The Dacians: Rome\'s Greatest Enemy?

[Nathan Ross]

Had Caesar already dispatched his forward units before that ill-fated Ides of March?

Apparently so. The Appian excerpt diegis quoted above (Civil Wars II.110) says that Caesar "sent across the Adriatic in advance sixteen legions of foot and 10,000 horse", in readiness for war against first the Getae and then Parthia.

Later in Appian III.24 we learn that this force was stationed in Macedonia and "consisted of six legions, besides a great number of archers and light-armed troops, much cavalry, and a corresponding amount of apparatus of all kinds." After Caesar's death, Antony used the ruse of a rumoured Getic invasion (which actually didn't exist) to have himself appointed commander of this army. He then brought it back across to Brundisium and tried to use it against the 'Liberators'. Four of the legions ended up following him, while two defected to Octavian.

So why the discrepancy between the sixteen legions supposedly sent by Caesar and the six brought back by Antony? Syme reckons (here) that the sixteen were actually all the legions in the entire eastern empire, including Syria. The six were the 'field force' intended for use against the Getae and Parthians.

After the fall of Boadicea, the Empire... went through gradual decline in incremental stages... Britannia that Nero and others had a fetish with, ultimately caused the unseen force that pushed the Empire in a dreaded economical collapse.

Suetonius (Nero 17.1) tells us that Nero considered withdrawing the army from Britain, either because of Boudica or because the province was too expensive, perhaps. Britain was a poor investment at first, but by the third century it was wealthy and prosperous compared to much of mainland Europe, and a major food producer. Ammianus Marcellinus (18.2.3) mentions that by the fourth century the army on the Rhine was supported largely by provisions imported directly from Britain.

Caesar admired the feats and achievements of Alexander the Great. And he pledged he would be greater, and he was.

Caesar's fixation with Alexander the Great was shared by a bewildering number of Roman leaders and emperors, many of whom led vast and costly invasions of Parthia and Persia in emulation of their hero which nearly always ended in disaster. Trajan overstretched himself and died, Lucius Verus brought back a plague that decimated the empire (and killed him), and Julian's foolhardy invasion led to his own death and considerable attrition of the army in the east. If Julian had not invaded Persia, would the army have been in better shape to resist the Goths in 378? If the Goths had been repulsed would they have acted as a buffer against the Huns?...

In fact, Alexander-worship could almost be cited a major contribution to the decline of the Roman army and the eventual fall of the empire... ;-)

But that's a different topic!