The Dacians: Rome\'s Greatest Enemy?

[Frostwulf]

Is not the Boii that defeated there, is Scordiscii. Boii and Tauriscii was in Panonia, Socrdiscii was the ones mingled with Thracians and Illyrians

The Scordisci didn't come under Roman controll until 15 B.C., defeated by Tiberius.

Suebii just move in after Dacians get rid of Boii. And moved in quite later, and just in some parts of Panonia.

Not according to these people:

The Boii were pushed eastwards to the middle Danube by the German Marcomanni in the first century BC, there to suffer at the hands of the Dacians, then approaching the summit of their power. pg.23

The Marcomani are outstanding in glory and strength, and even obtained their very homeland through valour, having long ago expelled the Boii; nor do the Naristi and Quadi fall short. 42.1

http://books.google.com/books?id=PZZnAAA...qtwBbPqmCI
and this one:
http://books.google.com/books?id=BVUMAAA...ii&f=false
This one says about 78 B.C. the Suevic Marcomanni were there.
http://books.google.com/books?id=w00sAAA...ni&f=false

This one by Koch is also interesting:
http://books.google.com/books?id=f899xH_...ia&f=false

Even in Wikipedia there is some information, though as usual poorly documented:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemia

Roman authors provide the first clear reference to this area as Boiohaemum, from Germanic Boi-Heim, "home of the Boii", a Celtic people. As part of the territory often crossed during the Migration Period by major Germanic and Slavic tribes, the western half was conquered and settled from the 1st century BC by Germanic (probably Suebic) peoples including the Marcomanni; the elite of some Boii then migrated west to modern Switzerland and southeastern Gaul. Those Boii that remained in the eastern part were eventually absorbed by the Marcomanni. Part of the Marcomanni, renamed the Bavarians (Baiuvarum), later migrated to the southwest. Although the leading tribes changed, there was a large degree of continuity in the actual population, and at no time was there a wholesale depopulation or change in ethnic stock.

Exactly, he didnt moved even if he had all the time. And then took profit of Helveti problem and turn his back and move away from Dacia.
Sure, he didnt forget that, but when he really wanted to attack, he come with 16 legions and 10,000 cavalrymen

I'll try this one more time, I won't go through another Goffart(you not understanding what he was saying) situation with you.

Caesar was elected proconsul in 59 and married that same year(May). In March 58 the Helvetii appeared on the scene while Caesar was still doing political maneuvers. Caesar had to cease his politics and force march to meet the Helvetii. If you are to assume Caesar was afraid of the Dacians, then he also must have been afraid of the Gauls, because he didn't leave until absolutely necessary. Even then he didn't move his legions until he realized the potential hazards of the Helvetii.

Your trying to input your own reasoning into Orosius' writing saying he was only brave when he had the massive legions to do so. Orosius simply says Caesar was afraid, and if that was the case he wouldn't have made preparations to attack the Dacians. Orosius either didn't know the plans of Caesar or he was referring to another Caesar.
Your theory simply fails based only on what you think Orosius is saying. Caesar had no time at all to go after Burebista, though it certainly looks like he was planning to prior to the Helvetii interrupting his plans.

I dont think he was, all the evidences point out that Orosius was right

You mean your evidence because Orosius may have meant J.Caesar and you have nothing else to support this?
Or could you mean the evidence that I have produced which is supported by many professional historians and even Appian(you know the classical author who lived closer to Caesar's time then Orosius did) which says that Caesar had intentions of going to Illyria but was interrupted due to the Gallic war and Pompey.

He doesnt mention because Roman authors established to not talk about them, as Orosius said. And this seem to be correct, as you will not find the chapter Dacia of Tacitus, and all authors avoid to talk about the Roman losses

He wrote the Germania before writing the "Histories"(105) and the "Annals"(117)where he mentions the Dacians in much more then passing. Again the Dacians were just not a threat.

How do you know what Trajan said? His "De bello Dacico" was lost.

How do we know that Trajan didn't say the Dacians were weak and wimpy? If you want to make your point, you have to show Julian making that statement from Trajan outside of Julian's comedy. But you can't, because that is the only place Julian puts into the mouth of Trajan "the bravest people in the world". If you read the comedy you will see it's all about bragging rights. Until you can show where Julian quotes Trajan as saying that elsewhere, it is simply to emphasize the grandiose claims of Trajan.
In other words, Trajan never said such a thing.And ancient authors said they are the true image of Mars, that Mars was born among them, Mars rule the Getic fields etc. This is pretty much the same thing. You dont compare someone with the god of war himself if you dont thin they are worthy for that title and are the most warlike people in the world[/quote] It is not the same thing at all, it only shows them as warlike along with multitudes of other peoples. If you look the birthplace of Ares(Greek God of war) was born among the Thracians, I wouldn't be surprised if this is where the Romans(who mostly copied the Greek gods)had the idea of Mars and Dacians.

He mention Spartans, Macedonians, the old Romans of course, and Thracians/Dacians. Not to mention that he again say about the legends with Mars born among the Getae

Again these are mentioned because they are from old, that is the only ones mentioned in the conclusion. Yet other places he mentions Goths and Huns who were certainly warlike enemies, but they were current enemies. My point is that regardless most of the people mentioned were warlike rather posted here or there.