Did Praetorian Guard have any skirmishers or archers?

[TheRomanRuler]

*title*

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

There were no praetorian legions... only cohorts and those were the same standard legionaries as other legionary cohorts had. Archers, Skirmishers etc. were part of the auxillaries, except some light cavalry formations which could also be called skirmishers.

[TheRomanRuler]

Hups, meant to say Praetorian Guard.

[Sar1n]

Still the same answer. Praetorian Guard wasn't organized for field battles, but as bodyguards and palace guards. They were almost exclusively heavy infantry, with small cavalry detachments for patrolling the streets and detached duties.

[HuangCaesar]

No. Praetorians were Legionaires with a small cavalry detatchment.

The Praetorian cavalry I believe was used for political spying but I don't think battefield skirmishing.

[TheRomanRuler]

Ok, thanx everyone.

[John Adams]

*title*

Tactically it makes little sense for the Praetorian Guard to not have any skirmishers or archers.
We simply do not know enough about the individual makeup of the guard to know... But on the squad based level, it makes sense for every X-man to have had training with a bow as well as being equipped with one (obviously with a sword as the main weapon). Again, how many we certainly do not know. But there must have been some, if only a handful.
Now, why do I say this?
No matter how they served, on campaign, or as a police/ bodyguard body you want tactical flexibility to carry out your day to day duties. Thief running? Arrow to the leg (or elsewhere) takes care of that problem. Place coming under assault from your political enemies? Oh look, five guys are down before they reached you... Large scale battle? Oh look a couple hundred men aren't reaching your lines now... Yay.
Anyone who has used a sword knows how valuable being able to strike an attack that is out of arms reach is. Yes, you can throw a sword, and maybe take down one guy out of arms reach. But now you're without a sword for that second guy. You use a dagger? You're at an immediate disadvantage. If you have a small number of archers in your company (say one out of every five, or one out of every ten), now you have the ability to take out a few men before they close with you. Or if they try to escape, you now have an option of taking them out before they get away, and you have to chase after them.
Yes, the Praetorian Guard had Pila (same as any other Roman Legionary), but again, that's good for one guy and one guy only (unless you can run after it and pull it from him and hope this was the one that didn't have a bent head). With a few archers on staff, the tactical flexibility for defense or offense opens greatly... And since the majority of the Romans weren't fools, it only makes sense that they had archers.
Now, maybe standards of dress and weapons codes prohibited bows altogether. The problem is we simply don't know what all of those codes were.
Again, I am not suggesting the majority of the Praetorian Guard were archers, but at least some of them had to be.
~John

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

Tactically it makes little sense for the Praetorian Guard to not have any skirmishers or archers.
We simply do not know enough about the individual makeup of the guard to know... But on the squad based level, it makes sense for every X-man to have had training with a bow as well as being equipped with one (obviously with a sword as the main weapon). Again, how many we certainly do not know. But there must have been some, if only a handful.
Now, why do I say this?
No matter how they served, on campaign, or as a police/ bodyguard body you want tactical flexibility to carry out your day to day duties. Thief running? Arrow to the leg (or elsewhere) takes care of that problem. Place coming under assault from your political enemies? Oh look, five guys are down before they reached you... Large scale battle? Oh look a couple hundred men aren't reaching your lines now... Yay.
Anyone who has used a sword knows how valuable being able to strike an attack that is out of arms reach is. Yes, you can throw a sword, and maybe take down one guy out of arms reach. But now you're without a sword for that second guy. You use a dagger? You're at an immediate disadvantage. If you have a small number of archers in your company (say one out of every five, or one out of every ten), now you have the ability to take out a few men before they close with you. Or if they try to escape, you now have an option of taking them out before they get away, and you have to chase after them.
Yes, the Praetorian Guard had Pila (same as any other Roman Legionary), but again, that's good for one guy and one guy only (unless you can run after it and pull it from him and hope this was the one that didn't have a bent head). With a few archers on staff, the tactical flexibility for defense or offense opens greatly... And since the majority of the Romans weren't fools, it only makes sense that they had archers.
Now, maybe standards of dress and weapons codes prohibited bows altogether. The problem is we simply don't know what all of those codes were.
Again, I am not suggesting the majority of the Praetorian Guard were archers, but at least some of them had to be.
~John

To much speculation without reliable hints in my opinion. No offense, but there was not much reason for Praetorian to have Bows. A. They didn't served in the field and if they did on a few occasions they were supported by regular legions auxillaries which fullfield to role of rangeweapon skirmishers. Still it was never a problem in the western mediterraean world. The bow was not a weapons they prefered at war. Neither the romans, nor the Carthaginian, Iberians, Gauls, Britons and Germanics. It was a hunting weapon which was sporadicly used by levies, militias, but we have no sources which call the bow a reliable range weapons used by this people. Further we have no evidence that these cultures had bow which were actually usuable for war. They were no match for eastern bows and arrows. One reason might be the bad clima for complex bows like they were used in the east.

To believe that two armies in the west stand up front against each other and used large Archertroops firing on eath other is wrong. This might happend with slingers, javelinners but that's it.

[HuangCaesar]

Actually Alexander the Great always had a escort of skirmishers and archers with him in his biography by Arrian. The Romans definetely made good use of Syrian archers. I heard in the show "decisive battes" the Romans employed recurved bows at Teutoburg but due to the weather they melted.

[John Adams]

To much speculation without reliable hints in my opinion. No offense, but there was not much reason for Praetorian to have Bows. A. They didn't served in the field and if they did on a few occasions they were supported by regular legions auxillaries which fullfield to role of rangeweapon skirmishers. Still it was never a problem in the western mediterraean world. The bow was not a weapons they prefered at war. Neither the romans, nor the Carthaginian, Iberians, Gauls, Britons and Germanics. It was a hunting weapon which was sporadicly used by levies, militias, but we have no sources which call the bow a reliable range weapons used by this people. Further we have no evidence that these cultures had bow which were actually usuable for war. They were no match for eastern bows and arrows. One reason might be the bad clima for complex bows like they were used in the east.

To believe that two armies in the west stand up front against each other and used large Archertroops firing on eath other is wrong. This might happend with slingers, javelinners but that's it.

You say that I speculate too much, when all you do is speculate.
From the top; When the Praetorian served in the field, there was no reason they should depend upon the quality of the soldiers they were attached to for their success. They were elite legionaries, and so no doubt would be trained in all manner of weaponry, of which bows would be one. Besides, when off the field, and into the field of bodyguard work/ police work, you want a range of weapons
Secondly, the bow was a weapon much preferred for war. Perhaps the sword did take precedence, and I am not trying to say otherwise. But the bow was still very important in warfare. Hence why Cretan archers were so prized by the Romans, and included in almost every major campaign possible after the Second Punic War.
The bow was a far cry from a hunting only weapon. Again, many were prized for their skill with the bow.
As for sources. Try opening your mind slightly. We have less then one percent of the literature written in Roman times. We cannot afford to artificially handicap ourselves with such thoughts as "it wasn't written down, so we dare not think it."
Basic military thought says a bow is useful (for reasons listed in my last post). The Romans, with few exceptions, were beyond basic military thought.
Third, I want to laugh about the Eastern comment. I really do. But it's just so sad. If you mean the Parthian bows and arrows, the Romans defeated the Parthians routinely, and only lost when they made major military blunders (such as Crassus assuming the Parthians would eventually run out of arrows, and so it would be okay to keep his troops in a defensive square formation. What he didn't count on was the Parthians resupplying, so they did not run out of arrows). Were Eastern bows good? Yes. Were they the best ever fielded? No.
Fourthly, you say something I never did about large archer formations. And yet you are purely speculating that this never happened. Why draw the line at slingers and javelinmen but not archers? Assuming for the moment the absence of skilled mercenary companies (such as the Cretan archers) which would organize along weapons lines, skirmishers would be combined. Archers, slingers and javelineers together to skirmish with enemy formations. However, given the Roman command system, it is no doubt that they were organized along weapons lines too.
~John

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

You say that I speculate too much, when all you do is speculate.
From the top; When the Praetorian served in the field, there was no reason they should depend upon the quality of the soldiers they were attached to for their success. They were elite legionaries, and so no doubt would be trained in all manner of weaponry, of which bows would be one. Besides, when off the field, and into the field of bodyguard work/ police work, you want a range of weapons
Secondly, the bow was a weapon much preferred for war. Perhaps the sword did take precedence, and I am not trying to say otherwise. But the bow was still very important in warfare. Hence why Cretan archers were so prized by the Romans, and included in almost every major campaign possible after the Second Punic War.
The bow was a far cry from a hunting only weapon. Again, many were prized for their skill with the bow.
As for sources. Try opening your mind slightly. We have less then one percent of the literature written in Roman times. We cannot afford to artificially handicap ourselves with such thoughts as "it wasn't written down, so we dare not think it."
Basic military thought says a bow is useful (for reasons listed in my last post). The Romans, with few exceptions, were beyond basic military thought.
Third, I want to laugh about the Eastern comment. I really do. But it's just so sad. If you mean the Parthian bows and arrows, the Romans defeated the Parthians routinely, and only lost when they made major military blunders (such as Crassus assuming the Parthians would eventually run out of arrows, and so it would be okay to keep his troops in a defensive square formation. What he didn't count on was the Parthians resupplying, so they did not run out of arrows). Were Eastern bows good? Yes. Were they the best ever fielded? No.
Fourthly, you say something I never did about large archer formations. And yet you are purely speculating that this never happened. Why draw the line at slingers and javelinmen but not archers? Assuming for the moment the absence of skilled mercenary companies (such as the Cretan archers) which would organize along weapons lines, skirmishers would be combined. Archers, slingers and javelineers together to skirmish with enemy formations. However, given the Roman command system, it is no doubt that they were organized along weapons lines too.
~John

Just give me historical quotes about a westernmediterranean faction like rome, carthage, iberia, gaul, britons and germanics about using bow in war? They are more than an exception. You can try the same about finding archaeological evidence for actual warbows, except some graves which includes useless ceremonial arrows. The Cretans are nen exeption in the mediterranean culture, there is another one i can't remember right know, but everything else is eastern.

[Sar1n]

I really doubt Praetorians fielded specialist archers and skirmishers. In Roman organization, citizens enlisted mostly as legionary heavy infantry or as cavalry, and support roles were left to non-citizen auxilia. Praetorians, in those rare cases when they actually went to battle, never fought alone, but were attached to legion so they had no need to field its own support troops.

However, skirmishing was a common aspect of ancient battlefields, and many troops carried some kind of ranged weapon - a couple javelins, sling, a bow if the soldier preferred it - for those occasions in addition to their standard gear. But they weren't organized into special units for that purpose.

[HuangCaesar]

Praetorians in my opinion at the time of Augustus was more a political force than anything. It was the Praetorains who secured Italy rather than the frontline. But became a more active fighting force as civil wars rose. To be a Praetorain you must be an Equite(Roman Knight). They lifestyle was rather comftorable compared to Legionaires. They served a shorter military term and lived in conforable mansion barracks. As for military eliteness? They were mocked by Legionaires in the Civil War in 68 AD as being richboy aristicrats. Since they were a highly funded unit I bet their equipment and training was good but suffered from the lack of combat experience. On the battlefield I think their main role would be to stand in the vanguard. The only time the would engage is if the Emperor or General was in danger or all their troops routed. The only battle the Praetorains have recorded to be fought is the Battle of Milvian bridge where as Maxentius' Legions routed the Praetorians fought to the last man. It was their last battle and the battle the destroyed them.

[HuangCaesar]

Wern't Bows used in Naval Battles in the Punic Wars? I believe the Romans used bows against Pyhruss at Beneventum.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Just to contribute here, unless we're talking about in terms of Gameplay, i'm assuming we are all aware that the Praetorian Guard wasn't actually a group of 'elite' soldiers historically? I've seen people in this thread advocate that they were 'elite' thus implying they were better trained or equipped and were above (in terms of battlefield prowess) the 'normal' legions, and thus would have their own archers etc... The fact is though that typically after the reign of Augustus (and arguably during) the Praetorian's who before had basically been any Roman Generals select men, who acted as bodyguards (the term Pratorian is actually derived from the inner compound of said generals camp- the ones who would be near him)

'Originally, a general in the Republic was protected by a guard called the cohors praetoria, named after the commander’s headquarters (praetorium).[1] Some say that the word “praetorian” also derives from the word “praetor”, whereas this guard would protect a praetor on campaign.[2] This guard eventually became a personal bodyguard for the faction leaders during the Civil Wars, each of them having one or more cohorts of praetorians.[3]'

http://www.jerryfielden.net/essays/praetorians.htm

Now with Augustus, these again were select legionaries who could be trusted with his life in the unstable political atmosphere of the early empire- from here they cease to become 'elite' battlefield troops and become bodyguards true and proper- stationed in Rome and Italy and most of the time wearing plain clothes so as to not upset the senate with their military uniforms! They received better pay, had a shorter duration of service and received more ornate uniforms befitting their bodyguard status than the Legions- rarely going out of Italy in force unless to the escort the Emperor, They were basically his bodyguards, political intimidation and police force. They were NOT battlefield legionaries.In fact they rarely fought in Battle at all, they may have been present, but their is quite literally no real cases until arguably the late Empire- the Battle of Milvian bridge, where Constantine I in a civil war fought them to depose Maximilian and in which case...they lost.

The fact is the terms of their service, made them poor soldiers in the sense of their contempories, they lacked real battlefield experience of say the Danube and Rhine legions, they didn't lead as diciplined a life, enjoying the luxuries of being billeted in the Capital and Italy in nice quarters- they extortioned Emperors to give them greater benefits and indeed chose emperors! But where they an effective fighting force for war? No. In fact after Augustus, or arguably during his reign, the Pratoriens became 'parade-ground troops' elite in pay and luxury- but not actual ability. Noble families would send their sons to serve in the guard, in hopes of higher commissions in the Legions later on (Guards typically after their period of service, were awarded a commissioned rank in the Legions if they sought it). Thus i find it peculiar that people are referring to them as a Battlefield Unit that's 'elite' Much like the later Scholae Palantine Guard (who replaced them) they quickly became an inflated parade-group unit, in whom commissions could be purchased and were seen as a prestige thing over any real military role beyond guarding the Emperor.

Thus coming to the actual questions, if we're looking at it in terms of History- no The guard would not have dedicated Guard supporting Units, they were not a battlefield Unit in the first place, they would if in that situation make use of any specialist legions, auxiliaries or otherwise available to provide those Battlefield roles. Where their Guardsmen who practiced with the Bow? Quite possibly given the amount of luxury and leisure they would have in comparison with the Legions and Auxlia, but where these bowmen in the sense of that being their main occupation? No. Thus theirs no need to represent them as a unit in game.