The Praetorian Guard

A History of Rome's Elite Special Forces

Sandra Bingham

• Publisher: I.B. Tauris
• Year: 2012
• Print ISBN: 9781845118846
• eBook ISBN: 9780857732866
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Ancient History
• Index: History

Conceived as a personal army for the emperor, the elite Praetorian Guard soon took over a wide range of powers in Rome, and thus from the very beginning made a much greater impact on the city's life than just as an imperial bodyguard. The Praetorians were in fact inseparable from the whole machinery of state, in some cases even making or breaking individual emperors. Sandra Bingham here offers a timely history of the Guard from its foundation by Augustus in 27 BCE to its disbandment by Constantine in CE 312. Topics covered include arms and insignia; the size, recruitment and command structure of the Guard; duration of service; the duties of individual soldiers and officers; and their families, daily lives and religion.

1

INTRODUCTION

The praetorian guard was one of the most distinctive features of Roman imperial rule. An elite unit of soldiers, these men mainly were responsible for the safety of the Roman emperor and his family, and were well rewarded for their loyalty.¹ They received a higher rate of pay than the rest of the army, they had better working conditions and their close relationship with the emperor singled them out as the most privileged group in the military. Under the republic, troops had not been allowed in the capital, and the presence of the praetorian guard in Rome under Augustus was one of the most striking – and visible – indications that the imperial period had begun.²

The genesis of the unit can be found in the republican period. In the early part of the first century BC, the praetorian cohort that had functioned as a bodyguard for commanders in the field began to change and to take on more administrative tasks. The civil wars that erupted shortly thereafter halted this progression, and the cohorts reverted to being primarily a military force. But when Augustus decided to institute an armed unit for his personal use, he brought together both aspects of the earlier republican guard, making his imperial praetorians function not only in a military but also in an administrative capacity. Throughout the Julio-Claudian period, reliance on these soldiers for tasks other than guarding the emperor and his family began to take shape, though this expanding role usually does not attract much notice in the sources.³ Even during the reign of Augustus, there had been a realization that having so many soldiers close to the capital meant they could be used in any number of situations requiring large numbers of trained personnel. The evolution of the praetorians into a unit that fought fires, provided security at the games and carried out political espionage can be explained by the practicality of making use of the troops in the city as part of the overall organization of civic administration. In fact, there would be few major changes in the unit until late in the second century AD, by which time the guard was firmly entrenched in the life of the principate, of the city and of the empire.

The placement of the praetorians in Rome and their close relationship with the emperor thus brought about the use of the guard in what might be considered unexpected ways. Such modifications were driven largely by the necessity of accommodating the requirements of the government which, at this time, was essentially a dictatorship relying on the military for support.⁴ Although their primary function was to provide protection for the emperor and his family, from the beginning the praetorians were assigned to other duties related to imperial security. They acted as a strategic military force sent to deal with problems where other measures had proven ineffective, or where there was a need for covert activity. In its early history, a division of the guard, the speculatores, became specifically associated with clandestine action. Moreover, the praetorians were involved in the confinement and execution of those deemed to be a threat to the state. On the other hand, they were also part of the routine civic administration in the capital, assisting the vigiles in firefighting and acting as security at the games and theatre.⁵ They were also involved in a variety of other tasks, ranging from map-making to engineering works.⁶ The guard could be employed in these duties precisely because it was the emperor’s personal unit and could therefore be adapted to whatever need he had of his soldiers.⁷ Throughout their history, the soldiers proved to be pragmatic concerning this relationship, carrying out whatever demands were made of them and showing themselves unwilling to put their privileged position at risk. Of course, sometimes this meant betraying the emperor himself when that position was perceived to be threatened.

By the end of the first century AD, though, other units such as the frumentarii had been introduced for tasks that the praetorians had hitherto carried out, and the guard itself was beginning to be used more frequently in the field as frontline troops.⁸ Cohorts took part in the campaigns in Dacia under Trajan and those on the Danube under Marcus Aurelius, for example. This does not mean that they were no longer active in the capital but rather that their remit had expanded as the emperors themselves began to take to the field. This was the case even after the creation in the early second century of the equites singulares Augusti, a mounted unit that served as an additional bodyguard in battle.⁹ It was only at the start of the reign of Septimius Severus (AD 193–211) that the guard of the first two centuries ceased to exist: they were cashiered and replaced with men from the legions. The rationale for this change was to allow the emperor to ensure the loyalty of the unit, though it also rewarded soldiers who had been supportive of Severus’ usurpation of power. Although the name continued to be used, the new praetorian guard bore little resemblance to that of the previous period and was much more aligned with the army as a whole, with most recruits coming from the provinces. Still a privileged unit with respect to pay and length of service, nevertheless the ‘elite’ nature of the guard had been swept aside by the inclusion of regular legionaries. But the hope that the praetorians would remain faithful to the emperor was in vain: instead, the unit played a pivotal role in the so-called ‘crisis of the third century’, being involved in the removal and accession of several emperors. And just over 100 years after the Severan changes, Constantine disbanded the unit entirely: after 350 years, the praetorian camp was silent.

Information about the praetorians in the ancient literary sources is often limited. This is partly because it was not to the emperor’s advantage that their activities be made public, but also because the extant sources usually have other interests on which to focus. It has been noted that ‘[The guard’s] presence appears normally to have been taken for granted by contemporaries, as it has to be by us.’¹⁰ This makes the historian’s job that much more challenging. The development of a military unit technically belonging to the army but superior to them in status and functioning as a separate entity answering only to the emperor did not lend itself to close scrutiny. The challenge is to try and identify the guard’s role in the workings of the principate, and, in doing so, to consider in each case the attitude of the authors who did include them in their work.

The general problem with the literary sources in the imperial period has been well documented and only a brief overview need be made here.¹¹ Much of the information on the early history of the guard is derived from only three sources: Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio. Each of these clearly made use of those writers who had lived during the reigns of the early emperors, but the extent of the debt to each is difficult to ascertain, especially since it is only rarely that a named citation is provided. The praetorians appear in all of these authors, to varying degrees, but the references are often incidental, most commonly in passages which record events directly connected with the emperor. It is rare that a passage deals only with the praetorians.¹² Other sources such as Josephus, the younger Seneca and the elder Pliny provide occasional glimpses into the workings of the guard in the first century AD, but without comment on the significance of the praetorians in the events that they narrate.

The situation is even more complicated for the second century. There are few extant sources at all and those that remain often are fragmentary, as is the case with Dio for the first half of the century.¹³ The unreliability of the Historia Augusta, a group of biographies beginning with Hadrian, only complicates matters.¹⁴ From Marcus Aurelius onwards, the material is better, though for much of this period Dio is available only in epitomes. Herodian, writing in the mid-third century, is complete but presents problems of his own.¹⁵ The result is that, with the exception of the fuller accounts of the first century AD, there really is very little material in the written sources on which to rely for information about the guard.

In fact, the praetorians figured more prominently in the history of imperial Rome than might be surmised from a preliminary reading of the extant literary sources. Unfortunately, the material sources do not provide too much help either. Numismatic evidence for the guard is not plentiful: there are a few coins illustrating its close relationship with the emperor in its early history in particular, but in general, praetorians are not singled out.¹⁶ The archaeological remains of the praetorian camp, the Castra Praetoria, in many ways provides more questions than answers (see Chapter 3). And for issues such as number of cohorts and effective (that is, the number of men per cohort), while there is epigraphic evidence attesting to the careers of the officer class, the inscriptions do not reveal much about matters to do with the day-to-day management of the unit. Military diplomata fall into the same category (see Chapter 3). All in all, then, the material record adds some but not much to the overall picture.

Since the publication of the monumental work by Marcel Durry in 1938, Les Cohortes Prétoriennes, followed closely by Alfredo Passerini’s Le Coorti Pretorie, there have been few comprehensive studies of the guard and none easily accessible in English.¹⁷ Recent works in German, Spanish and French are virtually inaccessible to an English-speaking audience.¹⁸ General books on the army mention the unit, but usually only as imperial bodyguards, with rarely any mention of duties beyond that key responsibility.¹⁹ A recent study on the praetorian prefects includes some incidental information on the guard in its discussion of the commanders.²⁰ Durry’s work is still cited as the definitive study of the praetorians, and in fact most modern scholarship on the praetorians is based on material from his work. But much new evidence has emerged over the past 70 years, and there is a need for an updated survey. General histories of the empire usually include information on the unit, but again only as the official bodyguard of the emperor, sometimes with reference to their privileged position in Rome. Biographies of emperors also make mention of the guard, though without much consideration of its role in the events of the reign. This is not surprising, since the focus of these studies is elsewhere, but it is also the case that such works can continue to perpetuate certain dated ideas about the praetorians.

The impression of the guard in modern culture is that of a unit associated with nefarious deeds, most notably the assassination and replacement of emperors. Rarely are the praetorians shown in any other light.²¹ In visual media, the series I, Claudius, originally broadcast by the BBC in the 1970s, provides an extensive treatment of the praetorians.²² In most episodes, they appear in the background, standing, watching, guarding, more part of the backdrop than active participants. Occasionally they are involved in intimidation of individuals and are seen as executioners, both elements attested in the ancient sources. Yet they rarely speak and for the most part are seen only as the visual representation of imperial power, clad in their full armour with the distinctive ‘Attic’-style helmets (see Chapter 3). More recently, the movie Gladiator, set in the reign of Commodus, featured the guard throughout.²³ Most notably, the praetorians are shown as a fighting force in the opening scene; throughout the rest of the film they are seen in various guises, but always as the bad guys. One scene in particular, however, rings true, namely when praetorians are sent to arrest the senator Gracchus, played by Derek Jacobi. The soldiers, marching up to the villa, are spotted by a slave who then informs his master that they are approaching; Gracchus’ response – sending the slave indoors and quietly going with the praetorians – represents an accurate picture, though fictional, of what is reported occasionally in the ancient sources.

In print, given the number of novels that deal with imperial Rome, praetorians make a regular appearance. A good example is the series of Roman detective novels by Lindsay Davis, the so-called Falco series, with 21 volumes in all so far (1989–2012). Some books focus more tightly on the guard, for example, Optimus: Praetorian Guard (2006) by P.M. Prescott or Praetorian by Simon Scarrow (2011). In the former, a guardsman becomes a Christian and part of a group lobbying for a Christian emperor; it is set in the first century AD. The second novel is one of intrigue, set in AD 50: the guard must be infiltrated because of its republican sentiments. In such cases, any adherence to historical veracity is incidental, but the reader clearly knows that when choosing to read fiction.

But it is on the internet that so much misinformation about the historical guard is being disseminated today. In particular, the role of the guard as ‘king-maker’ is prevalent on many of the websites that mention the praetorians, though often with incorrect details or exaggerations based on common misconceptions. For example: ‘In Real Life [sic], the Praetorian Guard was a special force originally intending to serve as a Roman general’s bodyguard in combat, but the term was later restricted to the elite personal guard of the Roman Emperors. As a bodyguard unit, they proved to be a miserable failure. Nine separate emperors were killed by the guard, and many others were deserted or otherwise messed over by them. In some cases, the Guard literally sold the Impeial [sic] office to the highest bidder, then turned on their new master when he faield [sic] to deliver on his extravagant promises.’²⁴ Generalizations are also common: ‘Both Praetorian prefects and common soldiers of the Guard tended to be vicious, ambitious, and extremely arrogant, far more dangerous to the average citizen than any law-breaker.’²⁵ That there is such a widespread interest in the praetorians online is gratifying; what is problematic is how much of what is out there is simply wrong.²⁶

The purpose, then, of the present work is to set the praetorians into a context that tries to look objectively at the ancient sources, such as they are, and to challenge modern misunderstandings. In the following chapters, the history, organization and duties of the guard will be examined in some detail in order to present a comprehensive picture of this unit. Where areas have been covered thoroughly by other scholars (equipment, for example), little has been said. The main interest lies in establishing how the guard developed from the force that Augustus incorporated early in his reign as his personal army, for his own protection, to one that permeated all aspects of life in the capital until their demise in AD 312. That such a group existed should not surprise anyone. After all, most governments whose authority relies on intimidation by the military have had an elite force which functions in a similar fashion. Imperial Rome was no different.²⁷

2

HISTORY

The imperial praetorian guard was not an invention of the first emperor, but rather the modification of a republican instituti...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Author biography
• Title page
• Copyright page
• Dedication page
• Contents
• List of Plates
• Preface
• 1. Introduction
• 2. History
• 3. Organization
• 4. Duties
• 5. Conclusion
• Notes
• Bibliography