Roman Special Troops

[caldrail]

Yet the praetorian guard were more of a hazard than a help to the empire

Not initially. The Guard was fully loyal to their creator, Augustus, after all. And they did help getting rid of some bad emperors. Still, they obviously ended up being something quite different from what Augustus intended them to be.

 

The problem is that with the donatives and other perks on offer, the praetorians became loyal to the emperor in name only. After Augustus they became actually loyal to themselves. Severus had the right idea after he deposed Didius Julianus. He had them exiled and replaced the guard with his own men. I don't approve of dictatorships, but this was Rome after all!

[Germanicus]

After Augustus they became actually loyal to themselves.

 

I don't think it's as cut and dried as that or we would have seen a Praetorian become Emperor. Why seek out Claudius after Caligulas death and proclaim him Emperor ?

 

In the case of the year of four Emperors the Praetorians fought, and died for Otho despite not receiving a donative.

 

I think their loyalty to the Caesars, at least the Julio Claudians was down to more than money, I think the early Praetorians get a bad wrap sometimes.

[mquish]

The Urban Cohorts were the of a police force in the major cities... they did not have anything to do with protecting the eagles, that was the sole job of each individual legion and it's standards...

 

I am sorry for the phrasing of my answer as you may have misunderstood what i was trying to say. I was not associating the urban cohort to protecting the standard only that they might have being a crack fighting force if used in the main army. I was associating the legionary first cohort with protecting the main and most important of the standards.

 

The Urban Cohorts ... they did not have anything to do with protecting the eagles

The way I figured he didn't mean that either, just a bit unclear with his sentence structure.

 

Thank you for pointing out my mistake in the phrasing of my post. I was not associating the urban cohort with protecting the standard

[caldrail]

After Augustus they became actually loyal to themselves.

 

I don't think it's as cut and dried as that or we would have seen a Praetorian become Emperor. Why seek out Claudius after Caligulas death and proclaim him Emperor ?

 

In the case of the year of four Emperors the Praetorians fought, and died for Otho despite not receiving a donative.

 

I think their loyalty to the Caesars, at least the Julio Claudians was down to more than money, I think the early Praetorians get a bad wrap sometimes.

 

 

No I doubt it. An officer perhaps - Didn't Sejanus try something like that? Macro was gotten rid of because had he too much power. An ordinary praetorian wouldn't. They knew how risky it was and I doubt they trusted their mates to stay the sword if they did the wrong thing! In any case, it wasn't a matter of simply announcing you're in charge. Didius Julianus paid for that mistake twice. A great many later emperors too were keen to assume power but didn't last. As for seeking out Claudius, they needed a puppet. Not someone to pull the strings of, but someone to ensure they weren't sent off back the german front or worse. Otho obviously had something going for him then if he got the loyalty of the praetorians.

 

A bad wrap? Yes I agree, but they sullied their own name with greed.

[brotus maximus]

I once heard a discussion on "king arthur and his knights" and how they were like a special kind of merc platoon in a way, even though king arthur probably never was a real person, from what i have read on this discussion there seems to be something similar to that the licters and the like but were there actually true mercenary's who were like the roman knights (sorry mongolian horsemen)(I think so any way) that killed to protect "the roman empire" or at least the "glory of it" so in a way they were like assasins or something similar other then the cavlary or special unit cavlary.

[Primus Pilus]

I once heard a discussion on "king arthur and his knights" and how they were like a special kind of merc platoon in a way, even though king arthur probably never was a real person, from what i have read on this discussion there seems to be something similar to that the licters and the like but were there actually true mercenary's who were like the roman knights (sorry mongolian horsemen)(I think so any way) that killed to protect "the roman empire" or at least the "glory of it" so in a way they were like assasins or something similar other then the cavlary or special unit cavlary.

 

Considering that the true origin of 'Arthur' is open to conjecture and guesswork, why would you believe such supposed detail as to the nature of his knights? The Sarmatian cavalry in Britain (one of the theories in the origin of Arthur's knights) were just that... cavalry. Admittedly they were exceptional horseman and the Sarmatians held a natural affinity with their horses, but otherwise the rest of it sounds a bit hollywoodish.

[Aphrodite]

I have no idea if this has any basis in the true history, but in RTW they have those arcani. Kind of sounds like an excuse to put ninjas into the game though.

 

The arcani operated to the north of Hadriens wall in Roman Britain. They were the first element of the northern defensive system, and they were paid to move amongst the tribe who occupied the scottish lowlands and try and stop any trouble before it started. They were also to send warnings back to the Roman side if trouble was brewing.

 

They were not roman citizens, they were generally mercenaries from other barbarian countries which meant they were easy to bribe into silence, something that happend around 360 when all the tribes around britain form a sort of coalition to mount on massive attack on its frontiers.

 

 

I once heard a discussion on "king arthur and his knights" and how they were like a special kind of merc platoon in a way, even though king arthur probably never was a real person, from what i have read on this discussion there seems to be something similar to that the licters and the like but were there actually true mercenary's who were like the roman knights (sorry mongolian horsemen)(I think so any way) that killed to protect "the roman empire" or at least the "glory of it" so in a way they were like assasins or something similar other then the cavlary or special unit cavlary.

 

Considering that the true origin of 'Arthur' is open to conjecture and guesswork, why would you believe such supposed detail as to the nature of his knights? The Sarmatian cavalry in Britain (one of the theories in the origin of Arthur's knights) were just that... cavalry. Admittedly they were exceptional horseman and the Sarmatians held a natural affinity with their horses, but otherwise the rest of it sounds a bit hollywoodish.

 

The ledgend of king aurthur is said likely to come from the dark ages after the Romans left britain, during the time when numerous small kindoms and kings sprung up, and i too have read theories that the remaining samaritan horsemen may have contributed to this legend. He is beleived to originate from the south of england in the cornwall area i beleive.

 

When i was little and used to go swimming in lakes i used to always imagine Id be the one to find excaliber!

[Primus Pilus]

We might be going off-topic with the Arthur discussion, but you folks may enjoy this site if you are interested in the Lucius Artorius Castus theory

[Aphrodite]

Some of the best academic discussions can come from tangents though!

[mquish]

I have no idea if this has any basis in the true history, but in RTW they have those arcani. Kind of sounds like an excuse to put ninjas into the game though.

 

 

[

 

The ledgend of king aurthur is said likely to come from the dark ages after the Romans left britain, during the time when numerous small kindoms and kings sprung up, and i too have read theories that the remaining samaritan horsemen may have contributed to this legend. He is beleived to originate from the south of england in the cornwall area i beleive.

 

Arthur was a prince of the tribe of Britons called Silures, whose country was South Wales,- the son of Uther, named Pendragon, a title given to an elective sovereign, paramount over the many kings of Britain. He appears to have commenced his martial career about the year 500, and was raised to the Pendragonship about ten years later. He is said to have gained twelve victories over the Saxons. The most important of them was that of Badon, by some supposed to be Bath, by others Berkshire. This was the last of his battles with the Saxons, and checked their progress so effectually that Arthur experienced no more annoyance from them, and reigned in peace, until the revolt of his nephew Modred, twenty years later, which led to the fatal battle of Camlan, in Cornwall, in 542. Modred was slain, and Arthur, mortally wounded, was conveyed by sea to Glastonbury, where he died, and was buried. Tradition preserved the memory of the place of his interment within the abbey, as we are told by Giraldus Cambrensis, who was present when the grave was opened by command of Henry II. in 1150, and saw the bones and sword of the monarch, and a leaden cross let into his tombstone, with the inscription in rude Roman letters, "Here lies buried the famous King Arthur, in the island Avolonia." This story has been elegantly versified by Warton. A popular traditional belief was long entertained among the Britons that Arthur was not dead, but had been carried off to be healed of his wounds in Fairy-land, and that he would reappear to avenge his countrymen, and reinstate them in the sovereignty of Britain.

[brotus maximus]

so thanx fer the info on the "famous king arthur", but in a way there had too have been at least one or two merc platoons or something similar at least right?

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Or Arthur didn't even exist at all and no longer the term legend is appliable but rather myth.

[Germanicus]

there had too have been at least one or two merc platoons or something similar at least right?

 

It would seem not. Have you read the earlier pages in the thread where numerous other special troops are mentioned ?

[mquish]

Or Arthur didn't even exist at all and no longer the term legend is appliable but rather myth.

 

I wouldnt rule him out completely. There is good evidence to suggest that a king by the name of arthur existed in the region of wales. The mythical stories that go with him are unlikely to be true but the exsistence of the name, many archeologists believe is true.

[mquish]

I have no idea if this has any basis in the true history, but in RTW they have those arcani. Kind of sounds like an excuse to put ninjas into the game though.

 

 

The Areani were agents in Imperial Roman military units based in Roman Britain during the later part of the Roman occupation of the island. They were used both as scouts for the legions and as undercover spies. Many of them were mercenaries; at the time of the Great Conspiracy, which they helped instigate, a good deal of them were sailors. Due to their participation in the Conspiracy, Count Theodosius disbanded them.

 

They are sometimes (inaccurately) called Arcani