Posts: 171
Threads: 68
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation:
0
Yves Goris
****
Quintus Aurelius Lepidus
Legio XI Claudia Pia Fidelis
Reburrus
Cohors VII Raetorum Equitata (subunit of Legio XI CPF)
vzw Legia
Flanders
Posts: 4,226
Threads: 176
Joined: Mar 2003
Reputation:
172
I've only read through the preface and introduction, but based on that alone I would not rate the book highly. It appears to have a fairly overt nationalist agenda, and its frequent claims of Dacian might, importance, tenacity and ethnic continuity go largely unsupported by evidence, at least in this section.
The author describes Dacia as a 'rich and independent kingdom... the third military power of ancient Europe' - after Greece and Rome, presumably? He also states that 'Dacian warriors destroyed many of the invading elite Roman legions and effectively kept other mighty conquering armies at a respectful distance for centuries' - how many 'elite' legions did the Dacians destroy? No reference given.
He is keen to stress the indomitable nature of the Dacian people, despite their being 'partially' conquered by Rome in 105: 'the Romans gained such wealth from plundering their new province' he says 'that no major wars were carried on for the next one hundred years, except for purposes of defence.' What about three Parthian wars, the Marcomannic wars, the Mauretanian, British and Jewish wars, not to mention civil war?
However, in the next paragraph he maintains that 'after AD 275 the Romans withdrew from the occupied territory, weary of battling the tenacious Free Dacians and the barbarian invaders who had taken refuge there'. Clearly the Romans could not have enjoyed total peace and also wearied themselves with 'battling'!
'At no point after this did the Roman legions claim decisive victory in any battle north of the Danube,' he goes on to say. Actually Constantine had a victory acclamation against the Dacians in c.330, but there are plenty against the Goths, Carpi and Sarmatians, who appear to have been the inheritors of the larger part of the territory. Since the withdrawal in 275 involved the evacuation of the population of the province and their resettlement south of the Danube, most Roman references to Dacians after this date refer to the inhabitants of Dacia Ripensis.
The authorial agenda is clear in his description of Trajan's Column, which 'testifies to the millenial existence of the Dacians and their contribution to the continuity of the Romanian nation. It also immortalizes the forefathers of today’s Romanians and serves as a ‘birth document’ written in stone.'
Does it? Really? :neutral:
I have no comment, meanwhile, about the assertion that 'a bloodless economic invasion of capitalistic opportunism' in modern Romania 'in some aspects was as traumatic as the actions of the Huns and the Tartars...'
It may well be that the following chapters more grounded in evidence and proper methodology, but this kind of overheated rhetoric and sweeping exaggeration counts against the book being regarded as a serious historical study.
Nathan Ross
Posts: 567
Threads: 46
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation:
19
well in only 3 words, because is not worth more:
we have a pretty strong current in romania lead by an medical doctor in New York that happens to have a lot of money that says that the dacians were the best ever world had to offer, that the vatcan archiveds have lots of proof, the martians were actually dacians and so on
CRAP
Posts: 277
Threads: 8
Joined: Dec 2007
Reputation:
1
I understand that the author is not quite a professional historian and i am sure he make quite few exaggerations or have some original interpretations, but i doubt someone read all the book to see how much is wrong.
Such works are however in line with the pan-"celticism" or "germanism" present in western Europe, just replacing those with "dacism" and many times reaching same levels of exaggerations and partisan interpretations
Razvan A.
