The quality of the various elite troops in history

[Thanas]

Every army in history has suffered defeats. There is no undefeated unit in history.

Doesn't the Praetorians have a pretty poor track record whenever they are going against various rebelling Roman armies?

Such as?

Forming the core of the field armies doesn't necessary mean they are much better than the average legion, especially the veteran legions who have gone through a number of wars.

If you form them like Severus did and handpick legionnary veterans you bet they are. Also, the number of wars Rome engaged in was really small for the first two centuries.

[thejester]

I would argue that the true elite would be a mixture of several, if not all, of these criteria. Take for example the Roman legions.

a) Recruitment - check, only a very small portion of the populace would qualify (0.5-3% of all males between 18-21).
b) training, command, combat experience - check. They had the hardest training of their day and were the first to carry a professional officer/NCO corps
c) status - check. I don't think I need to elaborate on that one, or the pay and veteran benefits.
d) Performance - check.
e) Superior military system across the board - check.

You're obviously far more familiar with this than I am, but several of these things must need qualification given the enormous amount of time the legions were fielded. There must be huge differences in every one of those criteria save 'e' when comparing the legions of the Second Punic War with, say, those that served under Trajan.

[lord Martiya]

Doesn't the Praetorians have a pretty poor track record whenever they are going against various rebelling Roman armies?

Assuming they weren't bought beforehand, they were usually employed as a last-ditch reserve against a veteran army that outnumbered them, and they still made them pay the victory with blood, assuming they were actually defeated.
Here's their battle record against Roman rebelling armies, as far as I know.

First Bedriacum: the Praetorians, loyal to Otho, gave a severe beating to the Vitellian troops they fought, but the rest of the army was defeated due bad leadership and switched side. The Guard retreated but remained a capable fighting force still willing to fight. After Otho killed himself, the Praetorians were dismissed and replaced by Vitellius veterans.

Second Bedriacum: Vitellius' Praetorians were defeated by the veterans of the Guard and Vespasianus' army, but proved themselves almost as good as their predecessors, and only retreated when the Legio III Gallica accidentally fooled them into thinking they were about to be reinforced (the legion had served in Syria until recently, and adopted the local custom of saluting the rise of the sun. Vitellius' troops thought they were greeting reinforcements from East and ran to their camp, where they later surrendered). Vitellius' Praetorians were dismissed, and the veterans took back their place.

Septimius Severus' rise: the Praetorians (whose valor was allegedly inferior to their predecessors) were bought by Severus and didn't even fought. The Guards were dismissed for the murder of emperor Pertinax (with the material murderers being executed), and replaced by veterans from the Pannonian legions.

Rise of emperor Decius: defeated at Verona by Decius', murdered emperor Philip the Arab and switched side.

Reign of emperor Probus: they put down three rebellions from the legions, but later killed Probus themselves and elevated their commander Carus to the throne.

Rise of Diocletian: the Guard fought well for reigning emperor Carinus, and put down the rebellion of Sabinus Iulianus before actually meeting Diocletian's army. The Guard carried the day against Diocletian at Margus River, but then killed Carinus (allegedly because their commander had discovered that the emperor had an affair with his wife) and switched side. Diocletian kept them as the defenders of Rome, but the role of imperial guard was assumed by the Ioviani and Herculani troops raised from the V Iovia and VI Herculana legions.

Battle of the Milvian Bridge: the Praetorian Guard fought well, and was almost destroyed in the attempt to cover Maxentius' retreat. The Guard was disbanded for good, and the survivors dispersed among the legions.

As long as they weren't bought, their record was actually pretty good.

[Zinegata]

Is not there also a problem that many elite units were not actually good at fighting and picked for political reliability ?

There are also cases wherein the units themselves tend to overblow their own reputation. The US Rangers in particular come to mind, despite their lofty reputation and constant appearance in games and other media, their performance in World War 2 was actually marginal. The Rangers were pretty much annihilated in every single battle they fought in.

[CaptHawkeye]

I actually tend to lean towards jester's view that the entire concept of Elite Troops is a fallacy. It is possible to have a tight, small cadre of exceptionally skilled troops. Like the SEALS, SAS, Green Berets, etc. However these units are special forces and are much smaller than whole Armies of "elite" troops like the Waffen SS. Which is really because units that have genuinely elite fighters are going to be highly exclusive.

Also, plenty of Spec Ops units do not accept raw recruits, they select them from other military branches after reviewing their performance. So there's no reliable way to just order up a ton of new elite soldiers unless you want to the lower the training standards and drop performance.

[Thanas]

I would argue that the true elite would be a mixture of several, if not all, of these criteria. Take for example the Roman legions.

a) Recruitment - check, only a very small portion of the populace would qualify (0.5-3% of all males between 18-21).
b) training, command, combat experience - check. They had the hardest training of their day and were the first to carry a professional officer/NCO corps
c) status - check. I don't think I need to elaborate on that one, or the pay and veteran benefits.
d) Performance - check.
e) Superior military system across the board - check.

You're obviously far more familiar with this than I am, but several of these things must need qualification given the enormous amount of time the legions were fielded. There must be huge differences in every one of those criteria save 'e' when comparing the legions of the Second Punic War with, say, those that served under Trajan.

Of course, you are correct. I should add that I am only talking about the Imperial legions here (if only for the fact that the early legions are totally different and e does not even apply to them here). Of course you would get differences (say a legion living in Egypt over several decades would be more apt at desert warfare than a legion stationed in Britain) but all in all the standards were quite uniform.

[Simon_Jester]

Regarding the Praetorians- I'd expect quality to vary wildly depending on who's recruiting them and from where.

If you're lucky enough to have troops who are at once very loyal and very good, making them your Praetorians makes a lot of sense. But loyalty is a higher priority than quality, and I'm still ambiguous about whether the Praetorians were consistently better than an ordinary legion of comparable size. I'm hearing mixed messages on that.

So my question is, to what extent would it depend on the era, and to what extent on universal recruiting practices? Diocletian taking a veteran legion and just saying "you are now the Praetorians" is one thing- of course you get great, loyal troops that way. But is that the same as saying the Praetorians were unusually good at some other time and place, such as right around 250 AD in the middle of one of the long bursts of strife and short imperial reigns?

[Thanas]

The Praetorians essentially always fielded the core of the Imperial field armies and were consistently good (case in point - defeating a rebelling legion singlehandedly) since Marcus Aurelius. Before that it depends but look at the turnovers - Vespasian, Trajan pretty much formed them anew or took them on extensive campaigning.

Augustus formed them from his veterans. Later on there was a lot of turnover with the quality probably sinking a bit but there is no real evidence either way.
Under Tiberius several cohorts were sent to protect Germanicus and they formed the elite strike group in the multi-year wars against Arminius.
Under Caligula they probably dipped in quality.
Under Claudius they campaigned against the British but it is not known how much combat they did. My guess would be very little.

As to the rest see above.

So it really only is a question under the early Emperors, thereafter they were pretty much constantly engaged in campaigns. Then you get the time of Hadrian, who was a real drill master. Antoninus Pius is a period of peace for the entire empire and then follows Marcus Aurelius.

[Simon_Jester]

What about the crisis periods of the third century? Is that what you meant by "thereafter they were pretty much constantly engaged in campaigns?"

[Thanas]

What about the crisis periods of the third century? Is that what you meant by "thereafter they were pretty much constantly engaged in campaigns?"

The thing is we do not know much about the various units who engaged in those campaigns simply because the record is fragmented. We know that previously they were employed as shock troops and last reserve but since Gallienus and Aurelian the whole organization changed. There are several differing opinions on the role of the guard during that period.

[Zinegata]

So they basically became the Triarii of the later Imperial Legions?

[Thanas]

So they basically became the Triarii of the later Imperial Legions?

What? No.

[Zinegata]

So they basically became the Triarii of the later Imperial Legions?

What? No.

I mean in the sense they were the last resort shock troops, like the Triarii were for the early Repblican legions.

[ray245]

I mean in the sense they were the last resort shock troops, like the Triarii were for the early Repblican legions.

The Roman legions during the third century was organized into 3 lines, with the last line being the Triarii. Although I might have been confused by Vegetius's wording.

[Thanas]

What passage is that?

[ray245]

What passage is that?

It is in Book II: The Organization of the Legion, difference between the legions and Auxiliaries.

But the complete Roman legion, in its own peculiar cohorts, contains within itself the heavy-armed foot, that is: the principes, hastati, triarii, and antefignani, the lightarmed foot, consisting of the ferentarii, archers, slingers, and balistarii, together with the legionary cavalry incorporated with it.

Another mention of the Triarii as the 3rd line of battle is located in Drawing up a legion in order of battle.

In the rear of all the lines, the triarii, completely armed, were drawn up. They had shields, cuirasses, helmets, greaves, swords, daggers, loaded javelins, and two of the common missile weapons. They rested during the acnon on one knee, so that if the first lines were obliged to give way, they might be fresh when brought up to the charge, and thereby retrieve what was lost and recover the victory. All the ensigns though, of the infantry, wore cuirasses of a smaller sort and covered their helmets with the shaggy skins of beasts to make themselves appear more terrible to the enemy. But the centurions had complete cuirasses, shields, and helmets of iron, the crest of which, placed transversely thereon, were ornamented with silver that they might be more easily distinguished by their respective soldiers.

This was brought to note by Pompeius Magnus at TWC forums.

[Thanas]

Vegetius is talking about the three orders of the classic legion. This organization changed over the course of the centuries (while it was kept as designation in the Principate there is no evidence it keeps referring to different equipment). Eventually it was dropped during the dominate, the front rankers are the elite then.

[Frank Hipper]

Achieving great results with standard training and equipment?

Jastas 11, 2, and 5 of the Imperial German Air Force are good examples.

[PeZook]

There are also cases wherein the units themselves tend to overblow their own reputation. The US Rangers in particular come to mind, despite their lofty reputation and constant appearance in games and other media, their performance in World War 2 was actually marginal. The Rangers were pretty much annihilated in every single battle they fought in.

The fact they were consistently annihlated actually says that they were, in fact, better than regulars - that is what units widely considered "elite" do: they're more effective than regulars because they fight longer and harder, thus are harder to break, thus can fight on against odds which normally seem impossible.

Of course, such elites can be utterly destroyed by regulars if A) The regulars outnumber them and/or B) The regulars of the opposing force enjoy technological/organizational/logistical superiority, but that doesn't make them less elite. Elite simply means "best of".

They can be best because they get priority for equipment and have great traditions that inspire the troops to fight, and inspire fear in enemies, because they get to hand pick their troops, because they're commanded by a better leader...or any combination of the above. But they can still be utterly crushed by people better equipped, or just better commanded, than they are.

[Zinegata]

The fact they were consistently annihlated actually says that they were, in fact, better than regulars - that is what units widely considered "elite" do: they're more effective than regulars because they fight longer and harder, thus are harder to break, thus can fight on against odds which normally seem impossible.

Ergh, the Rangers in the Italian campaign were "annihilated" because they were surrounded and forced to surrender, it wasn't because they fought to the last man.

Other units (i.e. the Rangers at Point Du Hoc / Omaha) fought very hard but suffered very high losses to the point they became combat-ineffective after the first few days of combat.

To be fair, the Point Du Hoc assault probably couldn't have been done by other infantry units. But given that it didn't actually help the invasion that much, it was questionable whether a company should have been earmarked to assault the battery in the first place.

I would say that being "elite" also means knowing that it is not a good idea to assault high cliffs with grappling hooks. It's very daring and makes for good reading, but also tends to result in catastrophic losses and alternate methods should have been explored instead. The original commander of the Rangers earmarked to assault Point Du Hoc himself objected to the assault - pointing to the (correct) Free French intelligence that the guns had already been moved, and got relieved of his command for daring to suggest that they don't press ahead with it.

[PeZook]

Ergh, the Rangers in the Italian campaign were "annihilated" because they were surrounded and forced to surrender, it wasn't because they fought to the last man.

Yeah, they fought completely surrounded, lost 800 men (half of them as POWs), and held off armored units with only light weaponry, achieving a kill ratio close to 1:1.

That's actually not bad at all.

Other units (i.e. the Rangers at Point Du Hoc / Omaha) fought very hard but suffered very high losses to the point they became combat-ineffective after the first few days of combat.

To be fair, the Point Du Hoc assault probably couldn't have been done by other infantry units. But given that it didn't actually help the invasion that much, it was questionable whether a company should have been earmarked to assault the battery in the first place.

But that's no fault of the unit itself, but the manner in which it is employed...and they did fulfill that objective, didn't they?

I don't see how "suffered lots of casualties" is something which you should hold against a military unit ; It's common for elites troops to suffer higher casualties than usual, because as I pointed out before, they don't break as easily. In fact, a lot of Soviet special forces units were treated like rounds of ammunition, expected to be completely wiped out during the course of their operatoins, but were doubtlessly elite.

I would say that being "elite" also means knowing that it is not a good idea to assault high cliffs with grappling hooks. It's very daring and makes for good reading, but also tends to result in catastrophic losses and alternate methods should have been explored instead. The original commander of the Rangers earmarked to assault Point Du Hoc himself objected to the assault - pointing to the (correct) Free French intelligence that the guns had already been moved, and got relieved of his command for daring to suggest that they don't press ahead with it.

Uh...so you say a TRUE elite unit would know the attack was folly, and then in the same post say that their commander did, in fact, know it was folly and made it publically known?

Being commanded to do difficult and possibly suicidal things, and then carrying out these orders and suceeding (they destroyed the guns and held the Point, didn't they?) is...not an indicator of a military unit sucking at what they do.

[Zinegata]

Uh...so you say a TRUE elite unit would know the attack was folly, and then in the same post say that their commander did, in fact, know it was folly and made it publically known?

My point is that the commander got relieved of his command for making the right call - which was to not attack. That's not smart at all. That's firing someone because they spoke the truth, and the Ranger CO above him wanted someone who was willing to launch bloody-minded assaults regardless of the casualties or common sense.

And "success" for the Point Du Hoc operation was questionable. They made it over the cliffs, but the guns weren't there. They found them later, but they weren't what the Allies expected. They essentially traded 3 companies for 5 guns.

[Spoonist]

If the units specifically designed for suicide missions refuses orders because it is a suicide mission, then yes I'd expect top brass to kick you out.
War doesn't function on common sense. Íf so everyone would go home to theirs and not bother with the getting killed bits at all.

But really this is an age old problem that dates back to antiquity. But usually in the form of a commander given a specific order which then goes and does something completely different and wins the day. Then do you punish or reward him? (The usual answer is both).

[Simon_Jester]

And "success" for the Point Du Hoc operation was questionable. They made it over the cliffs, but the guns weren't there. They found them later, but they weren't what the Allies expected. They essentially traded 3 companies for 5 guns.

That's not a good exchange, but I've heard worse. We're not into Charge of the Light Brigade territory with that.

I do not think you're being particularly reasonable about this. The decision to make the attack, and the process of carrying out the attack, aren't made at the same level. You can blame some general for insisting that the attack happen willy-nilly. But the blame doesn't attach to captains and majors ordered to go on the attack in the first place. It certainly doesn't tell us anything about the quality of the unit.

[Zinegata]

If the units specifically designed for suicide missions refuses orders because it is a suicide mission, then yes I'd expect top brass to kick you out.
War doesn't function on common sense. Íf so everyone would go home to theirs and not bother with the getting killed bits at all.

The Rangers are not a suicide unit. They are not billed as Kamikazes. Again, this is why their reputation is a bit overstated .

(Moreover, I would highly question the utility of suicide units in the first place, but I digress )

Also, it's worth noting that half of the Rangers earmarked for Point Du Hoc force didn't actually end up at Point Du Hoc at all. Due to miscommunication, the Allies thought the Ranger force at PDH was wiped out, so they added the three remaining companies with the main group of Rangers about to land on Omaha. These additional reinforcements played a significant role in keeping the Americans from being repulsed at Omaha; which again points to how the Rangers could have been much more profitably employed that day.

The problem again with the Rangers is that they keep getting wiped out over what are ultimately pointless actions. At PDH they took out 5 German guns... which sounds great except for the fact they traded three companies of troops to accomplish this. That's a pretty awful exchange ratio.

Willingness to take losses is fine. But these losses must be justified by concrete gains based on the sacrifices made. For instance, I wouldn't besmirch the "elite" reputation of the US Airborne because of the heavy losses they suffered in Normandy - despite the additional casualties incurred due to the bad drop most historians agree that they played a pivotal role in delaying the German counter-attacks on the beaches. That's a sacrifice with a much more important return, as opposed to losing 3 companies for 1 battery.

I do not think you're being particularly reasonable about this. The decision to make the attack, and the process of carrying out the attack, aren't made at the same level. You can blame some general for insisting that the attack happen willy-nilly. But the blame doesn't attach to captains and majors ordered to go on the attack in the first place.

The decision to proceed with the attack was made by James Rudder, who was a Colonel in command of the two Ranger battalions. As mentioned above he did have the option to cancel PDH altogether and just send everything to Omaha, where extra troops did prove critical. The officer who refused to attack was a Major commanding the Provisional Ranger Force. The decisions to proceed / not proceed were all done at the battalion level.