+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Allies & Enemies of Rome (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: The Dacians: Rome\'s Greatest Enemy? (/showthread.php?tid=21723)
The Dacians: Rome\'s Greatest Enemy? - Titus Manlius Verus - 11-09-2012
In retrospect of all of Rome's enemies, it seems to me that the Dacians, under Decebalus, were Rome's most potent enemies-especially in Europe. This is reinforced by the fact that very few of Rome's enemies had the capability to completely dismantle a legion in open battle (the battle ofTeutoberg forest and the attck on the ninth were ambushes). During Domitian's Dacian Wars, The Dacians annhialated Legio V Alaude, 2(?) Cohorts of Praetorian Guard, killed the praetorian Prefect, Cornelius Fuscus and the Moseian governor Oppius Sabinus (in a seperate incident). The only reason that the Dacians didn't overrun eastern Europe was because V Macedonia(?) won a Pyrric victory against the Dacians, And Domition packed the border with the I and II Audrix.
In Addition to this, we know that the Dacians had extremely advanced fortifications, were well armed, more numerous, well led, and highly motivated. They were also the only enemy that got tribute from the Romans. And remember, it took ten legions and an unknown number of auxillary cohorts, under the personal direction of Trajan, to take down Dacia's small kingdom.
Thoughts?
The Dacians: Rome\'s Greatest Enemy? - Nathan Ross - 11-09-2012
What, ever? Surely not! Carthage, Persia, the Goths, Alamanni, not to mention the Huns - all far more dangerous and persistent enemies I'd say.
Dacia was a powerful and advanced state in the 1st century, but never posed much of a threat to the empire. Domitian and Trajan's wars were mainly a response to repeated Dacian raids across the Danube, and an attempt to grab the vast mineral wealth of Dacia. After Trajan's conquest, the Dacians rapidly faded from view as an adversary, while other groups proved more tenacious. The Quadi and Marcomanni were far more dangerous in the later 2nd century, and the Alemanni in the 3rd - both groups penetrated far inside the Roman borders and invaded Italy.
As for defeating legions - first Tapae was quite probably an ambush of some sort. The Sarmatians and/or Suebi wiped out XXI Rapax only a few years later. The Batavians neutralised several legions in 69, and the Jews under Bar Kochba appear to have destroyed at least one more. In the third and fourth centuries losses were perhaps even greater, although we don't have the sources to clarify the extent of the damage, and legions tended not to operate as full-strength formations by this point anyway.
The Dacians: Rome\'s Greatest Enemy? - Titus Manlius Verus - 11-09-2012
I mis-spoke. I was referring to the 1st century AD through the early second century. :oops:
In addition, Domitian's Dacian war was also carefully planned, yet was still met with disaster.
The Dacians: Rome\'s Greatest Enemy? - diegis - 11-09-2012
First, the Goths was a heterogenous people in which Dacians was an important presence.
Then if we look at periods we see that during the wars with Carthage Rome didnt even controled the entire Italian peninsula. It was still a local power that tried to rise but wasnt anywhere near the behemot that was during Trajan rule, when arguably reached its peak.
And Huns, well, Roman empire was already split and very weakened from the inside, and having other enemies as well beside Huns. Even such, the weaker western empire Roman army under Flavius Aetius managed to defeat Attila Hunic army (both armies reinforced with Goths, Burgunds, Franks etc) when they fight a head on battle and Huns didnt used their hit and run tactics.
Supposedlt Aetius even let Attila escape or alive because of personal political and strategic reasons, as to keep himself in important position in the empire (as the only general able to defeat the Huns) and keep a control on other allies (Goths or Germanics) that might disobey without Hunic threat around.
Persians was not a direct threat to Roman empire (except very late under Sassanids for eastern Roman empire).
Except same Trajan i dont think was any Roman emperor who really want to conquer Persia. Sure, we can count Crassus (but that was more like a private adventure) or Marcus Antonius (not very successfull).
Caesar might had planed that, after he planed an full attack against Dacia (acording to Strabon). And Trajan didnt seem to have big problems in defeating Parthia (despite that failed sige of that town in the desert). He conquered even Susa i think (Ctesiphon and Babylon too) in today Iran, and if he wouldnt get sick (and be too old) i assume he would go on. Jewish rebellion was a problem too, but almost totally resolved already when he died
So Dacians was among the greatest Rome enemies as they fight against it with quite succes for a while, right at the peak of Roman power, even forcing it during Domitian to pay them a tribute.
Is hard to consider that they could've threat Rome directly, but their example might stir the Germans and Parthians, which Decebal actualy tried to do, unfortunately Pacorus II refused and Germans back then wasnt strong or united enough to do something against Roman empire.
However if Dacians continued to pose such a problem and defeat and humilate Rome, such alliance may come to reality and threat Roman empire with a war on 3 fronts which was way much hard to fight.
Thats why Trajan stoped imediatly the pay of the tribute and raised such big armies to resolve the Dacian problem.
And those was very hard wars, the distance from Roman Danube frontier (where Romans build that bridges) to Sarmizegetusa, the Dacian capital, is i think no more then 200 km. A distance that a legionar in a march can cover in one week (lets say is a bit harder as its in mountain area).
And Roman army (probably the biggest ever used against a foreign enemy) needed one year to get there, in both wars (maybe less in the second one, when they covered more of Dacian kingdom of Decebalus, which doesnt comprised however all the teritories inhabited by Dacians).
Paulus Orosius write about Dacians/Getae (the part i want to point out is the opinions of Alexander the Great, Pyrrhus and Caesar about them)
https://sites.google.com/site/demontortoise2000/orosius_book1
<<On the contrary, recently these Getae, who are at present also called Goths (Alexander publicly said that they must be shunned, Pyrrhus dreaded them, and even Caesar avoided them), after stripping their homes bare and abandoning them, united their forces in one body and invaded the Roman provinces. By proving themselves to be a menace over a long period of time, these barbarians hoped upon their request to obtain an alliance with Rome—an alliance which they could have won by force of arms.>>
The Dacians: Rome\'s Greatest Enemy? - Nathan Ross - 11-10-2012
Nobody could deny that the Dacians presented a formidable challenge in the later 1st to early 2nd centuries - the wars of 85-88, 101-103 and 105-106 were hard-fought imperial expeditions. During this period, therefore, they could be called Rome's greatest foreign enemy (although the Jews were arguably more troublesome, with three wars under Nero-Vespasian, Trajan and Hadrian - the first and last very hard and costly conflicts indeed).
However, once Trajan had conquered their country the Dacians themselves ceased to be much of a threat, unlike many other peoples before and since. Juvenal, writing under Hadrian, mentions the Moors and the Brigantes as the most prominent adversaries of Rome - both inhabitants of territories supposedly conquered by Rome in the first century!
We've discussed the composition of Trajan's army before (here, for example) - as you know, Razvan, I don't agree that it was the largest ever mustered by Rome, by any means! Trajan's column has given a perhaps undue prominence to the campaign - it was important in its day, but hardly the life and death struggle that the later barbarian wars of Marcus Aurelius and the third century emperors surely were.
As for tribute - many 'barbarian' peoples were paid by Rome at one time or another. Caches of Roman silver have turned up in southern Scotland, and Dio mentions silver payments to the Caledonians to keep them quiet. This doesn't so much reflect the awesomeness of the barbarians themselves, just that the Romans found it cheaper at that time to pay them than to fight them!
Possible Dacian influence in Gothic origins is a controversial subject debated often here before, I believe...
Quote:Domitian's Dacian war was also carefully planned, yet was still met with disaster.
That would depend which one you mean, I think. Domitian initially went to the Danube in 85, after Dacian raids had ravaged Moesia and killed the governor. He soon declared the war over and returned to Rome, leaving it to the Praetorian Praefect Cornelius Fuscus to lead a punitive expedition into Dacia itself the following year. This doesn't seem to have been an attempt at conquest. Fuscus's planning was perhaps not that great, and he was defeated at Tapae.
Tettius Julianus' campaign in 88, on the other hand, was planned for over a year, and was victorious. Julianus didn't take Sarmezigetusa, as Decebalus came to terms - but as the emperor wasn't leading in person it's doubtful that he would have expected to conquer the whole country anyway, just inflict a humbling defeat. Reputedly, Domitian could be a bit 'short' with overmighty generals...
The Dacians: Rome\'s Greatest Enemy? - Alexand96 - 11-10-2012
The Germans, Britons, and Carthage (not in that particular order) would garner my vote over Dacia.
The Dacians: Rome\'s Greatest Enemy? - diegis - 11-10-2012
Quote:Nobody could deny that the Dacians presented a formidable challenge in the later 1st to early 2nd centuries - the wars of 85-88, 101-103 and 105-106 were hard-fought imperial expeditions. During this period, therefore, they could be called Rome's greatest foreign enemy (although the Jews were arguably more troublesome, with three wars under Nero-Vespasian, Trajan and Hadrian - the first and last very hard and costly conflicts indeed).
However, once Trajan had conquered their country the Dacians themselves ceased to be much of a threat, unlike many other peoples before and since. Juvenal, writing under Hadrian, mentions the Moors and the Brigantes as the most prominent adversaries of Rome - both inhabitants of territories supposedly conquered by Rome in the first century!
We've discussed the composition of Trajan's army before (here, for example) - as you know, Razvan, I don't agree that it was the largest ever mustered by Rome, by any means! Trajan's column has given a perhaps undue prominence to the campaign - it was important in its day, but hardly the life and death struggle that the later barbarian wars of Marcus Aurelius and the third century emperors surely were.
As for tribute - many 'barbarian' peoples were paid by Rome at one time or another. Caches of Roman silver have turned up in southern Scotland, and Dio mentions silver payments to the Caledonians to keep them quiet. This doesn't so much reflect the awesomeness of the barbarians themselves, just that the Romans found it cheaper at that time to pay them than to fight them!
Possible Dacian influence in Gothic origins is a controversial subject debated often here before, I believe...
I know you wasnt quite convinced about the numbers of Romans, but quite few other historians are. And as Trajan prepared quite few years (even raising new legions) for those wars, i do think that those 12-14 legions that participated was in complete number
As well i dont believe Dacians ceased to be a threat. Hadrian was about to evacuate Dacia in 117 i think (again, the Roman province Dacia which comprised a large part of Decebalus kingdom, but a lot of Dacian teritories was not part of that).
Many Roman emperors continued to fight against "free Dacians" or other Dacian tribes as Costoboci or Carpi, finally being forced to abandon the province to "free Dacians" and Goths (which had anyway a large Dacian component).
Then look what Lactantius wrote about Decius death
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0705.htm
<<This long peace, however, was afterwards interrupted. Decius appeared in the world, an accursed wild beast, to afflict the Church—and who but a bad man would persecute religion? It seems as if he had been raised to sovereign eminence, at once to rage against God, and at once to fall; for, having undertaken an expedition against the Carpi, who had then possessed themselves of Dacia and Moesia, he was suddenly surrounded by the barbarians, and slain, together with great part of his army; nor could he be honoured with the rites of sepulture, but, stripped and naked, he lay to be devoured by wild beasts and birds, — a fit end for the enemy of God.>>
Carpi was a Dacian tribe from the outside the borders of Roman province. Lactantius, a contemporan of those events, mentioned them as the ones who defeated and killed Decius.
I know that some historians go to Jordanes description of events where he replace Carpi with Goths, but we know that he did that change of names (Getae/Dacians as Goths) all over his writings.
Julian the Apostate said too (probably quoting some writings from Trajan era, if not Trajan own "De bello Dacico" unfortunately lost today) that Getae (Dacians) was the most warlike people that ever existed and Romans (from Vergilius to Vegetius) said that in their legends the god Mars was born among Getae/Dacians.
Caesar himself avoided at first the Dacian "empire" of Burebista (even if Dacians pillaged one of the provinces were he was governor, Illyria, beside Macedonia, another Roman province back then) and go for an "easier prey", the Gauls (according to same Paulus Orosius)
Dacians was arguably the most respected enemies at Rome. They was the only ones that was represented in statues (quite lots of them). But none of those statues show Dacians as prisoners or in chains or dying.
Rumors in Rome at some point said (i think Suetonius write about this, i need to check) that Octavianus (the future Augustus) want to marry the daughter of Dacian king Cotiso, and ofered his daughter Iulia as wife for that king, in exchange of military help against Marcus Antonius and his new ally, Cleopatra.
As well, Trajan captured Decebalus sister and treated her very well. So later one of her offsprings (more then probably), Regalianus, even become emperor (well, self proclaimed or proclaimed by his troops at Danube border but still a huge achievemnt for a grand-grand-grand son of Decebalus, one of the main enemies of Rome). I think there is even coins emited by him.
Now compare this with the treatment received by Arminius wife and kid, who ended up dead in an arena where was put to fight as gladiator. Or dont even need to mention the sado-maso orgy done by some rather low-rank Romans with Boudica and her daughters (as someone mentioned the Britons). This show quite a huge difference in Roman views of this different "barbarians".
About the tribute paid by Romans, i think this was one of the main reasons for Domitian assasination, and probably was one of the reasons of Dacian invasion in Moesia (when they beheaded the governor). That was because Domitian tried to end that payment, it was a punishment expedition. At the end Domitian ended by paying again a lot of money and send lots of engineers and military instructors to help Decebalus profesionalize his army. The Roman defeat and humiliation is made more clear by the fact that Roman standards captured by Dacians remind in Decebalus hands (probably including the Pretorian Guard standard of Cornelius Fuscus, which normally should had lead to disbanding of Pretorian Guard but Romans covered this). This was recovered later by Trajan.
As well Roman prisoners, deserters and the Roman war machines captured by Dacians was kept too by Decebalus. None of such agreements exiisted between Romans and other enemies or people that was in relation as clients.
This was considered very probably a huge humiliation at Rome, which provoked the strong respons from Trajan.
Marcus Aurelius problems with barbarians (including Dacian tribes too, as Costobocii who reached even Greece and burned down the Eleusin mysteries temple) occured after a successful war against Parthians. However soldiers contacted there a disease (maybe plague or smallpox) that basically decimated the Roman army and killed lots of people in Roman empire (up to a third part of population in some areas).
Thats why Romans had such problems with Barbarians all over Danube, but they ended those wars as victorious anyway.
Again, this can't be compared with the situation during Trajan reign, when Rome power was at its peak and the only enemy was Dacians.
So, i agree that Carthage was a great enemy of Rome, but that was at the begining of Rome power. During the wars with Hanibal Rome didnt even controled whole Italia, but quite few there jumped in Hanibal camp. Compare this with Rome during Trajan, streching from Britania to Mesopotamia and from Germania to Sudan, and with no other enemies to fight except Dacians. Dacians who doesnt had complexes in actually attacking Roman empire, invading Roman provinces and extracting tribute from them.
Germans was a danger mostly at the end, when Romans was at their dusk anyway, split and too weakened by all kind of internal problems.
The Dacians: Rome\'s Greatest Enemy? - Nathan Ross - 11-10-2012
Quote:I know you wasnt quite convinced about the numbers of Romans, but quite few other historians are.
Well, we've been here before! But what evidence do these 'other historians' give? As I've said, most are quoting one another, and their quotes derive from much more cautious assessments. Trajan's Column shows six different legion shield designs. Epigraphy provides us with nine legions involved in the wars, but at least one was only a vexillation. That's all the evidence we have. Nothing suggests that the two new legions were raised prior to the Dacian wars.
Quote:Many Roman emperors continued to fight against "free Dacians" or other Dacian tribes as Costoboci or Carpi, finally being forced to abandon the province to "free Dacians" and Goths (which had anyway a large Dacian component).
Yes, there were problems in Dacia in other eras. The 'free Dacians', Carpi and others may have been the same people as the Dacians of Trajan's era - we don't know for sure. Gothic origins are another matter again, and I know you have your own ideas about this!
Quote:Dacians was arguably the most respected enemies at Rome. They was the only ones that was represented in statues (quite lots of them).
Arguably! I would say the Persians were far more respected, and for much longer. The Gauls, in their day, caused more anxiety, the Jews more outrage and the Germans more dread. But in the era of Domitian and Trajan Dacia was indeed a prominent adversary - the wars there coincided with a major building program in Rome, which in turn left us with a great visual record, intended to glorify the emperors. As an established state with a relatively modern army, Dacia was treated differently to many other 'barbarian' polities - so there was a measure of respect, yes.
Quote:About the tribute paid by Romans, i think this was one of the main reasons for Domitian assasination, and probably was one of the reasons of Dacian invasion in Moesia (when they beheaded the governor).
The death of Oppius Sabinus was in c.85, so before Domitian's assassination. We don't know if he was 'beheaded', of course! Just killed somehow. Domitian's assassination was an in-house affair involving palace staff and competing senators, and probably had little to do with foreign affairs. Domitian himself was very popular with the army, which would not have been the case if he was perceived to have failed in Dacia.
Compare Severus Alexander - ruler of a strong stable Roman state, popular with the senate, recently gained a qualified victory over Persia, but assassinated by his troops - apparently for paying off the Alamanni...
Quote:Germans was a danger mostly at the end, when Romans was at their dusk anyway, split and too weakened by all kind of internal problems.
The Germans (collectively!) had been a problem since the 1st century BC, and continued to be so. The Severan empire was as large as Trajan's and the army larger - 'dusk' was a long time coming!
The Dacians: Rome\'s Greatest Enemy? - Robert Vermaat - 11-13-2012
Quote:First, the Goths was a heterogenous people in which Dacians was an important presence.No they were not. We discussed this at great length (10 pages!! so I'm not going to repeat it all again here), but you never presented undisputed evidence for a Dacian sub-group (let alone an important one) as part of the Goths. No use bringing that all up again.
If anyone wants to re-read this: http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/25-allies-a-enemies-of-rome/239722-getae-and-dacians-are-they-the-same-or-is-this-unknowable.html?start=180
The Dacians: Rome\'s Greatest Enemy? - Dan Howard - 11-13-2012
Maybe rename the thread to: The Dacians: Rome's Greatest Propaganda Triumph. At the very least it gives modern Romania an excuse to engage in nationalistic protochronism.
The Dacians: Rome\'s Greatest Enemy? - starman2012 - 11-13-2012
Quote: In the third and fourth centuries losses were perhaps even greater,
I'll say, especially if the figures in the RGDS are accurate.
The Dacians: Rome\'s Greatest Enemy? - Titus Manlius Verus - 11-13-2012
Quote:Maybe rename the thread to: The Dacians: Rome's Greatest Propaganda Triumph.
I don't kmow about that. I'm sure the Romans had a time when they burned Carthage... :whistle:
Besides, I'm certain that the Romans, as practical as they were, wouldn't have gone through three wars and a couple of legions for the sake of propoganda....
The Dacians: Rome\'s Greatest Enemy? - Dan Howard - 11-13-2012
Quote:Besides, I'm certain that the Romans, as practical as they were, wouldn't have gone through three wars and a couple of legions for the sake of propoganda....
The propaganda came afterwards. All rulers try to emphasise their military successes. The enemy is exaggerated to make them more threatening than they really were. The propagandic success of Trajans Column is evident by the very existence of this thread. The Dacians would barely make it into the top ten of Rome's enemies using any realistic criteria.
The Dacians: Rome\'s Greatest Enemy? - starman2012 - 11-13-2012
Quote:<<Decius appeared in the world, an accursed wild beast, to afflict the Church—and who but a bad man would persecute religion? It seems as if he had been raised to sovereign eminence, at once to rage against God, and at once to fall; for, having undertaken an expedition against the Carpi, who had then possessed themselves of Dacia and Moesia, he was suddenly surrounded by the barbarians, and slain, together with great part of his army; nor could he be honoured with the rites of sepulture, but, stripped and naked, he lay to be devoured by wild beasts and birds, — a fit end for the enemy of God.>>
I thought Decius fell fighting Goths. And his body was never found.
Quote:Carpi was a Dacian tribe from the outside the borders of Roman province. Lactantius, a contemporan of those events, mentioned them as the ones who defeated and killed Decius.
I thought Lactantius was later, a contemporary of Diocletian.
The Dacians: Rome\'s Greatest Enemy? - diegis - 11-13-2012
Quote:
Well, we've been here before! But what evidence do these 'other historians' give? As I've said, most are quoting one another, and their quotes derive from much more cautious assessments. Trajan's Column shows six different legion shield designs. Epigraphy provides us with nine legions involved in the wars, but at least one was only a vexillation. That's all the evidence we have. Nothing suggests that the two new legions were raised prior to the Dacian wars.
Yes, and i agree we disagree on this
Quote: Yes, there were problems in Dacia in other eras. The 'free Dacians', Carpi and others may have been the same people as the Dacians of Trajan's era - we don't know for sure. Gothic origins are another matter again, and I know you have your own ideas about this!
Thats like saying Germanic Franks may have been the same people as the Germans of Arminius era but we don't know for sure.
Quote: Arguably! I would say the Persians were far more respected, and for much longer. The Gauls, in their day, caused more anxiety, the Jews more outrage and the Germans more dread. But in the era of Domitian and Trajan Dacia was indeed a prominent adversary - the wars there coincided with a major building program in Rome, which in turn left us with a great visual record, intended to glorify the emperors. As an established state with a relatively modern army, Dacia was treated differently to many other 'barbarian' polities - so there was a measure of respect, yes.
Persians maybe, Gauls, just when Rome was still a small city with just some agriculture land around. Jews and outrage, possible, but just because their "treasonous" action, nothing to really affect Rome. Germans, i doubt. Look what people considered Vegetius worthy to be taken as an example by decaying Roman legions:
http://www.sonshi.com/vegetius1-23.html
<<Men are not degenerated in point of courage, nor are the countries that produced the Lacedaemonians, the Athenians, the Marsians, the Samnites, the Peligni and even the Romans themselves, yet exhausted. Did not the Epirots acquire in former times a great reputation in war? Did not the Macedonians and Thessalians, after conquering the Persians, penetrate even into India? And it is well known that the warlike dispositions of the Dacians, Moesians and Thracians gave rise to the fable that Mars was born among them. To pretend to enumerate the different nations so formidable of old, all which now are subject to the Romans, would be tedious. >>
Quote: The death of Oppius Sabinus was in c.85, so before Domitian's assassination. We don't know if he was 'beheaded', of course! Just killed somehow. Domitian's assassination was an in-house affair involving palace staff and competing senators, and probably had little to do with foreign affairs. Domitian himself was very popular with the army, which would not have been the case if he was perceived to have failed in Dacia.
Compare Severus Alexander - ruler of a strong stable Roman state, popular with the senate, recently gained a qualified victory over Persia, but assassinated by his troops - apparently for paying off the Alamanni...
Let me say again what happened then. Domitian stoped the payment for Dacians. Decebalus led his army over Danube and bring havoc there, defeating the Roman troops and killing the governor. Domitian himself comes there brining troops from all over the empire (probably stopping Agricola in his conquering of Scotland too) and manage to push back the Dacian Army.
THen he send a retaliation expedition lead by Fuscus, the comander of Pretorian Guard and with 5-6 legions. This is defeated too and Romans lost probably the standard of Pretorian Guard (which normally should lead to the disbanding of the unit).
After the peace (where Decebalus even didnt bothered to go to sign, but he sent his brother to meet with Domitian) the conditions was that Romans would pay lots of money to Dacians and send them military instructors and engineers. However, Decebalus will keep the captured Romans standards, Roman prisoners and desertors and keep the Roman war machines captured.
Domitian will go back to Rome (without even meet Decebalus) and make a big victory parade with slaves dressed in Dacian clothes posing as war prisoners and gold from his own tresure as "war booty" from Dacia.
Now this was a huge humiliation for Romans, who was a very proud people and considered themselves above anyone in the world.
Same Paulus Orosius write:
<<I would like to tell in detail of the great battles fought by the Dacian king Diurpaneus against the general Fuscus, as well as of the extent of the Roman losses. But Cornelius Tacitus, who wrote an exhaustive history of these events, has declared that Sallustius Crispus and very many other authors established the practice of keeping silence about the number of the slain, and that he himself preferred to do likewise>>
<<Domitian, however, who was puffed up by the lowest form of vanity, held a triumph. Nominally this triumph celebrated his victory over the enemy, but in reality it celebrated the loss of his legions>>
Roman historians back then felt so humiliated that even agree among themselves to not write much about those battles and the amount of losses, or the number of Romans slained by Dacians
Quote: The Germans (collectively!) had been a problem since the 1st century BC, and continued to be so. The Severan empire was as large as Trajan's and the army larger - 'dusk' was a long time coming!
Same can be said about Getae/Dacians too. I already posted what Orosius said about Caesar and how he avoided the confrontation with Dacians in 1st BC. Same Caesar who doesnt have problems going against Ariovistus or going over Rhine.
About Severus, it was a matter of personal choice to conduct that war against Germans. He wasnt then too loved by the Roman soldiers, who killed him because they wanted to go to war and fight (so not so much afraid of Germans).
As funny note, the emperor who replaced Severus was Maximin Trax, of Getae/Thracian origin (first "barbarian" or "soldier emperor". And he did lead the legions up to northern Germania and defeated the tribes there. Archaelogical discoveries about that expedition was posted on this forum quite long ago