (guile), physical superiority, resolve and imagination. It does seem some of the same sorts of values held by special forces units today were present in a number of unorthodox military actions in the ancient world. The Roman army - in any era - might never have had specially-dedicated "ninja" units, but I think (in the Later Empire) it was auxilia palatina units which most provided men for unorthodox actions.

Cheers

Howard/SPC

[Quintus Marius Lucullus]

But "Special Forces", as defined by Websters, as "élite, highly trained military forces, specially selected to work on difficult missions" then you can arguably trace the lineage of the idea back to the Persian Immortals. Whether through specialized military training or inbred native skill, Generals throughout history have had access to special troops for special missions.

Well observed Lucullus, and welcome to RAT. Examples for specialised native troops could be the Cretan archers, elite missile troops of their day, along with Balearic slingers. The Batavians were the elite amphibious assault troops, and if I remember correctly, Gallic cavalry had a very good reputation also. But can we consider these troops special forces?

Yes and no. Like I said,the concept of using special troops for special missions is very old.

Modern Special Operations units be they military or police, are at the zenith of their evolution. Units like the US Army Rangers, British SAS and Long Range Desert Group, etc. all started out as extremely light, and mobile, infantry units specially trained and tasked for unusually difficult missions. As time moved on, the mission(s) became more diverse and the training even more specialized. Deep Reconnaissance become one of their major missions because modern Cavalry is a bit too noticeable. Like I said, they have evolved to fill gaps that other units are no longer capable of fulfilling. Helicopter assaults, hostage rescue, COIN, etc. are all very recent developments. These units have evolved to survive in the modern bureaucracy as much as they have on the modern battlefield.

Would I define Cretans, Gauls, and Batavians as an "elite"? I don't believe they were viewed as being so in their time, and I don't believe they would be considered so today. Were they called upon to use special skills to perform unusual missions? Certainly in the case of the Batavians, yes. Better examples of elite, specially selected, troops would probably be the Praetorians, the Theban Sacred Band, The Companions of Phillip II (and the Diadochoi), and the Palatini. The concept of "SpecOps" has been around for a long time, probably since war took on a larger scale than my family clubbing your family (Ug the Caveman's 1st Irregulars; We throw sticks, not just swing them!).

Unfortunately the terms "Special Forces" and "Special Operations" have taken on a life of their own. It is the mission that defines the unit, not the other way around.

Concerning Roman special forces however, I came across an interesting theory as I was discussing the subject with someone. Apparently, though I myself must look more into it, there was some form of Roman 'special forces' group stationed in Deva (Chester, UK) for a planned assault on Hibernia (Ireland), which, supposedly, never happened in the end. However, this is mere conjecture until something is actually found that can support the thoery. Has anyone else come across this theory before?

- Lorenzo/Virilis

No, but that sounds incredibly intriguing.

[D B Campbell]

Were there specific units designed for sabotage, hostage taking etc.? ... Did the Romans really need 'special forces' groups?

This kind of work seems to have been entrusted to individuals on an ad hoc basis, rather than employing a purpose-built unit.

Better examples of elite, specially selected, troops would probably be the Praetorians, the Theban Sacred Band, The Companions of Phillip II (and the Diadochoi), and the Palatini.

Interestingly, the Praetorians appear to have been "elite" only in the sense of "privileged" -- they were not a superior, battle-winning unit; they were simply entrusted with the emperor's safety (whenever it suited them).