02-06-2013, 03:02 PM
Quote:
I meant ancient sources, actually. As we've discussed before, Bennett says nothing of the sort (he claims that the Parthian force was one of the largest, IIRC), and Strobel and Schmitz's hugely inflated estimates are not supported by evidence. If you know of any such evidence, I'd be interested to hear of it.
Well, I dont know, so thats why I go with those professional historians who seem to know
Quote: Why is it a 'raid' now? It appears to have been a sizeable expedition. The campaigning season in northern europe began in July (cf Caesar) - nothing implies that Tettius left it any later. The route is the same taken by Trajan in AD101 (based on the sole fragment of his own account of the campaign). It's unlikely a large army could move that distance in three days. Tettius' forward reconaissance towards Sarmi does not imply that his army was 'shattered' or that it 'retreated'. I've already given my opinion on what probably happened. We don't know any more about it, and have no further information upon which to speculate - but the Romans believed it was a victory and no further fighting was required for over a decade.
Hmm, so Tettius made his expedition (if you dont like raid) in July, and Domitian celebrated the victory in October? Thats implausible, not to mention that he would have lots of time to push for Sarmi if so. The route was the shortest and the hardest one, even Trajan didnt obtained there more then an inconclusive victory.
Sure, Roman considered Tettius raid a victory (even if nobody except Dio mention it) but it was far from something serious, as Domitian agree with a hard peace imposed in Dacian terms
Quote: If this 'humiliation' was at all upon the minds of the plotters then the very anti-Domitianic historical record would surely have mentioned it. No such mention is made anywhere.
Roman authors played up the losses under Domitian to further blacken his name. They likewise avoided mention of heavy losses under Trajan (if any such existed) to increase the contrast. Roman histories are not known for their objectivity!
Because it was a humiliation for the empire too, not just for Domitian. Lost standards still in Dacian hands, as well many prisoners, lots of money paid to Decebalus who followed his own politics anyway, Romans engineers working for Dacians and so on
Quote: The iconography of Roman victory monuments is a wider subject. But I think it unlikely that the Dacian statues were intended to loom over the heads of the Roman populace! The whole point was to emphasise the conquest of the Dacian people - it was in Trajan's interest to make the Dacians look powerful, so his own prestige in overcoming them was greater. But I doubt it went any further than that - Trajan's Column is not a pro-Dacian monument!
The point about the depiction of Roman casualties (wounded men, and tortured prisoners) on the Column is interesting too. The comparable column of Aurelius shows only enemy dead - notably civilians. One could argue that this is because the losses during the Marcomannic war were well known to be great: Roman armies were defeated in the field, Roman provinces devastated, Roman cities sacked and besieged. The Roman public, therefore, needed no reminder of the violence of the fighting, and the builders wanted to play down this aspect of the campaign. In this respect, the injured men shown on Trajan's column might suggest that the Romans felt no such grievance in connection with the Dacian war: it was a splendid imperial victory, difficult but decisive.
It is an interpretation. Doesnt change the fact only statues belonged to Dacians, and not all of them have the head bowed or so.
The Roman losses during Marcomanic wars (wasnt just Marcomani fighting there however) was big because of that epidemic mostly. Roman army was decimated by that plague, same for many civilian population, thats why those wars was that complicated
Quote: Yes, nobody disputes that the Dacian war was hard and bloody, or that the Dacians were a formidable enemy in the late 1st/early 2nd centuries. But I still don't believe that we can call the Dacians the greatest enemy that Rome ever faced. Far from it.
They was the greatest during the I century BC to early II century AD, which I consider was the peak period of Rome, from Caesar to "the five good emperors", Trajan being the best of them. Again, this is my interpretation
Razvan A.
