Talk:Praetorian Guard/Archive 1

Archive 1

Spelling

Can anyone explain why the spelling Prætorian instead of Praetorian was accepted for this article? Latin recognizes no difference between "æ" (which is a ligature) & the letters "ae".

If no one can offer an explanation for this choice, I am tempted to move the article to Praetorian Guard -- which is the more natural English form, & the form which more article link. -- llywrch 18:25 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

Agreed. Not only is it the more natural English form, it is also the more natural Latin form. -- Derek Ross 18:30 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

Done. -- llywrch 01:38 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Later history of the Pratorian prefect

I think this article should be separated into a history of the guard and a history of the prefect. After Diocletian the Praetorian Prefect became a civil official and head of the administration.

I am going to undo the redirect. The praetorian prefect started as head of the praetorian guard but quickly took on radically different functions. Constantine abolished the guard, Praetorian prefects were still being appointed as late as Heraclius 400 years later. For 2/3 of its history the office of preatorian prefect was separate from the command of the guard. At least half the prefects listed in the article were not commanders of the guard.Alan 02:06, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Praetorian Cavalry

I noticed a reference to cavalry in the Praetorian Guard. Des anyone have a reference for this? It seems likely that it is a confusion with the Equites Singulares Augustii. --Nantonos 11:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

And over a year later (WIKIWIKI) I have found a few:

Riding for Caesar: The Roman Emperors' Horse Guards by M. P. Speidel, Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 87, (1997), pp. 293-294. and :Guards of the Roman Armies: An Essay on the Singulares of the Provinces by M. P. Speidel, Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 70, (1980), pp. 213-214. After Trajan they were expanded and became a regular part of the Guard, so I added a small section mentioning them.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 12:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but (did you read the above books?) they were not a part of the Praetorian Guard, but a different and in many ways competing unit. So your brief mention should actually be a separate article. Also, they were not 'a regular part of the (Praetorian) guard' after Trajan. --Nantonos 23:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Strength of the guard

I wish I could answer the above question with any degree of certainty. It seems through most of its history the guard, as with the legions, maintained a small (probably never exceeding a cohort) cavalry force of some sort. But its size and composition varied over time along with the strength of the guard itself. Which brings up my main topic. I recently made a table for the article on the Napoleonic Imperial Guard showing how its size changed over the course of its existance. I'd really like to do one for the Praetorians as well, but don't have any solid figures. I know that when it was first established, the guard was about the size or a typical legion of the time (around 5-6,000). At the start of Tiberius' reign its size had roughly doubled to around 10-12,000. It would remain at this level until the Year of the four emperors. Beyond that I have only guess-timates. After Septimus Severus the picture becomes even more blurred. I think its maximum strength probably never exceed 20-25,000 or the size of a small Roman army. This is quite a variation. It seems its size tended to increase most dramatically under emperors who had a less firm grip on the imperial "purple" and legions. While under strong emperors, especially successful generals such as Vespasian and Severus, it tended to shrink. A table could demonstrate this.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 15:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Acronym

Was there an acronym used by the Romans to represent the Praetorian Guard? -Zulu, King Of The Dwarf People December 26, 2005 (UTC)

Is User Zulu, King of The Dwarf People responsible for the huge ZULU letters on the side of a disused office, visible as one arrives in Brighton by rail? Also. was there much graffiti during the Roman Empire and if so, was its frequency proportional to the decline of the latter? Greg Taylor 12/01/06

What on earth does this have to do with his question, or with the article? 12.22.250.4 (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Celebrations?

The article says: The members of the Praetorian Guard were among the most skilled and celebrated warriors in ancient history.

Firstly, celebrated by whom? Weasel words find many disguises. Secondly, the claim itself is dubious, since the Praetorians did not go to battle for a large part of their history. Calling them warriors is more than slightly misleading then, and it makes it even more dubious that they were celebrated as warriors. Lastly, even during the time when they fought in battle, they were not praised more than other elite units, if at all.

In other words, the Praetorians enjoyed an extra status, but mostly for other reasons.

Additionally, the article neglects to mention that there the emperors formed special units with the specific purpose of protecting the emperor, i.e. bodyguards in the literal sense, and these units did not come from the Praetorians. -- Zz 18:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Constantine I

It says Constantine dissolved the Praetorian guard in the 4th century, but upon clicking the link to Constantine I's page, he wasn't even born until 272.

Soygen 20:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Soygen

And?You think Constantine born around 272 AD could not dissolve Pretorians in 312?Are you serious?Let me guess you are one of those sad existencies who think date"272" is a second century date because of number "2"at the beggining of that date and according to that same "logic" date like "312" is a third century to them.I can assure you that contrary to your false imagination about centuries counting that "272" is a third century date not second century and 312 is a forth century date not 3rd.When you will finally learn how to count centuries properly you will also see no controversy in Constantin being born during final decades of the 3rd century(not 2nd as you seems to understand it)and Constantine dissolving Praetorian guard during early 4th century.In short there was no more than 100 years gap between these two events as you incorrectly imagined it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.113.102.208 (talk) 11:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Equipment

What was the equipment used by the praetorians? The article says they had 2 sets of armor but doesn't go into much detail. How did their kit differ from the average soldier's? - Meersan 16:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Using the term "Political Meddling"

It is disingenuous to use the term "political meddling." The Praetorian Guard was an inherently political organization, as all armies are in weak states. One cannot separate politics from the military when a state like the late Roman Empire was based on coercion. --Hamilton 15:41, 27 May 2007 (PST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.64.143.178 (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact, this entire article uses colorful language imparting a clear bias on every topic discussed. I understand it's not a very controversial topic some 2000 years later, but it still comes off as unprofessional. -- anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.164.160 (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Reforms of Vespasian

It says Vespasian reduced the Praetorian guard from sixteen to nine cohorts. Where can I find a source on this statement? --Steerpike 22:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Bingham's thesis states (p. 122, n. 15): "The number of cohorts is based on CIL 16.21 (ILS 1993)." EALacey 07:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! --Steerpike 11:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

South of the Rubicon?

This article, and several others (see Sejanus), state that the Praetorian Guards were the only troops allowed south of the Rubicon. What is the source of this statement?

It is common conception that Roman laws forbade legions from operating within Italia. While this is generally true of armed legions existing within the "sacred border" of Rome (the pomerium) unless they were part of a triumph procession, I question whether or not there was any actual law that prevented legions south of the Rubicon. The common (mis?)conception is based on Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon - however the argument as I understand it runs that by crossing out of Cisalpine Gual, Caesar had left the region in which he held imperium, and thus no longer had the legal authority to command his legions, and was also in direct violation of the edict of the Senate against him. In short, the legal breach law was Caesar operating outside his legal domain, and not the legions existing outside of their legal domain.

However, it should be noted that under Augustus and Tiberius, the Praetorian were not even the only corp of soldiers allowed within in Rome it'self: the Vigiles operated within Rome, and 3 cohorts, placed under the senatorial prefect of the city also operated within the city as a police force. In fact one of the acts of Sejanus used to gain personal power was to gather the Praetorian Guard with the urban cohorts and the Vigiles into one camp where he could influence them all.

Perhaps this claim about the illegality of legions within Italia can either be referenced and confirmed, or corrected/struck out entirely? It seems to be a prevalant belief written into many articles, so this should be addressed. --Vedexent (talk) - 05:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the wording in the article on Sejanus to a more general statement. --Steerpike 19:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not sure I'm right either :) I think so, but I was also hoping someone had more concrete references to either back this up, or back up the original assertion. Anyone know of any? --Vedexent (talk) - 21:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I did do a quick search of ancient sources to see if anyone wrote about this but no luck so far. Then again all this stuff is really more of a pastime to me, so I shouldn't be considered particularly reliable. There might be something inside Bingham's thesis, which EALacey has cited before (and in this article). I haven't actually read it all the way through yet, although I did perform a search and the word "Rubicon" isn't mentioned in it. --Steerpike 00:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Btw, I've asked this question over at the forum of www.societasviaromana.net but the response wasn't really that helpful. You can read the discussion here, but it doesn't literally confirm that it was illegal for legions to operate within Italy, and it also seems to discredit the notion that the Praetorians were considered part of the Roman army. Of course none of this matters without sources to back this up, so I'm still waiting for a reply on my last questions in that thread. --Steerpike 16:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've also delved into a few biographies of Caesar, and all seem to be agreed that he was overstepping his personal legal limits in leaving Cisalpine Gaul with a legion, but none mention the illegality of the legion, just the illegality of Caesar operating outside his province. Lack of evidence is not proof, but it seems likely that someone would have mentioned it if legions could not legally operate in Italia. --Vedexent (talk) - 00:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Marcus Aurelius

The article mentions Augustus as the sole emperor who commanded the loyalty of the guards .. well I dont remember the guards plotting against Marcus Aurelius

--Blain Toddi (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Were you there? I think it's dangerous to generalize and assume that any one or two emperors commanded loyalty and the rest didn't. Or visa versa Arthurian Legend (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Macro

The article says Caligula had Macro executed but the article on Macro says he committed suicide. Was the intent of the emperor to have him executed originally or is one of these statements erroneous? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.166.55 (talk) 06:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

modern day

In light of recent events in Tripoli and all this talk of special protection "people's militia's" and so on I was wondering if a modern day list of different pretorian guards could be interesting. Some examples would be North Korea's Pyongyang Guard division as I believe it is called, Saudi Arabia's National Guard, Saddam era Iraq Special Republican Guard, Angolan Ninja's etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.67.61 (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Caligula

The article has this poorly worded sentence: "In 41 Caligula was killed by conspirators from the senatorial class and from the Guard, along with his wife and daughter." Where his wife and daughter among the conspirators, or were they killed along with Caligula? I'd correct it, but I don't know which is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.39.231.36 (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)