Praetorians?!

[Astat]

so why is the roman UU called "Praetorians" anyway? i've done a word search on the board, but found nothing on the issue.
you are aware of the fact that Praetorians were the small imperial guard that hardly participated in any battles?

i'm sure this obvious question has been raised before, but don't be harsh on me - it's my first day.

 

[blizzrd]

so why is the roman UU called "Praetorians" anyway? i've done a word search on the board, but found nothing on the issue.
you are aware of the fact that Praetorians were the small imperial guard that hardly participated in any battles?

i'm sure this obvious question has been raised before, but don't be harsh on me - it's my first day.

IIUC, the Praetorians were the elite Roman legionaires. They certainly had more than one Emperor murdered and more than one of their commanders became Emperor.

"Regular" legionaires were initially only Roman citizens, but later in Roman history legionaires were sourced from the provinces also. I believe the Praetorians had to be Roman citizens throughout, but am not certain on this point.

 

[Úmarth]

Astat is right, the Praetorians were a household guard, elite in the sense of prestige (and their political clout in the later Empire) but not necessarily a better fighting force than the ordinary Legionary.

This has been discussed before though, iirc. I think someone even made a Roman modcomp which changed the UU to "Legionary" (among other things).

 

[Astat]

thanks for the replies.
i was just surprised to see this UU in such an elaborated mod.. in computer games, Praetorians are well-known as a notorious "arcade unit", right next to the Ninja battle squads, ass-kicking Druids and the ever so awesome Tiger Tank Division.

 

[Wolfshanze]

Praetorians are imperial HOUSEHOLD guards. They are very small in number and hang around the palace... they usually don't go on the warpath.

It's about as ill-named a unit as the "Phalanx" (Phalanx being a FORMATION type, not a soldier).

Praetorians should be called "Legionairres" or "Legionary" (double-check spelling)... Phalanx should be called "Hoplite".

 

[Gaius Octavius]

Actually, the Phalanx is more legitimate as a "soldier" unit (despite being a formation) in that it represents a distinct period of Greek history and fits as a UU. Hoplite is still the more accurate name for a soldier, but either one works much better than Praetorian. That's just plain silly. Even though Praetorians did see combat, they were miniscule in number in comparison to the entire Roman army. It makes about as much sense as having Navy SEALs as a UU! (Uh-oh!)


HOW TO CHANGE PRAETORIAN TO LEGIONARY

1. Open up Civ4GameTextInfos_Objects.XML.

2. Find: <Tag>TXT_KEY_UNIT_ROME_PRAETORIAN</Tag>

3. Change the English tag (or your language's tag) below it to say: <English>Legionary</English>


Your unit is now renamed.

I also strongly recommend that you download MagicMoon's reskinned Legionary unit and use that as the default art.

 

[kairob]

Thanks man, defo changing the name.

 

[Gaius Octavius]

One note: It might be a different XML file in BtS, but I think the game still uses the vanilla base. Anyway, you could always just change the name manually in Civ4UnitInfos, but this is a less problematic way.

 

[scu98rkr]

actually if you read the wiki entry

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

It sounds like there was alot more of them than

"a very small in number and hang around the palace... they usually don't go on the warpath."

They did sometimes go on campaign and before there destruction it sounds like there was quite alot of them

"When Constantine the Great, launching an invasion of Italy in 312, forced a final confrontation at the Milvian Bridge, the Praetorian cohorts made up most of Maxentius' army."

It later goes on to say,

"Their nine cohorts (one less than a legion) were larger, the pay and benefits were better, and its military abilities were reliable. They also received gifts of money called Donativum from the emperors. As conceived by Augustus, the Praetorian cohorts totaled around 9,000 men"

I agree the UU should be Legionaries, but it sounds like the idea of a small core house guard is just plain wrong.

 

[Úmarth]

I disagree. They were small, as you say nine cohorts (it varied, but was always close to ten cohorts of 1 000) isn't even a full legion and there were between 25 and 35 standing legions in the early Empire, plus auxiliaries. They didn't see combat very often (Milvian Bridge is one of a few isolated exceptions), but they did have more rigorous training so by all accounts they were equal to the average legionary.

 

[Rex rgis of Ter]

I was just reading Tacitus' Agricola, and the book had a long introduction about the mperors. The Praetorians practically forced Cladius on the Senate as well as other emperors. From what I gather in the book, the Praetorians had an enormous amount of Political power in Ancient Rome.

 

[flyingchicken]

"Praetorians" sounds cooler than "legionaries." A [wiki]legionary[/wiki] was your regular Roman soldiers, right? So even an Axeman produced in Rome (or elsewhere, depending on time period) would be considered a legionary.

 

[Úmarth]

I was just reading Tacitus' Agricola, and the book had a long introduction about the mperors. The Praetorians practically forced Cladius on the Senate as well as other emperors. From what I gather in the book, the Praetorians had an enormous amount of Political power in Ancient Rome.

Nobody is disputing that, but it doesn't mean they're and appropriate UU.

"Praetorians" sounds cooler than "legionaries." A legionary was your regular Roman soldiers, right? So even an Axeman produced in Rome (or elsewhere, depending on time period) would be considered a legionary.

Erm, have you read the thread? I really don't think a cool name is a good justification for something being included in the game And yes legionary is a term that covers all enlisted Roman citizens, but from the Marian reforms to the end of the Empire they were all heavy infantry with standardised equipment. So, in civ terms they translate to one unit.

 

[flyingchicken]

A cool name is a good justification for anything.

Would you rather have an "Axeman" unit or an "Era 2 Melee Unit"?

 

[Úmarth]

A more accurate analogy would be "Beserker" and "Axeman".

 

[onedreamer]

Erm, have you read the thread? I really don't think a cool name is a good justification for something being included in the game And yes legionary is a term that covers all enlisted Roman citizens, but from the Marian reforms to the end of the Empire they were all heavy infantry with standardised equipment. So, in civ terms they translate to one unit.

He was saying that legionary is just a synonim of soldier. Any soldier serving in a Legion was a legionary, including the last recruits which were all but particularly trained soldiers. And you're wrong IMO in saying that all soldiers in a roman legion can translate in one unit, Marian reform or not. In case I need to refresh the concept, but I'm sure most of you are well aware of it, the strength of Roman Legions relied upon superior tactics and discipline compared to the enemy armies in their age. In Civ's concept, a UU is a particular unit, which a legionary is not, while a Praetorian is much more suited for this role. I will also make you note that the Wikipedia is an approximate tool, and especially in this case it is highly imprecise. In fact the wiki speaks of "Praetorian Guard", but Praetorians existed before the Praetorian Guard, which incitendally is not the Civ4 UU (Praetorian). Praetorians were originally elite soldiers assigned as the personal guard of the Legion's Consul. Later Octavianus reformed their role and created the Praetorian Guard as it is described in the wiki. Originally they were still elite soldiers btw, and later they were more a political tool than anything else. Fact is, that you can very well compare them to Navy Seals. Legionary would be the same as "Marine". All armies in the world have Marines (assuming the country has at least a port ^^).

 

[scu98rkr]

I will also make you note that the Wikipedia is an approximate tool, and especially in this case it is highly imprecise. In fact the wiki speaks of "Praetorian Guard", but Praetorians existed before the Praetorian Guard, which incitendally is not the Civ4 UU (Praetorian). Praetorians were originally elite soldiers assigned as the personal guard of the Legion's Consul. Later Octavianus reformed their role and created the Praetorian Guard as it is described in the wiki. Originally they were still elite soldiers btw, and later they were more a political tool than anything else. Fact is, that you can very well compare them to Navy Seals. Legionary would be the same as "Marine". All armies in the world have Marines (assuming the country has at least a port ^^).

Not trying to disagree with you, after reading the wikipedia entry I am more convinced that Praetorian is actually a fine name for the UU.

But it does actually mention this is the wikientry, in fact the wiki entry for Praetorians seems pretty complete ->

"The term "Practorian" derived from the tent of the commanding general or praetor of a Roman army in the field—the praetorium. It was a habit of many Roman generals to choose from the ranks a private force of soldiers to act as bodyguards of the tent or the person."

Aslo Úmarth you seem keen to keep suggesting there were not many Praetorians. Even though you agreed there were approximately 9000 at any one time and a standard legion was 10,000. How many do you expect there to be !

This seems fine as the UU can represent elite soldiers as mentioned above with the Marines.

 

[kairob]

but the were 9,000 althogether and 10,000 in each legion right?

 

[Gaius Octavius]

Trying to justify Praetorian on the basis of the Navy SEAL's inclusion is just... well, strange. Partly because the SEAL's inclusion is just so strange.

Nobody is saying that a Praetorian couldn't be a UU for Rome, since they were quintessentially Roman. However, what I think we are all arguing here is that there are far better choices, especially in comparison to the numbers. If I were playing TAM or something, I might expect the Praetorian to be a Roman UU - one out of maybe 10 or so. But as a single UU, which is supposed to represent (broadly) the military of the Roman world from 500 B.C. to 476 A.D. (if we start from the Republic), the Praetorian just doesn't fit. Neither does the Navy SEAL for an American unit.

Many of you who aren't American may not be able to relate to this, but when I saw the American UU, I had a "say WHAT?" moment. It's just plain ridiculous. Ask any American to name a military unit that they feel would be uniquely American, and chances are you'd get a response along the lines of "a Minuteman" or "an American G.I." I submit to you that the same goes for the Romans. Ask any good student of Roman history what military unit would better capture the essence of the Roman fighting force - the regular legionary miles or the elite Praetorian - and the answer would be clear.

 

[Agent327]

Aslo Úmarth you seem keen to keep suggesting there were not many Praetorians. Even though you agreed there were approximately 9000 at any one time and a standard legion was 10,000. How many do you expect there to be !

This seems fine as the UU can represent elite soldiers as mentioned above with the Marines.

9,000 Praetorians? On a grand total of 150,000-350,000 legionaries? You might call that "elite", but only in the sense of the Napoleonic Imperial Guard - who never saw action (only at Waterloo, when it was too late). Too eliminate confusion, I'm talking about the standard Pretorian Guard, not a later derivation thereof. The only thing these pretorians were "famous" for, was murdering and installing emperors. What built the Roman empire were the legions. Without them no empire would have been - nor pretorians for that matter.

Can we close the subject please? (This could go on forever...)