10-21-2010, 09:39 AM
@ Paulus Scipio
I prefer to write a separate post as response, since your previous post is a too mixed and twisted one, and i dont have time and mood to response to each of your affirmations.
First of all, nice you ask about references and archeology, yet you provided nothing for you Bastarnae falxes (except a twisted and weird interpretation of Adamclisi monument where acording to you everybody wearing a falx like weapon and fighting are Bastarnae, based on...your personal opinion :roll: )
-about Sarmatians, it is clear, even from your own post, that iron plates armor wasnt very spread, they using as much the "toughened leather" one, or, as Pausanias write, the bones made one (who seem to be the most numerous). Having gold aplique on chiefs clothes isnt something extraordinary either. As i said, they was clearly less developed then Dacians (Sarmisegetuza for ex. had paved roads, aqueducts, sewers, and Dacian made walls, called "murus dacicus" was special designed to resist to siege weapons -Romans conquered the fortress just after discover and destroy the burried water pipes who bring water there)
-about images from the Column, it is your assumption that the catapults for example was one captured from Fuscus. Is possible, but in the same time is possible to be ones build by engineers send by Domitian, or by desertors. As you can see there is a balista depicted there too, used by Dacians. This mean that they use a strategy behind those weapons.
And a kind a training was needed for that, both to use those weapons in an efficient way, and to coordinate their effect with the actions of other troops. So yes, they was profesional, you dont take a farmer or a shepherd and give him a balista or catapult, then others and give them a vexila or a wolf dragon flag and tell them how and where to move and how and when to shot, without to have some profesionl comanders or group of profesional warriors to form the base of such units. War was anyway very spread in Dacian society, and everybody was ready for it.
As well we have a description of Decebalus by Dio Cassius:
"At this time the Romans became involved in a very serious war with the Dacians, whose king was then Decebalus. This man was shrewd in his understanding of warfare and shrewd also in the waging of war; he judged well when to attack and chose the right moment to retreat; he was an expert in ambuscades and a master in pitched battles; and he knew not only how to follow up a victory well, but also how to manage well a defeat. Hence he showed himself a worthy antagonist of the Romans for a long time."
This ability of Decebalus was obviously suported by soldiers who know what and how they doing. Wars was quite long, as well campaignes, Dacians executed startegic maneuvres, used spies and asassins inflitrated in Roman camp, used war machines, and a sistem of fortresses and fortifications special made as military resisting points, and not as refugee places for civilians (meaning they had a network of early warnings who announce an invasion and alow the civilians to retreat in secure places-mountains, deep forests), and fight several pitched battles with a Roman army who was at its peak and had numerical superiority too (quite uncommon for Romans)
-The "Victory" represented on Traian Column is one against Dacians, ofcourse, as Traian himself took the title Dacicus, and didnt bother about Sarmaticus (showing that Sarmatians had a minor role)
-About Buri, the National History Museum here give the germanic allies of Dacians on the Column (Adamclisi battle) as Buri, not Bastarnae.
-This is some archeological discoveries regarding the armoures used by Dacians (unfortunately are in romanian)
http://archweb.cimec.ro/Arheologie/cron ... ca2009.pdf
mentioning a fragment of an iron scale armour find in a Dacian workshop at Magura Uroiului - Hunedoara region (not far from dacian capital)
http://istorie.uab.ro/publicatii/colect ... n_Dima.pdf
this one is more detailed, mentioning several discoveries, of both chainmail and scale armor. Acording with the author, Dacians started to replace the chainmail from the end of I century BC with scale armour in I century AD.
Another interesting information come from Dio Cassius
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... o/67*.html
"Decebalus, fearing that the Romans, now that they had conquered, would proceed against his royal residence, cut down the trees that were on the site and put armour on the trunks, in order that the Romans might take them for soldiers and so be frightened and withdraw; and this actually happened."
As you can see Dacians had enough armour supplies to equip two armies if needed
I prefer to write a separate post as response, since your previous post is a too mixed and twisted one, and i dont have time and mood to response to each of your affirmations.
First of all, nice you ask about references and archeology, yet you provided nothing for you Bastarnae falxes (except a twisted and weird interpretation of Adamclisi monument where acording to you everybody wearing a falx like weapon and fighting are Bastarnae, based on...your personal opinion :roll: )
-about Sarmatians, it is clear, even from your own post, that iron plates armor wasnt very spread, they using as much the "toughened leather" one, or, as Pausanias write, the bones made one (who seem to be the most numerous). Having gold aplique on chiefs clothes isnt something extraordinary either. As i said, they was clearly less developed then Dacians (Sarmisegetuza for ex. had paved roads, aqueducts, sewers, and Dacian made walls, called "murus dacicus" was special designed to resist to siege weapons -Romans conquered the fortress just after discover and destroy the burried water pipes who bring water there)
-about images from the Column, it is your assumption that the catapults for example was one captured from Fuscus. Is possible, but in the same time is possible to be ones build by engineers send by Domitian, or by desertors. As you can see there is a balista depicted there too, used by Dacians. This mean that they use a strategy behind those weapons.
And a kind a training was needed for that, both to use those weapons in an efficient way, and to coordinate their effect with the actions of other troops. So yes, they was profesional, you dont take a farmer or a shepherd and give him a balista or catapult, then others and give them a vexila or a wolf dragon flag and tell them how and where to move and how and when to shot, without to have some profesionl comanders or group of profesional warriors to form the base of such units. War was anyway very spread in Dacian society, and everybody was ready for it.
As well we have a description of Decebalus by Dio Cassius:
"At this time the Romans became involved in a very serious war with the Dacians, whose king was then Decebalus. This man was shrewd in his understanding of warfare and shrewd also in the waging of war; he judged well when to attack and chose the right moment to retreat; he was an expert in ambuscades and a master in pitched battles; and he knew not only how to follow up a victory well, but also how to manage well a defeat. Hence he showed himself a worthy antagonist of the Romans for a long time."
This ability of Decebalus was obviously suported by soldiers who know what and how they doing. Wars was quite long, as well campaignes, Dacians executed startegic maneuvres, used spies and asassins inflitrated in Roman camp, used war machines, and a sistem of fortresses and fortifications special made as military resisting points, and not as refugee places for civilians (meaning they had a network of early warnings who announce an invasion and alow the civilians to retreat in secure places-mountains, deep forests), and fight several pitched battles with a Roman army who was at its peak and had numerical superiority too (quite uncommon for Romans)
-The "Victory" represented on Traian Column is one against Dacians, ofcourse, as Traian himself took the title Dacicus, and didnt bother about Sarmaticus (showing that Sarmatians had a minor role)
-About Buri, the National History Museum here give the germanic allies of Dacians on the Column (Adamclisi battle) as Buri, not Bastarnae.
-This is some archeological discoveries regarding the armoures used by Dacians (unfortunately are in romanian)
http://archweb.cimec.ro/Arheologie/cron ... ca2009.pdf
mentioning a fragment of an iron scale armour find in a Dacian workshop at Magura Uroiului - Hunedoara region (not far from dacian capital)
http://istorie.uab.ro/publicatii/colect ... n_Dima.pdf
this one is more detailed, mentioning several discoveries, of both chainmail and scale armor. Acording with the author, Dacians started to replace the chainmail from the end of I century BC with scale armour in I century AD.
Another interesting information come from Dio Cassius
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... o/67*.html
"Decebalus, fearing that the Romans, now that they had conquered, would proceed against his royal residence, cut down the trees that were on the site and put armour on the trunks, in order that the Romans might take them for soldiers and so be frightened and withdraw; and this actually happened."
As you can see Dacians had enough armour supplies to equip two armies if needed
Razvan A.
