Elite Units of the Ancient World

[Watchman]

All hoplites fought in very dense formation you know... sort of the whole point of that huge-ass shield.

[Ludens]

I know that Germanicus the younger employed praetorians during the campaigns against the Germans, and IIRC there were used as assault troops on one occasion. I don't know of any other instances were they were used in combat, though.

[Watchman]

I recall reading of them having been involved in a couple of battles here and there, especially later on when they became sort of the Emperors' attached army corps.

Anyway, while having not too much better to do in their metropolitan barracks in all likelihood meant they were trained and drilled to a rather higher degree than the troops in the provinces (who could be real slackers if the CO didn't run a really tight ship), they on the other hand would have been rather lacking in practical campaigning and "soldiering" experience...

[macsen rufus]

I personally don't believe the Theban Sacred Band was made of homosexual lovers. If gay lovers were such great warriors, wouldn't every city-state create a band of such soldiers?

IIRC Polybius is the primary source on this, although he was writing after the event, it was still recent enough for the tradition to be widely known. Don't forget even the Spartans institutionalised pederasty within the agoge, so the practice was hardly unusual amongst Greek fighters. The Thebans may well have recognised long-term partnerships between men, but a Spartan, pederast though he may be, was still expected to produce more little Spartans.

I don't think it's that much of a coincidence that the major colonial powers in Greece (ie those suffering population pressure) would be more willing to accept long-term male partnerships than those with a chronic manpower shortage such as Sparta.

[rotorgun]

Didn't the Praetorian Guards traveled with Marcus Aurelius in his Germanian and Danube wars, or is it just the film Gladiator. I think they might of taken part in battles as well.

Sorry, but it took a little time to get back to the discussion. First, let me refer you to the proper link as the first one I inserted in my previous post had one too many http:// in it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praetorian_Guard

There is only one small paragraph concerning the campaigns and battles of the Praetorian Guard in the article.

While campaigning, the Praetorians were the equal of any formation in the Roman Army.[citation needed] Seldom used in the early reigns, they were quite active by 69. They fought well at the first battle of Bedriacum for Otho. Under Domitian and Trajan, the guard took part in wars from Dacia to Mesopotamia, while with Marcus Aurelius, years were spent on the Danubian frontier. Throughout the 3rd century, the Praetorians assisted the emperors in various campaigns.

Evidently they did go on the Danubian campaign with Marcus Aurelius as depicted in Gladiator, but to what extent this is accurately depicted is highly conjectural. A more detailed history should no doubt be consulted before we all pass judgment on the fighting skills of this "Elite" organization. I am certain, from my own experience in the modern day military, that few "slouches" probably made it into the Praetorian. Patronage had its role in selection I'm sure, as this was a normal part of Roman life and culture. Skill, or a reputation for competence were probably also matters for consideration, and a posting to the Praetorian was a way of rewarding good performance and loyalty.

[Geoffrey S]

It probably varied in time. While I'd be surprised if their wasn't some way of ensuring soldiers who had been on active duty ended up in the praetorian guard, their practical skill probably depended greatly on the activity of those they were meant to protect.

Originally simply intended as (camp) protection of ranking men on campaign, appropriated as the personal guard of the emperor and his family, as emperors withdrew into their palaces and went out on campaign less often the role of the praetorians changed accordingly, evolving into more of a political elite than the original military elite - certainly when the emphasis of the empire came to be more on garrisons and borders.

[rotorgun]

Other types of Elite units in the Roman Army were referred to as antesignani (before the standard), and lancearii (spear warriors). Does anyone have information about them? I understand them to have been used for "special ops" situations. I found one source, but it doesn't elaborate much.

http://history-world.org/roman_army.htm

This is all that it had to say about them:

In addition to the regular organisation of cohortes, manipuli and centuriae of the legionary heavy infantry there were other subunits for the equites legionis, the legionary cavalry, and the antesignani or lancearii, the elite legionary light infantry. The exact details of their organisation are as yet not very clear.

Does anyone know a good reference, or have more to share about these units?

One type of unit that they might compare with in a modern infantry unit are the Pathfinder Companies in an Airborne Division. These soldiers are selected from within the regular regiments to man this unit. It has the mission to go in ahead during airdrops or airlanding operations to mark the landing areas. Only the best, from among what most consider Elite soldiers to begin with, are selected for this company.

[Watchman]

"Antesigniani" originally referred to simply all the infantry that fought before the standards IIRC carried in the Triarii and Principes maniples, ie. the Hastati and Velites mostly. The junior arms of the triplex acies and a far cry from anything elite in other words. Not sure how the meaning of the term mutated later, but as AFAIK the standards were then carried by the front-ranks cohorts detached bodies of light infantry operating outside the main battleline certainly sounds sensible enough (and the demands of such duty would mean these would be picked men, already to make up for their lighter equipement).

The lanceari were AFAIK a Lete Roman thing, and what kind of soldiery exactly the term refers to is apparently not only quite unclear and disputed but also changed over time. One theory I remember reading was that these were originally a picked infantry bodyguard of the senior officers, their name coming from their distinctive piece of weaponry - a mid-sized dual-purpose spear, which could be used equally to take down an assailant before he got close to their charge by throwing it as well as making for a fine weapon already in hand if close combat suddenly erupted.

Of course, such proven men could also be sent off to act as a highly trained combat unit too if need be.

[rotorgun]

Fascinating Watchman. I appreciate your answer. It provides a clearer picture of what these soldiers were used for in the course of their normal duties. Perhaps they were chosen for such duties because of their initiative, physical prowess, inteligence, and above all loyalty. Those are charecteristics that I look for when I am choosing soldiers from among my Platoon for a particularly difficult, or ticklish mission.

[Julian the apostate]

I"ve got to agree with Watchman about different levels of elite status
The Roman military as a whole can be seen as elite- they were relatively selective about how they took until I think Marius removed the requirement for legionaries to be landowners. Within any legion there would be NCOs and veterans but there would also be veteran legions with special reputations. The 10th during Caesars time had one of these reputations, having fought with him through multiple campaigns and saved his army during multiple battles. The legion itself would have had different subunits with different purposes.

Any of the Orders during medieval time would have been seen as elite. I think Longbowmen as a whole deserve the title simply because England created Laws requiring peasants to practice the art weekly.

[Watchman]

Er - that's not much of a definition for "elite". It's like saying all the Venetian citizen militia of the 14th century were "elite" because they were obliged to drill and practice regularly, or all ancient German tribal warriors were "elite" because they got so much practical experience in all those endemic inter-tribal raids and squabbles...

That's not what produces elite troops; it's the prequisite for competent regulars.

[L.C.Cinna]

Some more of the selected guards units are the equites singulares augusti and the protectores domestici.

[Sarmatian]

I'm going to have to go with the Band. From what I read, they had one of the strongest emotional attachments any fighting unit has had. Composed of gay lovers, each man fought for each other.

At least, thats what I've read.

It doesn't mean that they were all gay. Concept of pederasty in Ancient Greece was more an emotional relationship between two men (one older, mature in his 30-ies and one younger, adolescent between 16-20). Sometimes that relationship involved sex but often it was strictly platonic, more resembling brotherly love.

It is a bit complicated. In modern western civilization it is inappropriate to say that a man loves another man, unless they are very closely blood related (ie father-son or brothers). In modern time, love between two men implies often homosexual relationship, while in ancient Greece it was quite normal for two men to say that they love each other in a totally platonic way. So, pederasty was employed in many aspects in Greek city states, often in the military, like the Sacred Band we're talking about. That implied that in the unit men were emotionally connected, they cared deeply for one another but certainly not all had sex with each other.

It is still not clear in how many polises pederasty involved sexual component and what's the basis for it. Some historians say that it was used as some way of "birth control", where mature men could vent their sexual desires without the danger of overpopulation, while others think it was the specific nature of polises (relatively small communities with limited contact with everything outside) that formed those close bonds between man. Also it probably had some important aspects in military training as mature men were supposed to teach younger how to fight. Two men who know each other and love each other and have trained with each other for an extended period of time definitly makes them very lethal on the battlefield.

Also it was often considered that younger man shouldn't have any pleasure from sex cause he was always passive during intercourse, ie he was taking the role of woman in the act. If he was getting pleasure, he was losing his manhood, so to speak. But then again, there are paintings on Greek vases which show older men stimulating the genital area of their younger lovers which clearly implies that they were trying to give them pleasure. As I said it differed from polis to polis from period to period. IIIRC, in Sparta pederasty was strictly non-sexual...

[Watchman]

...certainly not all had sex with each other

Of course not. Just with their specific partner.

[rotorgun]

It is a bit complicated. In modern western civilization it is inappropriate to say that a man loves another man, unless they are very closely blood related (ie father-son or brothers). In modern time, love between two men implies often homosexual relationship, while in ancient Greece it was quite normal for two men to say that they love each other in a totally platonic way. So, pederasty was employed in many aspects in Greek city states, often in the military, like the Sacred Band we're talking about. That implied that in the unit men were emotionally connected, they cared deeply for one another but certainly not all had sex with each other

I tend to imagine that what Sarmatian writes here as the more likely type of relationship that the Sacred Band soldiers had with one another. It's much more in line with how soldiers feel towards thier comrades. The brotherly (Agape love) ties forged between people who go through traumatic and dangerous experiences such as war in particular, and military life in general involve are very strong emotionally. Some say even deeper than those with a spouse, mother, father, brother, etc. It is these ties that are responsible for some of the more extrodinary acts of courage on the battlefield. I have personally experienced these types of emotional bonds with other soldiers, and I can assure you there was no hint of sexual (Eros) desire. I have been moved to tears and felt the hieghts of joy that made my soul want to burst during some of the more sublime moments of my military life. All well run units take advantage of this bonding, but "Elite" units seem to bring this tendency to its highest pitch.

A study of the German Army in WWII, for instance will reveal that they understood this concept of bonding well. The whole organization of thier infantry squads was designed to emphisize it. The rule of 5 men to a group(this number derived from the maximum number of people that one leader may effectively supervise) was woven throughout the whole structure of their units, from division level down to fire team. Its purpose-to maximize the bonds of "comradschaft" at all levels of operational command. It doesn't suprise me that they were able to outfight the Allied infantry during the earlier part of the war.

[The Wizard]

Personally, I have what approaches a rabid hatred for these "which XYZ was Tha Best" things. At least the Ninjas vs. Pirates vs. Samurai vs. Knights vs. Jedis vs. Shaolin monks vs. Little Green Men With Death Rays things is funny.

Word up.

[Jaume]

It doesn't mean that they were all gay. Concept of pederasty in Ancient Greece was more an emotional relationship between two men (one older, mature in his 30-ies and one younger, adolescent between 16-20). Sometimes that relationship involved sex but often it was strictly platonic, more resembling brotherly love.

True. It is a bit complicated. In modern western civilization it is inappropriate to say that a man loves another man, unless they are very closely blood related (ie father-son or brothers). In modern time, love between two men implies often homosexual relationship, while in ancient Greece it was quite normal for two men to say that they love each other in a totally platonic way.

It is because they considered that women were absolutely inferior than men. For the greeks, men were the perfection, and the perfection can only love perfection (Plato explains that in their Symposium, one of the Socratics dialogues). Heterosexual relationship were only in order to procreate the race.
And I think I also had read about these homosexual unit in some Plato book. Can't remember which of them actually.

[Spartan198]

*Staying out of the Theban Sacred Band discussion*

Didn't both the Argives and the Corinthians have an Hippeis modeled on that of the Spartans, as well?

And there was also the Auxilia palatina (Auxilia of the Palantine Hill) of the later Roman Empire? Were they an elite unit, or was that just another historical inaccuracy?

[Seign Thelas]

Navy SEALS.

After all, we'll be ancient history one day...