The Dacians: Rome\'s Greatest Enemy?

[Frostwulf]

Hello diegis,
I do enjoy these discussions when time allows.

In other words, the expansion of Dacians/Getae in the Balkans and central Europe including the destructions of the Celts intermingled with Illyrians, Illyria being the province under Caesar governship, happened before the problem with Helveti or Ariovistus.

Well the part that the Dacians/Getae invaded was not the part owned by the Romans:

The province of Illyria incorporated little more than the strip of Dalmatian coast captured at the end of the third century and spasmodically patrolled thereafter so as to discourage piracy. The hinterland was not conquered until the time of Augustus. The country as a whole was extremely poor, but because of its proximity to Italy was sometimes treated as a training area for Roman arms. Pg.38

As far as the Boii are concerned they were not in Roman territory, but outside of it. Caesar never mentions anything about them being pushed out by the Dacians, though in my opinion that is most likely the situation. The Suebi had already pushed the Boii out of the western part of their territory by the time Burebista attacked them, this more closely coincides with Caesar more so then the Suebi.

Caesar had the time to intervene against Getae/Dacians, who as your quote from Goldsworth said, offered the glory (and even wealth) desired by Caesar.
Yet he avoided that, and took profit of the new situation with Helveti and Ariovistus Suebii to turn west.

You really need to look at the timeline. Caesar already had troops stationed near Roman Iyllria and was highly likely set to go north east, but the Helvettian problem arose before he could go north:

The situation that developed in Gaul effectively prevented Caesar from undertaking an Illyrian campaign at this time (see next chapter). However when thirteen years later his supremacy was finally established at Rome, he seems to have planned another eastern offensive, which may shed some light on his intentions in 58. Pg.41

Once again, it seems that he had planned to go against them, but the Helvettian problem prevented this, he didn't avoid it, he had no choice. As all these historians point out, Caesar didn't move his troops from the border till he realized he needed them against the Helvetti

This must not escaped to Roman authors and they write about it so we hear about from Paulus Orosius, who clearly say that Caesar avoided the Getae/Dacians. Sure, Caesar arranged his biography when he became the sole ruler of Rome

You mean Roman authors like Appian who wrote around 150yrs after Caesar as opposed to Orosius who wrote 400+yrs after Caesar? Not to mention Orosius doesn't say which Caesar and if he did mean Julius Caesar he probably didn't know about Caesars troop movements, or his concern of hanging onto Iyllria while willing to give up Gaul, not to mention his recon of the Iyllria, and of course Caesar actually moving troops into the area when he could. Then we should not for get what Appian said:

I think that other Illyrian tribes besides those mentioned had previously come under Roman rule, but how, I do not know. Augustus did not describe the transactions of others so much as his own, telling how he brought back those who had revolted and compelled them again to pay tribute, how he subjugated others that had been independent from the beginning, and how he mastered all the tribes that inhabit the summits of the Alps, barbarous and warlike peoples, who often plundered the neighboring parts of Italy.

It is a wonder to me that so many great Roman armies traversing the Alps to conquer the Gauls and Spaniards, should have overlooked these tribes, and that even Gaius [Julius] Caesar, that most successful man of war, did not dispatch them during the ten years that he was fighting the Gauls and wintering in that very country. But the Romans seem to have been intent only upon getting through the Alpine region on the business they were bestirring themselves about, and Caesar seems to have delayed putting an end to the Illyrian troubles on account of the Gallic war and the strife with Pompey, which closely followed it. It appears that he was chosen commander of Illyria as well as of Gaul - not the whole of it, but as much as was then under Roman rule. [§15]

I see no reason to believe that Orosius was talking about Julius Caesar, or if he was he was terribly ignorant of the situation.

This is more logical in my opinion, then Syme hyopthesis with Appian doesnt know what he talking about and confusing an army sent in Illyira with the whole Roman army in eastern provinces

I see Syme's professional view more compelling, as well as Nathan Ross.

Tacitus mentioned "armies" lost in Moesia and Dacia, and the reason we dont see much of his writings about Dacians is this:

Tacitus does mention the Dacians once in the Germania, only in a geographical sense. He doesn't mention them in chapter 37 because they simply were not a big enemy like the Persians, Samnites,Celts etc. Sure the Dacians did some damage, just nowhere comparable to those mentioned in chapter 37 of Tacitus' book. Once again Tacitus mentions big tough opponents only in this chapter, but he doesn't consider the Dacians among the tough opponents.

It was probably too humiliating for Romans to write about this war, especially as it ended with them paying tribute (first time in the history of the Empire) and still having the standards lost in battles in the hands of the enemy

Your statement makes no sense considering Tacitus and others did write about it, and as you pointed out they talked of the lost men. Yet Orosius can say large numbers, and where did he get that information from, those same Roman/Greek authors. What the Romans didn't consider was Dacia as being any kind of a threat, other then locally.

About Julian the Apostate, well, that phrase appear in a book intended to be a satire, but is not something he made up because as I posted previously others said the same thing before (and after) him, regarding Dacians/Getae.

There are those who do say the Dacians were brave and warlike(and from my readings I agree). The only place Julian has Trajan saying the "Dacians are the bravest people in the world" is only in his comedy. No other author of antiquity says the Dacians are the bravest people in the world, this only takes place in Julians comedy. Trajan said no such thing.

Like Vegetius for example. The quotes from him, were Celts or Germans appear, talk about the bravery or skill of older Romans, who win against those even if Celts was more numerous or Germans was of large build, or Iberians had greater physicall strenght.
When he mention Dacians however, he mention them as an example to be look at (and to be followed) by the Roman legions of his time, alongiside Macedonians, Spartans or older Romans. This is the part were Germans or Celts are not included

You said:

Thats why for example Vegetius dont mention them (or Celts for that matter) in his De Re Militari.

I was merely pointing out that Vegetius did mention the Germani and Celts, contrary to what you said.
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/25-alli...=75#328456

Furthermore while I haven't read much of Vegetius, there are plenty of Roman/Greek authors who do write of the Celts, Germani, Spaniards, Pannonians, etc. etc. as being warlike. Vegetius was compartmentalizing each section and he used the relevant "peoples" at the time for examples, hence the height and strength of certain peoples compared to the Romans. Not to mention the Dacians, Macedonians, Spartans were no longer in existence/independent for when he wrote his De Re Militari.