Dacian Army Talks?

[D B Campbell]

..., for presence of Dacian units in Roman Army, especialy on Britania, not just Birdoswald but Chester / Deva ( remember me the Romanian Deva city, from former Dacian "dava" ) ...

Deva is a common geographical name in Britain, equated with the River Dee. It is thought to be derived from a Celtic word for deity, I think. But certainly not Dacian!

... or Vindolanda too, please search for writings of Robin Birley ( unfortunately didnt find anything to post here from the net, just something in Romanian, but i am sure you can find more or more easy there ), he is a kind of the leading authority in Hadrian Wall, and havd a lot of researches done, including about Dacian units.

No Dacians known to me at Vindolanda. Only at Birdoswald and Bewcastle.

[Eleatic Guest]

hi everyone!
i was looking whole web for 2 days (today is my 3rd day of research) to find some good examples of Dacian (Getai) wariors and their equipment. specially helmets and clothes. i've found only a little. does anone have any sources (specially illustrations, 'cuz i am graphician more than writer :oops: ) with good examples of Dacian warriors?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Traja ... ius_Plates

[D B Campbell]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Trajan...ius_Plates

Great job, Stefan.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Razvan,

Well, here we go again.
Here we go again indeed. I think I have reacted enough in this discussion. One more time, then.

First, i didnt know thats your site, good for you, i find it searching randomly on net.

I meant no criticism. You did well. I'm flattered. My name is written a few times on each page.

Anyway, for presence of Dacian units in Roman Army, especialy on Britania, not just Birdoswald but Chester

I think that has been answered by Duncan.

Anyway, not sure if i understand, you deny the presence of Dacians in Roman Army

I do not deny anything. But I make a difference between a name and the origin. You are quite adamant – it seems that in your opinion, when it is called ‘Dacian’, it therefore must be ethnic Dacian. I'm a historian - I just cannot make such adamant conclusions based on little or nothing. We all know that Roman unit could receive their name from the original recruits, but also from the original region. A similar example are the Batavi from my own native regions. The first Batavian cohorts are of course recruited from Batavians, no doubt. But when we reach the 4th century and there are still newly created Batavi units, no-one believes that they are still created from ethnic Batavians or even in the original region, which was practically deserted at that time.
So when you show me a cohort that arrives a century after the Dacian wars, and use that as an example of ‘Dacians entering the Roman army’, of course I can’t agree – we simply don’t know if the soldiers in that cohort were (still) Dacian, or whether the unit was named after the newly created province. Proof of Dacians in that unit could be inscriptions of Dacian names in that fort (as we find Sarmatian names in Ribchester, for instance), but I did not see any.

As well, the presence of Dacians on Marcus Aurelius Column and on Galerius arch ( even if you may disagree ) show they was present there, and as well the coins are representing most likely as was presented previous ( i dont think the person who haved or the one who buyed the coin didnt know whats about talking ), including the one with a person wearing a "draco" and where is clearly write DACIA around it, i am not sure if you look to the coin, i suppose no, i can't explain otherwise.

I know that you cannot explain it any other way, but like the explanation above, I find your explanations not convincing at all. You make conclusions based on very thin evidence, if any evidence at all, and I just cannot follow there. The adamant conclusions like ‘of course they were this’ or ‘of course they were that’ are not based on solid reasoning. The evidence is just too vague. I cannot deny your convictions, but I simply see no reason to follow them.

About Galerius, are you kidding ? No offence, but i trust more a source from that era, rather than your own opinions that look silly or bad talking.

Well, of course you can say that I am talking bad or silly, but that is just your opinion. But then I do not take just one source and forget to read all the other sources that wrote about Galerius. I’m a historian and I have to take every source into account, plus who wrote it and why. And I know that your source wrote a politically slanderous piece against Galerius when he invaded Italy, trying to paint him as a barbarian or some enemy of older times. And since Galerius’ army was in fact the Balkan army, what better than to accuse him of wanting to ‘rename the Roman empire as the Dacian empire’? Silly slander, for what we know of Galerius does not make him any different than any other 3rd-century emperor. I would say that he was one of the better one, trying to save the Roman empire.

At least, it is no doubt he was from Dacian origin ( and is not the only one, it is as well Licinius, or Regalianus, who ever pretend is from Decebal family ). If you wish to not believe he wanted to change the name of the Empire in Dacian empire, thats your problem, like that we can disbelieve everything we dont like from that, saying it was write just for fun, and is not true, but that is the only evidences we have from that era..

You say he was from Dacian origin, I follow the sources and say that no source ever said that he was.
When you start taking sources literally without reading more, you would for instance have to believe Procopius – he said that Justinian was the devil himself!

About "draco", i didnt said every culture take it from Dacians, i said is more probably that Iranians take it from them

Actually, you said “so is much probably that draco to be take by the Iranians ( schtyans, sarmatians, even persians ) from Dacians and not otherwise”. I read that as a claim that you even thought it possible that even the Persian had taken it from the Dacians. I found that very hard to believe.

, but you said as well that is more probably to be take by Dacians from Scythians ( as well, without any prouve ), and i present my opinion, with some references ( archeological discoveries ) The fact that "draco" appear in Roman Army after Traian wars, and after presence of Dacian units there too can give an idea. And the fact that the head didnt look always as an exact replica of wolf as Dacians ones, didnt mean it wasnt inspired by the Dacian draco.

No, I did not present any proof that the Scythians used a draco earlier than the Dacians. But neither did you. But a draco is, essentially, a windsock for the use of archers, long before it became a battle ensign. I would say (yes, my personal opinion) that the use of windsocks like this among cultures with armies based on archery (horse archers, even), makes it logical that the Scythians and Sarmatians used it before the Dacians (who I do not recall to have used a lot of (horse-)archers), and the Dacians might have passed it on to the Romans.

See? I do not even deny that the Dacians passed it on to the Romans. But, like the above ‘statements’ which you made about Dacians being in the Roman army and Galerius being a Dacian, I cannot make such adamant short statements, so I say ‘It is possible’, not ‘it is certain’. :wink:

[diegis]

Salut Valerius

Yes, i must agree that probably my blood "boiled" too fast, and i maked some "adamant" conclusions, who can be see a little exaggerated, agree. But as you said, some are based on thiny evidences, but that are the only evidences, so betwen nothig, and a tiny evidences, the choise is what you have, dont you agree ? About Dacian presence on Britania, as i said, and since you are a historian will be even more easy, try to find some works of Robin Birley, i understand he is the leading authority in Hadrian Wall, and for sure you will see more details there. Unfortunately i have just an article in romanian, where is mentioned.
About Dacian Army previous 106 AC, there are more sources, including the Traian Column ( nice finding images in previous post ), as well archeology and older writings including about tactics, weapons, fortresses, etc.

[D B Campbell]

About Dacian presence on Britania, as i said, and since you are a historian will be even more easy, try to find some works of Robin Birley, i understand he is the leading authority in Hadrian Wall, and for sure you will see more details there.

I cannot imagine what the Dacian connection with Vindolanda is, other than the fact that the Ninth Batavians are thought to have shipped out in around AD 105 for Trajan's Second Dacian War. Could that be it?

[Rumo]

I asked you for references about Dacians in the Roman army, 'most noticable at Birdoswald':

OK, let see. About Dacians at Birdoslwald first:
http://www.roman-britain.org/places/camboglanna.htm

So, that is one cohort of Dacians at Birdoswald, the cohors I aelia Dacorum, which appeared at Camboglanna after c. 200 AD, almost a century after Dacia was conquered. Just one. Not exactly proof of Dacian units entering the Roman army after the conquest.

Cohors I Aelia Dacorum was created in early 2nd century AD under Hadrian (Aelius). There's a diploma attesting this unit in 127 CE (RMD IV 240: http://www.jstor.org/pss/20190038 )

Individual soldiers who served in Britannia:

Itaxa Stamillae f. Dacus served in cohors Il Lingonum equitata, his name occurs in the diploma mentioned above ( RMD IV 240 / IDRE II 471 ).

In some diplomas from 178 CE:
Thiopus son of Rola in cohors VII Thracum ( RMD III 184 / IDRE II 474)
Thia son of Timarchus in cohors II Gallorum veterana (RMD IV 293)
Sisceus son of Aptasa in cohors I Augusta Nerviana (RMD IV 294)

For the last two check also: http://www.romanarmy.net/pdf/Herald%20001.pdf


Dacian soldiers served (judging by their names or sometimes their affirmed individual Dacian descent) almost in all corners of the Empire, in Syria, Egypt, Mauretania, Moesia, Pannonia, Germania, Britannia. If you need further information or bibliography let me know.