Quote:Would you be so good as to remind me? :unsure:
Well... mile:
I think it's just inference that Fuscus took praetorian cohorts with him into Dacia (although not a bad bet even so).
There are a few inscriptions that appear to record military decorations for praetorians. We don't know what they did to earn them - stand around looking smart? - but fighting can't be ruled out, surely? See what you make of these:
AE 1933, 00087 L. Tatinius Cnoso, 'militi cohortis IIII praetoriae singulari et beneficiario tribuni optioni beneficiario praefecti praetorio evocato Augusti donis donato torquibus armillis phaleris corona aurea ab Imperatore Domitiano Caesare Augusto Germanico' (Looks like service as a praetorian under Domitian - either Dacia or in the Sarmatian war, perhaps?)
IRC-02, 00023 L. Aemilius Paternus 'centurioni cohortis IIII praetoriae... donis donato ab Imperatore Caesare Nerva Traiano Augusto semel I expeditione iterum II Dacica torquibus armillis phaleris corona vallari' (Dacian war as a praetorian centurion?)
AE 2007, 00526 C. Arrius Clemens 'militi cohortis IX praetoriae equiti cohortis eiusdem donis donato ab Imperatore Traiano torquibus armillis phaleris ob bellum Dacicum' ... 'centurioni cohortis VII praetoriae trecenario donis donato ab Imperatore Hadriano hasta pura corona aurea...' (Dacian war under Trajan, other conflict - maybe the Jewish war? - under Hadrian. Decorated twice, both apparently while serving in the Guard)
CIL 06, 02725 C. Vedennius Moderatus 'cohortem IX praetoriam in qua militavit annos VIII missus honesta... evocatus annos XXIII donis militaribus donatus bis ab divo Vespasiano et Imperatore Domitiano Augusto Germanico' (served under Vespasian and Domitian)
CIL 11, 02112 'primo pilo legionis VI Ferratae centurio legionis ex CCC et cohortis X praetoriae... evocato Augusti donis donato ob bellum Dacicum torquibus armillis phaleris corona aurea...' (This one could have won his awards as a legion primus pilus, but as a evocatus and later centurion of the guard it seems possible that he was a praetorian in the Dacian war).
You're right about the Parthian war - I can't find any direct evidence for that one.
Quote:I think it's just inference that Fuscus took praetorian cohorts with him into Dacia (although not a bad bet even so).
Fuscus' involvement in Dacia is frequently misunderstood. As praefectus praetorio, he was the emperor's senior military advisor, as well as being commander of the Guard. We know that the Guard's primary purpose was to accompany the emperor -- especially such a paranoid emperor as Domitian -- so they will have returned to Rome with Domitian after the AD 85 season. Fuscus, however, remained as commander-in-chief in Dacia, where he was killed in AD 87.
Quote:There are a few inscriptions that appear to record military decorations for praetorians. We don't know what they did to earn them - stand around looking smart? - but fighting can't be ruled out, surely?
The problem is that, as a Praetorian, you probably could be decorated for standing around (the emperor) looking smart (and fearsome). It was regular practice to decorate all sorts of hangers-on during an imperial expedition, so we can't really say whether the Praetorians who accompanied Domitian to Dacia did any more to receive their decorations than the ones who accompanied Claudius to Britain. We're on fairly safe ground to assume that the latter did absolutely nothing of consequence, other than to share the emperor's air space. By analogy, the Domitianic ones may very well fall into the same category.
Quote:CIL 06, 02725: C. Vedennius Moderatus 'cohortem IX praetoriam in qua militavit annos VIII missus honesta... evocatus annos XXIII donis militaribus donatus bis ab divo Vespasiano et Imperatore Domitiano Augusto Germanico' (served under Vespasian and Domitian)
An interesting one, as I cannot imagine (off the top of my head) what he could have done to deserve decorations from Vespasian. Perhaps they date back to AD 69/70.
Quote:By analogy, the Domitianic ones may very well fall into the same category.
And the Trajanic ones?
We could look at this the other way though - what evidence do we have that the praetorians didn't fight? Since we know they were a large and well equipped body of troops who accompanied the emperor on military campaigns, surely we would need some reason for assuming that they weren't actually used in battle? (Beyond the prejudice of senatorial historians claiming they were all just cowardly bullies, or the assumption that 'bad' emperors rewarded them for doing nothing...)
Here's the schematic from Soldiers of Rome (previously mentioned) that seems to demonstrate that Maxentius' Praetorians fought at the Milvian Bridge against Constantine. According to the text, the Praetorians did not retreat (unlike Maxentius' other troops) and were essentially killed holding their positions. Maxentius in his armor had fallen over the bridge into the river and drowned, but the guard evidently did not know that, and continued to defend him. A look at the armies shows how many Prateorian cohorts were involved.
Quote:Maxentius' Praetorians fought at the Milvian Bridge against Constantine... A look at the armies shows how many Prateorian cohorts were involved.
Maxentius was a great one for tradition, so probably did rebuild the praetorians to the full strength of ten cohorts (although the only evidence we have for this are a couple of inscriptions to soldiers from Danube legions apparently transferred into the guard during this period).
The Milvian bridge battle is described in a rather hazy way in several sources. Zosimus mentions that 'as long as the cavalry kept their ground, Maxentius retained some hopes, but when they gave way, he retired with the rest over the bridge into the city' - the cavalry here would presumbly be the Equites Singulares, as depicted on the Arch of Constantine.
Panegyric XII claims that 'with the exception of the first instigators of that usurpation who in despair of pardon covered with their bodies the place which they had chosen for combat, all the rest (of Maxentius's troops) went headlong into the river'. The 'instigators' were the Praetorian Guard, so here we have the source of the idea that they held their position and fought to the last.
Despite this, the same panegyric later claims that Maxentius's defeated troops from Rome (surely meaning the praetorians) are now serving Constantine as frontier soldiers - so there must have been a few survivors after all!
Quote:Despite this, the same panegyric later claims that Maxentius's defeated troops from Rome (surely meaning the praetorians) are now serving Constantine as frontier soldiers - so there must have been a few survivors after all!
Slaughter to the last man is indeed not convincing. Constantine disbanded the Praetorians - that would have been unnecessary if they had been killed to the last man. He must have 'rewarded' them by demoting them to Limitanei..
Robert Vermaat MODERATOR FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Possibly, if we give the panegyricist any credence, he was referring solely to those men of the original praetorian cohorts in Rome (the remansores) who had acclaimed Maxentius, and would not have hoped for pardon. The majority of the Maxentian guard would presumably have been new troops transferred from the field legions of Flavius Severus and Galerius, and they may have retreated with the rest of the army.
Even if we assume (reasonably I suppose) that Praetorians could and did fight, it seems they did not fight much compared to other units. That must have been detrimental to their effectiveness, because military units became elite, not by hours on the assault course, but by years of campaigning and fighting together. The contribution of veteran legions to the outcome of battles is usually quite out of proportion to their numbers.
Quote:it seems they did not fight much compared to other units.
But how could we judge that? Is there any evidence?
Quote:military units became elite, not by hours on the assault course, but by years of campaigning and fighting together.
How many legions of the principiate could boast 'years of campaigning and fighting together'?
We should not assume that all frontier legions were battle-hardened veterans: most spent the majority of their time constructing and repairing roads and buildings. Many soldiers would pass their entire military career without once seeing combat.
The Praetorians were the best paid, best equipped (probably) troops in the empire, with direct access to the emperor. They did not dig ditches or mend roads in the rain - they had their own fortress in Rome itself. They had esprit de corps and the ability to change history. That made them, by Roman standards, the elite. We have different standards today, in this and in many other things!
it seems they did not fight much compared to other units.
Nathan rosss wrote:
But how could we judge that? Is there any evidence?
Not so much evidence as the logical inference that there seems to have been quite a lot of things the praetorians did not do, which will often have led to keeping them out of harms way.
The ordinary legionaries, admittedly far from campaigning and fighting together for years, were not exactly picking their noses, they were sent in small groups to all over the place, which will ocassionally have led them to do some actual fighting.
Don't get me wrong, as I said we should not project our meritocratic notions of elite on the ancient aristocratic notion of elite. But considering yourself and being considered by others as superior will only enhance your military effectiveness as long as push doesn't come to shove.
The legionary/auxiliary soldier had a different mission. Praetorians were first and foremost the bodyguards of the Emperor, and secondarily groups of soldiers sent for special missions or to escort special people to a distant location, or for whatever the Emperor sent them to do. More than one source says they were, indeed, better trained soldiers than many, and were hand-picked men from the best Rome had to offer. They were paid much better, and were (usually) loyal to Emperors that upheld the highest standards of Roman virtue.
As time went on, the group became more and more a "mercenary army", and money became their overriding motive. It would be a good idea, perhaps, to read Evans' book, mentioned below, as he gives a pretty well-documented case for the generalities I've said above. If the Emperor was threatened, they gave pretty good account for themselves on the battlefield, whenever necessary.
mile: 
