Kerr, John Latimer (1991) The role and character of the praetorian guard and the praetorian prefecture until the accession of Vespasian. PhD thesis. https://theses.gla.ac.uk/875/ Copyright and moral rights for this work are retained by the author A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge This work cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given Enlighten: Theses https://theses.gla.ac.uk/ [email protected] THE ROLE AND CHARACTER OF THE PRAETORIAN GUARD AND THE PRAETORIAN PREFECTURE UNTIL THE ACCESSION OF VESPASIAN JOHN LATIMER KERR PH. D. THESIS DEPARTMENT OF CLASSICS 1991 Lý k\) e" vc %0 t-0 Cn JOHN LATIMER KERR 1991 C0NTENTS. Page Acknowledgements. List of Illustrations. Summary. I The Augustan Guard and its Predecessors. 1 II The Praetorian Guard of Tiberius - AD. 14 to AD. 31. 15 III The Praetorian Guard from the Death of Seianus to the Assassination of Gaius. 41 IV The Praetorian Guard of Claudius. 60 V The Praetorian Guard of Nero. 84 VI The Praetorian Guard from the Death of Nero to the Accession of Vespasian. 116 VII The Praetorian Guard as a Political Force. 141 VIII The Praetorian Guard as a Military Force. 157 IX Prefects and Prefecture. 161 List of Abbreviations. 178 Notes. 180 Bibliography. 272 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The presentation of this study would not have been possible without the help and assistance of my supervisors Dr. M. Green and Dr. L. Keppie. I am deeply grateful to them for their friendliness and for their suggestions which have considerably improved this work. Professor Peter Walsh took time off from his many other duties to read the individual chapters as they were produced. His criticisms were always incisive and invaluable. My research was eased by the advice of Graham Whitaker of Glasgow University Library who facilitated a number of inter-library loans. John Letham guided me through the more difficult German and Italian articles and works which I encountered in my research. For enduring my many idiosyncrasies and for her help in the technical completion of this thesis I am grateful to Ina Milne whose patience and kindness are matched only by her efficiency. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the personal influences which were indispensable to the successful completion of this study. Dr. Ronald Knox first encouraged me, more than twenty years ago, to develop my interest in ancient history. Above all, however, I am indebted to my wife Ann, and my children, Paul, Laura and Alan, who have tolerated so unselfishly the-omnipresence of this project for the last six years. John L. Kerr Lanark November 1991 ILLUSTRATIONS Fig. 1 Relief from the Arch of Claudius (once thought Trajanic) showing guardsmen (Louvre Museum). Fig. 2 Denarii issued by Mark Antony, 33-32 BC. (Crawford 544/1; 544/12). Fig. 3 Praetorian guardsmen in civilian dress: from a frieze of circa AD. 83-5 found under the Palazzo della Cancelleria, Rome (Vatican Museum). Fig. 4 Map of Imperial Rome, showing the location of the castra praetoria. Fig. 5 Sestertius of Gaius, AD. 37-8 (RIC p. 110 no. 32). Fig. 6 (a) Aureus of Claudius with the legend IMPER(ator) RECEPT(us) AD. 41-2 (RIC p. 122 no. 7). (b) Denarius of Claudius with the legend PRAETOR(iani) RECEPT(i) AD. 41-2 (RIC p. 122 no. 12). Fig. 7 (a) Sestertius of Nero (BMC' p. 226 no. 142). (b) Sestertius of Nero (BMC' p. 218 no. 122 plate 41.5) Fig. 8 Inscription to Gavius Silvanus, ILS 2701 (Archaeological Museum, Turin). (PhotographCourtesy of Prof. M. Crawford). Fig. 9 'Military Class' silver denarius of Vitellius (Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge). SUMMARY The purpose of this thesis is to investigate the role of the Praetorian Guard in the hundred years between the battle of Actium and the accession of Vespasian. This necessitates not only a consideration of those political activities which the Praetorians undertook at the behest of their emperors but also an examination into-the motivations of the guardsmen themselves. Moreover, any study of, the Praetorian Guard would be less than complete without an account of the development of the Praetorian prefecture. The historical narrative of the Julio-Claudian years reveals four areas of Praetorian prominence. The first, and most important, concerns the way in which Augustus and his successors deployed their Guard. As a military force the contribution of the Praetorians was, during this time, limited to occasional forays onto the battlefield when accompanying the emperor, such as Claudius during the invasion of Britain, or a member of the imperial family, like Germanicus when he was campaigning in Germany. Augustus, however, did not retain his Praetorian cohorts as a military elite, but rather as internal security troops to guarantee the new system of government. Their numbers were large enough - 9 cohorts of 500 men - to deter conspirators. In this preventive role they played a vital part at times of succession. Their presence at Augustus' funeral speaks as much of intimidation as of ceremonial obligation. But the Praetorians were not just a passive deterrent. They acted ruthlessly against the emperor's enemies. Within the imperial family alone we know of Praetorian involvement in the deaths of Agrippa Postumus, Nero Caesar, Drusus Caesar, Agrippina the elder, Tiberius Gemellus, Britannicus and Octavia. Praetorian detachments were responsible for the executions of, among others, Avillius Flaccus, the former prefect of Egypt, during Gaius' principate, and Rubellius Plautus who had incurred Nero's enmity. It would, however, be quite wrong to view the Praetorians as solely an oppressive force like the Gestapo or KGB. The historian's skill and the cruelty of, for example, Octavia's death too often beguile us. We should not ignore Praetorian brutality / brutality, but such activities were but a small part of the Guard's duty. They also kept peace in Rome's turbulent theatres and were occasionally, when need dictated, sent to other towns in Italy. But, above all, we must never forget how effective they were in protecting the regime. The crushing of the conspiracies of Messalina in AD. 48 and Piso in AD. 65 should be attributed, in large measure, to the loyalty of the Praetorians. The second area of Praetorian activity which we should note is when they intervened in the political process with a more obvious self- interest as at the assassination of Gaius in AD. 41. The prospect of a restoration of the Republic held little attraction for the Praetorian Guard. And so Claudius was found and taken to the security of the Praetorian barracks, where he promised each Praetorian the huge donative of 15,000 sesterces -a ruinous precedent. The impotent Senate huffed and puffed - and then surrendered. The manner of Claudius' accession was of immense significance. From that time Praetorian endorsement became, for a new princeps, an unavoidable constraint. In AD. 68 the Praetorians realised that, if they could make emperors, they could also unmake them. Their support for Galba at that time indicates both Nero's unpopularity and the effectiveness of Nymphidius' false promises. Again, their replacement of Galba by Otho was motivated, above all, by the old emperor's refusal to pay the donative promised in his name. In all of this we may detect a determination among the Praetorians to maintain their privileges and advantageous terms of service. We should, however, be wary of viewing the Guard as a politically homogeneous force. There were clear differences in outlook between, on the one hand, the tribunes and the centurions and, on the other, the enlisted men. Hence the participation of some Praetorian officers in the conspiracies of AD. 41 and AD. 65. Even among the guardsmen themselves we find very different social and geographical backgrounds. The political, even politicised voice with which the Praetorians spoke in AD. 69 can easily mislead us. Selfishness and the preservation of their status were the dominant factors behind Praetorian loyalty. Some / Some commentators have turned the focus of attention on a third, distinctly unattractive aspect of the Praetorians' conduct - their alleged indiscipline. It is clear that for much of AD. 69 the Praetorians were a law unto themselves. In March of that year Otho's guardsmen went on a drunken rampage which culminated with an invasion of the imperial palace. They also mounted surveillance on those senators whom they suspected of being Vitellian sympathizers. Their behaviour on campaign was characterized by the same chronic disorderliness. Vitellius' Praetorians, recruited in large part from the German legions, were no better. They must bear the responsibility, by their refusal to allow Vitellius to abdicate, for the death and destruction during the Flavian assault on Rome. Elsewhere, however, evidence of Praetorian indiscipline is difficult to find. We should perhaps regard such aberrant conduct as the inevitable concomitant of their occasional interventions in the political process. This is not to excuse anarchy, but a hundred years of fidelity to a succession of emperors should not be defamed because of a few isolated incidents. Finally let us consider the Praetorian prefecture established, perhaps reluctantly, by Augustus in 2BC. Too often the developing importance of the post is ignored as we are mesmerized by the accomplishments of prefects like Seianus and Burrus. It is undoubtedly true that such men enhanced the status of the prefecture by their tenure, but the office was, from the beginning, a post of great potentiality.