Roman \'Elite\' units

[Aulus Perrinius]

I was reading the thread about how elite troops would have been armoured and I've seen the term elite used to describe a lot of roman units and I started wondering:

What exactly constituted an elite unit for the Roman Army?

Do we know anything about these units besides their names?

[Kegluneq]

I think it depends on what you mean by 'elite' - do you mean those with the highest social status/wealth (v. important in ancient society), those with specialist skills (akin to modern 'special forces') or simply those who were renowned as the strongest/bravest warriors in combat?

Examples are easy to find. Praetorians were richer and enjoyed a great deal of public attention, but if they were really armed in musculata or antique armour styles then it's questionable how effective they would be in battle as a tactical unit. Auxiliary cavalry, especially those of the alae, were also well paid and possessed traditional non-Roman skills which they demonstrated in specific martial performances utilising impressive equipment. The legions are often regarded as 'elite' troops in their own right and they probably received more training in things such as civic engineering. Some auxiliaries were noted for special skills such as archery, although they didn't ncessarily form cohesive units. Certain ethnic groups, in particular the Batavians, were noted in part for special skills but primarily for their exceptional performance in conventional battle.

To be honest I think most military units - legionary, auxiliary, praetorian - would have thought of themselves as exceptional or distinctive in some way, or at least been encouraged to think so during official ceremonies etc. Differences in equipment don't alone suggest how much regard a unit held within the hierarchy of the Roman military (any fool can buy nice armour) and there's a lot of controversy over who could or would wear what.

(AFAIK this holds true for the Principate, I wouldn't comment on the Late Empire).

[jkaler48]

Roman Legions were awarded honorific additions to their names with some Legions having several. Some Legions were awarded unit symbols like the Elephant awarded to the Fifth Alaudae for the Battle of Thapsus. These could be thought of as "elite" units. Conversely Legions could be and were disbanded for poor performance as which apparently happened to the Fifth sometime after their defeat Batavian Revolt.

[Nathan Ross]

Praetorians were richer and enjoyed a great deal of public attention, but if they were really armed in musculata or antique armour styles then it's questionable how effective they would be in battle as a tactical unit.

The Praetorians had their good and bad moments. At times - particularly under Domitian and Trajan - they were a very effective battlefield force and a true military elite. At others - after the death of Commodus, when according to Dio they couldn't be bothered to put up a fight against Severus - they deserved their reputation for indolence. But even the reconstituted force that supported Maxentius (the original guard having been severely whittled away by Diocletian) fought bravely at Milvian bridge and were the last to retreat against Constantine's veterans.

Certain ethnic groups, in particular the Batavians, were noted in part for special skills but primarily for their exceptional performance in conventional battle.

That's true. Interestingly, the German bodyguard of the Julio-Claudian emperors was an elite force, although they were intended to protect the emperor rather than specifically to fight in battle. Many emperors seem to have put more trust in 'barbarians' than their own subjects, for fairly obvious reasons!

(AFAIK this holds true for the Principate, I wouldn't comment on the Late Empire).

The later empire produced a multiplicity of 'elite' forces of one sort or another. The Joviani and Herculiani of the tetrarchy were basically old style legionaries, though they appear to have been formed by cadres from the veteran Danube legions: Vegetius says they were especially skilled in using the plumbata. Detachments of these legions (probably originally numbered I Jovia and II Herculia) seem to have accompanied the tetrarchs on all their various military campaigns, and appear on the Arch of Galerius.

Incidentally, the Lanciarii of the third century and after seem to have functioned as elite light infantry within the legions - Luke Ueda-Sarson suggests in this essay that they ranked between a legionary and a praetorian guardsman.

The Protectors were another select band from around the same period: originally the term was probably a title of dignity for senior officers of the imperial retinue, but by Diocletian a corps of Protectors existed, apparently formed of centurions promoted from the legions and used as a bodyguard force and officer-training school. Later still this evolved into the Protectores Domestici, a kind of staff college of sorts, and included the sons of barbarian nobility and young men of the aristocracy (Ammianus Marcellinus was one of them). The Notitia Dignitatum provides their lavish-looking shield design, but it's doubtful whether they had any front-line military duties by this point.

Constantine disbanded the Praetorians and the Equites Singulares (imperial horse guard - another elite unit of the principiate), at some point replacing the latter with the Scholae Palatinae. These were elite cavalry, a mixture of Romans and barbarians, although little more is known about them. The army reforms around this time also created the Palatine regiments - both legions and auxilia of a new type. These were the real elite troops of the later empire, and served with the imperial comitatus. Many were recruited from former barbarian groups settled in Roman territory (laeti) - and as an elite, they would presumably have been issued with the best available arms and armour.

Anyway, that's all very general but hopefully it's a start...

[Rado]

This is information that I want to share with you for Roman elite military units:
In the garden of Dobrich Archaeological Museum is exposed ares of stone. With dimensions :
high 92 cm, wide 46 cm .
With text:
PVPLIVS (SIC) AE(IVS) VEN
VSTINVS STRATOR
CO(N)S(VLARIS) LEG(IONIS) XI CL (AVDIAE) PPO
(SIC)SALVTEM SVAM
VOTO POSVI(T)
Translation:
"Publius Eliy Venustin strator consularis of the Legion XI Claudia for his health put this vow"
Text is written in the so-called Popular Latin and it is very common in legionnaires epigraphic monuments. Monument is determined to be from the second-century AD -Hadrian period.
Strator is legionnaire personally responsible for equine of the senior officers to which it is assigned most often LEGATVS, TRIBVNVS and PRAEFECTVS also involved in the horse guard of the
Senior officers.
I think it is valuable information concerning Roman cavalry.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

At the time of Imp Gallienus of these same ( strator consularis ) in several provinces was formed
elite cavalry units :EQVITES STABLESIANI

[Vindex]

Definition of elite
noun - group of people considered to be superior in a particular society or organization:

an elite combat force2 [mass noun]

Origin: late 18th century: from French élite 'selection, choice', from élire 'to elect', from a variant of Latin eligere (see elect). elite (sense 2) dates from the early 20th century.

Are we able to apply a term such as elite to Roman units at all? The first definition suggests that it is a concept they would have understood, to mark a unit out as special in some sort of way. I think battle honours and the award of post nominals for exemplary service or bravery would have been expected. Does this necessarily make them 'elite'?

I'm sure the Praetorians thought they were special but if they did their job properly there would not have been a need for Emperor's "tame" Batavians, surely?

[Nathan Ross]

Are we able to apply a term such as elite to Roman units at all?

It's often used rather lazily (that recent book on the Dacian war with its 'elite Roman legions', for example), but I think we can still use the term in a Roman context. There's a difference though - 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.

The praetorians were paid far more than normal legionaries, and praetorian centurions and tribunes ranked more highly that their equivalents in the legions. So they were a select group, an elite within the military hierarchy - even if they spent most of their time hanging around Rome looking smart and occasionally murdering emperors...

The palatine units of the later empire had a similar role - they remained with the emperor on campaign, and possibly got the pick of new arms and equipment. They were close to the centre of power, and more likely to be rewarded with extra pay and promotion if they distinguished themselves.

Morale probably played a great part in their actual effectiveness: in an age when the spear and sword were the height of battlefield technology, and available to everyone, a prestigious unit with a strong collective identity and esprit de corps would likely have performed far better in combat than those lacking such distinctions.

At the time of Imp Gallienus of these same ( strator consularis ) in several provinces was formed elite cavalry units :EQVITES STABLESIANI

That's an interesting inscription - I think stratores were couriers rather than grooms (or 'squires' as Le Bohec calls them). There was, I think, a tribune of the stratores who appears on a career inscription for the Rome cohorts, which wouldn't make sense if they were just supposed to look after the horses!

So I wouldn't call the stratores (or the speculatores, or exploratores, frumentarii or other 'specialists') elite particularly, although to the modern mind they might seem more deserving of the description that the overpaid praetorians!

There was a thread somewhere on RAT about the Equites Stablesiani, I think - the idea of their being 'elite' or bodyguard cavalry is a modern supposition, and unsupported by evidence as far as I know... But I could well be wrong about that ;-)

[mcbishop]

Are we able to apply a term such as elite to Roman units at all?

It is certainly the most over-used and under-evidenced term used in books about the Roman army (beloved of publishers of certain series of slim books).

There is a case for arguing that the only elite unit in the British army is the SAS and that the three regiments comprising it are unusual in that they only recruit from serving members of the armed forces (so you can't just march into a recruiting office and ask to join the SAS!). By comparison, members of the various singulares bodies (whether they be imperial or gubernatorial) are the closest thing to the SAS in that they were recruited the same way – think of the Vindolanda pridianum with its records of several members of cohors I Tungrorum on the staff of the governor. The existence of the Cripplegate fort in London suggests (but does not prove) these troops were brigaded together. As such, these units were bodyguards and essentially defensive (harking back to the general's guards in Republican armies) and I am unaware of any evidence of them being used in a clandestine or offensive way like the SAS, but rather somewhat closer to the guys who protect the US president. The key element, of course, is an additional selection process above and beyond initial recruitment.

So my only candidates for elite status in the Roman army of the imperial period would be singulares of whatever form (including the famed Germans of the Julio-Claudian period). All troops tend to think they are an elite; all other troops tend to think they are not ;-)

Mike Bishop

[Rado]

In archaeological literature professionals use exactly this term ” elite ” it does not specify exactly what is meant by this.Most likely :
Warriors of higher lineage ,with a higher position in the legion, better equipped and with a rich military (or any other) experience.
The same term is used widely and for the First Elite Cohort of all legions.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

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?

[mcbishop]

The same term is used widely and the First Elite Cohort of all legions.

So where is the term elite in the sources? The first cohort is certainly better than the others, but elite? I think not.

Mike Bishop

[M. Demetrius]

From the comparatively little I've read, the closest to "elite" forces as compared to our modern concept runs like this:

** There were soldiers who were better fighters than other soldiers. Sometimes these men earn special mention, Vorenius and Pullo with Caesar's Gallic campaign, for example, and a few others mentioned in that narrative. They were not gathered into one special unit, though, but rather left where they were, perhaps to inspire troops around them to improvement, perhaps for some other reason.

** By Caesar's time and after, soldiers were equipped pretty much alike. The differences in gear were more preferential (silver instead of brass belt plates, etc.) They used essentially the same swords, shields, spears, etc., and didn't differentiate between social class like the older Republic armies pre-Marius did.

** Exploratores and Speculatores--(scouts, spies, explorers, camp locators) may well have been chosen from the best troops, but they did not perform ninja-style sneak-in assassinations/rescues/kidnappings, or similar operations that we would likely expect modern Special Forces to do. They were not organized into regiments or centuries or cohorts, but rather, each significant unit had some men assigned to that task, or drafted into duty as needed. An army on campaign needed scouts to see what was going on outside immediate line of sight, and these men helped perform that task. Their greatest skills included getting close enough to an enemy force to see what they were doing, while not being seen by that same force, knowing how much area the army needed for a camp, finding water, and other "normal" scouting activities. They weren't "elite" except in those areas. Probably, the differences would not be noticed when these men were standing in the ranks waiting for a battle. They didn't wear special berets.

** Evidently, Varus didn't believe in them, or at least didn't employ them in his last foray into Germania.

[Nathan Ross]

I am unaware of any evidence of them being used in a clandestine or offensive way like the SAS, but rather somewhat closer to the guys who protect the US president.

That sounds right. As I suggested above, it was proximity to power that gave soldiers 'elite' status, not what they did. Our modern conception of 'elite' special forces (those ninja-types that David mentioned) would not have been too prestigious to the Roman mind, I think - more the province of lowly auxiliaries with unusual abilities (swimming rivers in armour, that sort of thing)...

The Equites Singulares Augusti were selected from the best soldiers of the provincial alae, so could be considered 'elite' - but their tribune was still junior to the tribunes of the praetorians (eg Marcius Turbo, who filled both roles in succession).

I think 'tame Batavians' hark to the Gemanics Caesar recruited as his personal bobyguard

The Julio-Claudian 'German bodyguard' was disbanded by Galba, I think; Trajan (probably)replaced them with the Singulares Augusti. According to Speidel, the latter were still popularly known as 'Batavi' though (possibly just because they initially comprised a majority of Batavian troopers?).

The reason for having more than one 'elite' bodyguard unit might have been to ensure a division of power and influence. When the praetorians entered the palace to kill Pertinax, the Singulares Augusti defended him against them. If the praetorians, singulares, urban cohorts, vigiles and the people all hated each other, the emperors could play them off against each other and maintain a degree of safety...

[Kegluneq]

Our modern conception of 'elite' special forces (those ninja-types that David mentioned) would not have been too prestigious to the Roman mind, I think - more the province of lowly auxiliaries with unusual abilities (swimming rivers in armour, that sort of thing)...

** Exploratores and Speculatores--(scouts, spies, explorers, camp locators) may well have been chosen from the best troops, but they did not perform ninja-style sneak-in assassinations/rescues/kidnappings, or similar operations that we would likely expect modern Special Forces to do.

I'm reminded here of Tacitus's description of the rescue of Cartimandua (Histories 3.45). Although we don't know the scale of the mission - or even if it really happened - it does sound close to a commando-style raid on Brigantian land. Small forces of mounted cavalry could represent both prestige and experience, making them equivalent to some degree to our concept of elite forces.

With that said, this kind of small scale military action was probably far more the norm than large set-piece battles we usually think of. The only thing that might set it apart would be the broader political reasons for carrying out the mission (rather than simply seizing land or destroying a threat). A 'special forces' role for the cavalry in this case might be reflected in leadership rather than specialised skills or experience.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I think 'tame Batavians' hark to the Gemanics Caesar recruited as his personal bobyguard

The Julio-Claudian 'German bodyguard' was disbanded by Galba, I think; Trajan (probably)replaced them with the Singulares Augusti. According to Speidel, the latter were still popularly known as 'Batavi' though (possibly just because they initially comprised a majority of Batavian troopers?).

The reason for having more than one 'elite' bodyguard unit might have been to ensure a division of power and influence. When the praetorians entered the palace to kill Pertinax, the Singulares Augusti defended him against them. If the praetorians, singulares, urban cohorts, vigiles and the people all hated each other, the emperors could play them off against each other and maintain a degree of safety...

Yes I agree with that.
The Batavvi were a Germanic tribe though, so undoubtedly just a continuation of the original Caesarian guards!