The Dacians: Rome\'s Greatest Enemy?

[diegis]

<<Decius appeared in the world, an accursed wild beast, to afflict the Church—and who but a bad man would persecute religion? It seems as if he had been raised to sovereign eminence, at once to rage against God, and at once to fall; for, having undertaken an expedition against the Carpi, who had then possessed themselves of Dacia and Moesia, he was suddenly surrounded by the barbarians, and slain, together with great part of his army; nor could he be honoured with the rites of sepulture, but, stripped and naked, he lay to be devoured by wild beasts and birds, — a fit end for the enemy of God.>>

I thought Decius fell fighting Goths. And his body was never found.

Carpi was a Dacian tribe from the outside the borders of Roman province. Lactantius, a contemporan of those events, mentioned them as the ones who defeated and killed Decius.

I thought Lactantius was later, a contemporary of Diocletian.

Goths was "introduced" by Jordanes, 3 centuries after that event. And we know that he swaped/changed names and mixed the Dacians/Getae (Carpi being a Dacian tribe or tribal union) with the Goths all over his work, "Getica".
Lactantius as far as i know was a kid or a teenager when Decius was killed, and even if he started to write quite few years after that it is for sure a much better source then Jordanes

[diegis]

First, the Goths was a heterogenous people in which Dacians was an important presence.

No they were not. We discussed this at great length (10 pages!! so I'm not going to repeat it all again here), but you never presented undisputed evidence for a Dacian sub-group (let alone an important one) as part of the Goths. No use bringing that all up again.
If anyone wants to re-read this: http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/25-alli...?start=180

Well, archaeology clearly show that Santana de Mures-Cerneakov culture, which everyone consider is the Goths culture, is in large part of Dacian origin.

More then that, Dacians was spread too in Poland (right in the area from supposedly "Goths" moved closer to Black Sea) and even Germania or Jutlanda

http://www.academia.edu/1455259/New_evid...ral_Poland

This is a map with findings of a specific type of bracelet/armlet, originating in Dacia and used by Dacian nobles. But in the article are mentioned as well coins and specific Dacian pottery



The most northern finding is not far from Jutlanda and Baltic Sea shores, the most southern is not far from Danube, and there are lots of them near Dacian capital area at Sarmizegetusa.
We have even ancient writings like those from Agrippa (the one who made the Roman empire map too) and who said:

“Dacia, Getico finiuntur ab oriente desertis Sarmatiae, ab occidente flumine Vistula, a septentrione Oceano, a meridie flumine Histro. Quae patent in longitudine milia passuum CCLXXX, in latitudine qua cogitum est milia passuum CCCLXXXVI”

And later Ptolemy too who said something similar about Dacians towns in those areas

And of course, Goths was many times called Getae (Dacians) even before Jordanes, but no one ever related them with Germanics. As in that previous discussion, i do think however that they was a congolomerate of people with a kinda fluid ethnic composition, and Germans was too part of that at some point

[diegis]

I don't kmow about that. I'm sure the Romans had a time when they burned Carthage... :whistle:

Besides, I'm certain that the Romans, as practical as they were, wouldn't have gone through three wars and a couple of legions for the sake of propoganda....

Of course there was much more important and pressing reasons then propaganda. Unfortunately some people like to argue for the sake of argue, but without bringing much evidence or make some connections for what they say

[Titus Manlius Verus]

[quote post=324251]
Of course there was much more important and pressing reasons then propaganda. Unfortunately some people like to argue for the sake of argue, but without bringing much evidence or make some connections for what they say

My argument is that the Romans did not fight the Dacians for the sole sake of propoganda. This is substantiated by the fact that the raids into Germania at the beginning of Domitians reign were soley for propoganda. As we all know,emperors liked to kick off their reign with a successful campaign, and Germania was it. Domitian's war with the Dacians was a defensive war with the intent to prevent Decebalus from overrunning Moesia. Unfortunately (for him), he died before he could finish the job. Trajan simply ammassed a huge army and conquered the Dacians after a hard-fought campaign (substantiated by the fact that it took him a year to march what should've taken him roughly a month. In otherwords, this was indeed a war of necessity. The Romans simply took the propoganda that naturally came with a victory as a non-optional bonus.

[diegis]

My argument is that the Romans did not fight the Dacians for the sole sake of propoganda. This is substantiated by the fact that the raids into Germania at the beginning of Domitians reign were soley for propoganda. As we all know,emperors liked to kick off their reign with a successful campaign, and Germania was it. Domitian's war with the Dacians was a defensive war with the intent to prevent Decebalus from overrunning Moesia. Unfortunately (for him), he died before he could finish the job. Trajan simply ammassed a huge army and conquered the Dacians after a hard-fought campaign (substantiated by the fact that it took him a year to march what should've taken him roughly a month. In otherwords, this was indeed a war of necessity. The Romans simply took the propoganda that naturally came with a victory as a non-optional bonus.

Your argument is correct i believe
And i wasnt refering to you when i said that some like to argue just for the sake of that but dont have something to back up their opinion

[Robert Vermaat]

Well, archaeology clearly show that Santana de Mures-Cerneakov culture, which everyone consider is the Goths culture, is in large part of Dacian origin.

No it doesn't. That's opinion, and unless you can show me differently, I think that it's the opinion of Rumanian archaeologists only, by no means mainstream.
Your 'spread of Dacian artefacts' gives a nice map, but as any archaeologist can tell, the spread is not showing a cultural map, but a spread of objects, like any map of objects would show. How about trade? I can show you similar maps that show that Romans lived in Poland too, yes even in Scandinavia and India. This tells us nothing about where people lived, only where objects were found.
Finally, the 'Goths=Getae' discussion is old and done. You have, I repeat, not brought any evidence for a Dacian component among the Goths other than the similarity of the words and the apparent confusion among later writers. But then the Franks were also really Celts (because that's how Byzantine sources address them), and the Scythians are really the people behind the Sarmatians and even the Dacians themselves. That's or the Dacians spoke Germanic from the start.

[Dan Howard]

What we have here is a classic example of protochronism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protochronism

[Robert Vermaat]

What we have here is a classic example of protochronism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protochronism

Indeed! Borrowed from the Rumanian language no less.. :wink:

I shall cease posting arguments in this discussion.

[Lyceum]

What we have here is a classic example of protochronism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protochronism

Wow, I had totally forgotten there was a specific term for it related to Romania....indeed pretty much anything that comes out of Russia and Eastern Europe. Have you seen what passes for Philology in places like Albania?

Not that we should laugh/be cruel in that this sort of thinking, e.g building a national past, was a huge part of Germany's involvement in the Classics and (Comparative) Philology years and years ago, in fact you can trace subtler reflections of these tendencies in the new world too, but that's something I leave to the receptionists.

Thanks though, your wikipedia article actually came at one hell of an opportune time. I wanted to ask, has anybody read:

Susan A. Stephens and Phiroze Vasunia's (2010) Classics and National Cultures (Oxford)?

It's an edited volume, very interesting and full of some fantastic pieces include one on Romania/Bulgaria by Asen Kirin which is pertinent to this topic. I'd upload my digital copy of the article but Oxford sticks our ID on anything we pull from library resources I'm afraid. It should be a reasonably common book by now though.

[starman2012]

Lactantius as far as i know was a kid or a teenager when Decius was killed, and even if he started to write quite few years after that it is for sure a much better source then Jordanes

He was obviously biased. To advance a christian agenda, he painted the fate of persecutors as black as possible.

[starman2012]

First, the Goths was a heterogenous people in which Dacians was an important presence.
Except same Trajan i dont think was any Roman emperor who really want to conquer Persia.

I think Julian resolved to neutralize Persia once and for all--overthrowing it and placing a pro-Roman prince on its throne.

[starman2012]

As for defeating legions - first Tapae was quite probably an ambush of some sort. The Sarmatians and/or Suebi wiped out XXI Rapax only a few years later. The Batavians neutralised several legions in 69, and the Jews under Bar Kochba appear to have destroyed at least one more.

The jews are thought to have destroyed Deiotariana. Later, in 161, the Parthians trapped and destroyed a legion--IX Hispana IIRC, in Armenia.

[diegis]

:whistle: gosh, so i post a serious article of some respected Polish historians (not even Romanians), and someone answer with a "wikipedia" article :lol: ? Really, the capacities and knwoledge of the poster is that low ? I can write too an article there then quoting it here with some book title as source, without anyone know for sure whats about inside that book

"Protochronism" is a term that was spread up (with a negative meaning) after 1990 due to mediatic involvement of George Soros fundations. This Soros guy is bend to spread the "multiculturalism" ideas in Eastern Europe (or whatever) and to supress anything related with "nationalism". Its just a PR campaign with the intend to "rewrite" the history so things that may disturb those ideas are branded as "negative", misinterpreted or purposedly ignored. A kind of "damnatio memoriae" of the past but which have success to gullible or less knowledgeable people

The wikipedia article is mostly based on ideas of Boia, which is just a "historian of ideas" and have no specialization in any fields related with ancient history. His book in English was published in Hungary by Soros fundation publishing house and i think he even get scholarship grants. His book in Romanian published before was debunked in much part by real historians (meaning specialized in the respective fields).

But of course he (and similar views) get much more coverage due to fundings received

I was hoped we can have a serious and entertaining talk, and searched for other sources as Guy Hallsall, Matthews, Kulikowski, Schmitz and couple others, images from the Column, primary sources, archaelogical discoveries, comparations etc., to deal with Dacian army equipment, fortifications, wars and such but i see that a kind of dogma is too strong in some and is useless to chalenge it.

Thanks anyway to those "open minded" who posted interesting opinions and views

[diegis]

Lactantius as far as i know was a kid or a teenager when Decius was killed, and even if he started to write quite few years after that it is for sure a much better source then Jordanes

He was obviously biased. To advance a christian agenda, he painted the fate of persecutors as black as possible.

I didnt said he wasnt, of course he wanted to paint Decius as a bad guy who do bad things to Christians. I just wanted to point out that the "barbarians" who killed him was the Carpi, according to Lactantius, and he is a better source then Jordanes in this regard as he was contemporan with those events.
Lactantius doesnt had any reason to change the name or the origin of those "barbarians" (as Jordanes three centuries later might had) and he knew first hand who was they

[Dan Howard]

Thanks anyway to those "open minded" who posted interesting opinions and views

Having an open mind doesn't mean that you should let your brain fall out. Every time someone wants to talk about the Dacians you hijack the thread and make it impossible to conduct a reasonable discussion. The thread gets cluttered with pages of posts where people have to deal with your unfounded claims before any real discussion can take place.