The Dacians: Rome\'s Greatest Enemy?

[M. Demetrius]

J.Caesar's Legions, most of whom would have been men fresh out of the Gaul campaigns, would probably have been superior fighting quality to other newly-raised Roman legions. So perhaps either a) he knew that and was sure he could go in "light", or b) he was underestimating the forces that the Dacians could field, and/or knew that he could defeat them in detail as they may not have massed one large force, but a few lesser sized armies.

Regardless, we'll never know, since the Senators, all honorable men, saw fit to squelch that campaign. I wonder how the world geography would be different if they had not.

[Nathan Ross]

J.Caesar's Legions, most of whom would have been men fresh out of the Gaul campaigns, would probably have been superior fighting quality to other newly-raised Roman legions.

I think most of Caesar's Gallic legions had been disbanded by that point, and his veterans given land. They were later reenlisted by Octavian and Antony, but as far as Caasar was concerned they'd already done their bit (and many had been dangerously mutinous about the prospect of going to Africa, let alone Parthia!)

The Alaudae legion, and the mysterious Legio Martia, formed part of the Parthia force and were later shipped back across the Adriatic to fight in the civil wars. But the majority of the legions were probably either newly-raised men or formations of ex-Pompeians and assorted others.

[M. Demetrius]

Had Caesar already dispatched his forward units before that ill-fated Ides of March?

[diegis]

I am sorry, i dont have much time either and a previous message was lost for some reason. I will answer just to few things, as post grow in number and can't reply to all properly

Once again time didn't allow me to continue, so I will now.

The first quote(which includes the above quote)with Paulus Orosius has no bearing considering he is referring mostly to Goths. For the rest of the quotes, I have no problem with. I have said multiple times the Dacians were a tough and martial people, I just don't put them at the level you do.

Nope, he clearly refferes to Getae/Dacians, especially when he mention them in relation with Alex the Great, Pyrrhus and Caesar, this is no doubt about. Maybe you want to say about his own time frame, if is correct that in Orosius times Getae to be called Goths, or other way around. This is something we can talk about (again) but its another discussion.

The type of quotes you put down are easy to come by for most peoples of the time:

7 and there were also picked foreign horsemen, who were given the name of Batavians, after the island of Batavia in the Rhine, inasmuch as the Batavians are excellent horsemen. 8 I can not, however, give their exact number any more than I can that of the Evocati. These last-named Augustus began to make a practice of employing from the time when he called again into service against Antony the troops who had served with his father, and he maintained them afterwards; they constitute even now a special corps, and carry rods, like the centurions. Pg.55,24,7

OK, Batavians was excellent horsemen and Germanic warriors was very good. I dont deny that obviously, i just say they wasnt quite that good or scary for real, for the Romans. Still need to see were i had the article of Guy Halsall about how Germans was used as a threat more in Roman propaganda, but for different reasons then a real military threat. Look for example at Vegetius who wrote a military treaty that tried to avoid propaganda and to improve the weakened Roman army of his era.
Look there (I think I already posted the link with quote from him) and see what people or nations he mention there, as whorty to be an example to follow or to remember by Roman legions.

But above all, when Roman authors all over ancient era period said that Mars, the god of war (and mythical father of Roman people) was born among Getae/Dacians, that rule over their lands and that they are his true image kinda end any comparation. When someone is compared with the god of war himself is the ultimate comparation possible to be made, so you must recognize it is at least a bit more then just "excellent horsemen".

I will put another quote from Julianus the Apostate writings (were he write about Trajanus)

<<Oh Zeus and the other gods, when I took over the empire it was in a sort of lethargy and much disordered by the tyranny that had long prevailed at home and by the insolent conduct of the Getae. I alone ventured to attack the tribes beyond the Danube, and I subdued the Getae, the most warlike race that ever existed, which is due partly their phsyical courage, partly to the doctrines that they have adotpted from their admired Zalmoxis. For they believe that they do not die but only change their place of abode, and they meet death more readily than other men undertake a journey. Yet I accomplished that task in a matter of five years or so.>>

“Our men started asking questions and the Gauls and traders replied by describing how tall and strong the Germans were, how unbelievably brave and skillful with weapons. Often, they claimed, when they had met the Germans in battle they had been unable to stand even the way they looked, the sternness of their gaze. Book 1.39 Carolyn Hammond.

There are many more of such quotes from many sources not of just Germani, but of Sarmatians, Celts, Spaniards, etc. etc.

OK, so Gauls was impressed and even quite scared many times when they face Germans in battle.

However, see above what Orosius say, that Alexander the Great, Pyrrhus (also called "the new Alexander") and even Caesar was afraid of Getae/Dacians and even say in public that they must be avoided (and history tell us that they did that).

Again, I think the comparision is favourable to Dacians

[diegis]

In these circumstances Caesar's 'proposed' Dacian campaign appear not merely credible but almost inevitable'. Syme also stresses the fact that even if Burebista were removed and the threat to Italy averted, Caesar's proposed campaigns in the Balkans would not lose their justification...Burebista or not Burebista, this would have to be done sooner or later'.
The accurate examination of Caesar’s military disposition and the number and distribution of the legions made Syme conclude that ‘the army of six legions in Macedonia would be adequate for any operations in the Balkans: and the fact that there were fewer legions available in Macedonia than in all the eastern provinces taken together is really no evidence that the expedition against the Dacians was thought of as easier then or subordinate to the proposed Parthian campaign’. Pg89

I think the authors above might just missed the Appian mention of another 16 legions and 10,000 cavalrymen send by him from Italy to Ilyria in advance of his arrival (which may imply he would come with another small amount of troops, personal guard etc).
If we count as well those 6 legions from Macedonia we see that Roman army gathered at Dacian borders reached 22 legions and at least 10,000 cavalrymen (similar in number with almost another 2 legions). This number come close to army used by Trajan later.

Back then Dacia southern border was on the southern slopes of Haemus mountains reaching Ilyria and Macedonia which Getae/Dacians plundered before, right during the time Caesar was governor of Ilyria for example.
Such army massed at Dacian borders was surely intended to participate to an invasion of Dacia, if not all troops at least most of them

As shown by Tettius Julianus, Dacia didn't need the extreme amount of legions to defeat, and Syme points out that Julius Caesar needed only ‘the army of six legions' for Dacia. I'll have to check on the 16 legions.

Syme seem to have missed those at least other 16 legions and 10,000 cavalrymen that Caesar send from Italia over the Adriatic Sea for this campaign.

And Tettius raid defeated at most a small Dacian army gathered in a hurry at Tapae, he didnt defeated Dacia.
His raid was done right before the end of the season, meaning his intention wasnt at all to conquer anything in Dacia, just to show that Romans can fight back.
He knew he can't defeat Dacia or conquer it, but cleverly chose the autumn for attack, as was the season when crops and fruits are gathered and people prepare themselves for the coming winter (meaning look after fire woods, make repairings at houses, gather food for animals to have over the winter and such).

So he knew the Dacians who made the "big army" was mostly busy, and he can face just the smaller professional/permanent Dacian army, which was as well scatered all over the teritory with garrison duties and such.

As a war oriented society, with a warlike religion, all Dacians was prepared for war and had weapons, is just that just a small part of them was full time soldiers forming a standing permanent army, the others was just part time warriors even if war might have occupy an important period of their time life. To call all people able to fight requires quite a time. If we look at how that was done here in medieval era (and I think it was similar in Dacian times), when enemy army was spotted there was huge fires lightened on top of peaks, forming a chain in several directions (anyway if was rain, fog or low clouds it was more difficult for that). Then guardians in towns or villages used trumpets or drums to announce the people in the town or village that an alarm is raised and they need to prepare for war.

Then people who need to form the army gathered and marched togehter in places already established, were they would meet the king emissaries or generals. When an enough big army was formed they marched were was needed to fight the battle or executed the maneuvres ordered. This require probably more then a week, all over the country, and even if those using horses can move quicker those on foot require more time to gather and march were was needed

Tettius deliberately chose the shorter but much harder road, basing himself on the surprise of his advance. Thats why Dacians managed to gather just a little army at Tapae, a place chosen as good to stop the Romans. This small army was probably made from a part of Dacian garrisons in the area and from locals from that area that was gathered in a hurry. They eventualy may lost to Romans, however seeing how Roman authors avoided to talk about Roman losses or even give any details about the battles with Dacians, and how Domitian celebrated all kind of victories when same authors say that he actually celebrate the loss of his legions, i kinda doubt about such a great Roman success. Especially as Dio inspire himself more probably from Roman propaganda writings of Domitian period. It was probably a tactical victory and as Tettius knew he can't do more anyway and probably sufered himself significant losses he retreated back to Roman forts.

To explain to Roman civilians back home why Roman army didnt do more they invented probably that stuf with Dacian wooden army who scared them and such, so they celebrated anyway something and made it a great victory

Romans kept many troops at the border with Dacia anyway to prevent a new invasion of Decebalus, this being probably the main reason why Domitian lost to Marcomani, against who he goes with a smaller army

[Frostwulf]

Nope, he clearly refferes to Getae/Dacians, especially when he mention them in relation with Alex the Great, Pyrrhus and Caesar, this is no doubt about. Maybe you want to say about his own time frame, if is correct that in Orosius times Getae to be called Goths, or other way around. This is something we can talk about (again) but its another discussion.

This is why I said “mostly”, look again at this quote:

16. O grief! The shame of human error! Women, fleeing from their native land, entered, overran, and destroyed Europe and Asia, the largest and most powerful sections of the world. For almost a hundred years they kept control of these lands by overthrowing many cities and founding others. The blame for the oppression of the times was nevertheless not to be imputed to the utter worthlessness of men. On the contrary, recently these Getae, who are at present also called Goths (Alexander publicly said that they must be shunned, Pyrrhus dreaded them, and even Caesar avoided them), after stripping their homes bare and abandoning them, united their forces in one body and invaded the Roman provinces. By proving themselves to be a menace over a long period of time, these barbarians hoped upon their request to obtain an alliance with Rome—an alliance which they could have won by force of arms. They asked only enough land for a small settlement, not a location which they themselves might choose, but one which we should grant them. These barbarians who were free to take for themselves as much as they wanted, since the whole world was subdued and lay open to them, these barbarians, I say, requested this favor. They who alone were feared by unconquered kingdoms offered now their services to protect the Roman Empire.

Since in their blindness the pagans do not see that these things were brought to pass by Roman virtue, and won through the faith [Christian] of the Romans, they do not believe and are unwilling to acknowledge, though they realize it, that it was through the mediation of the Christian religion, which unites all peoples in the recognition of a common faith, that those barbarians became subject to the Romans without a conflict—those men whose wives had destroyed the greater part of the earth with measureless slaughter.

Everything that I bolded, which would be that which is in parenthesis deals with the Getae, everything else deals with the Goths, hence " recently these Getae, who are at present also called Goths". Where Orosius received his information, I have no idea, or it may have been enhanced at this time due to the fear of the Goths. I do believe when he talks of Caesar he is not referring to Julius(we know Julius was preparing war against the Dacians). Not to mention:

Caesar’s original intention may well have been a Balkan campaign, probably to curb the growing power of the Dacian king Burebista, who was carving out a powerful empire around his heartland in what is now Transylvania. The region was wealthy, and scarcely explored by Roman armies, offering the glory attached to defeating a people never before encountered. He may well have been planning to advance in that direction, both in 58 BC and in later years, but events continued to provide him with ready opportunities for military adventures in Gaul, and the Balkan expedition never took place. Wven so, it never left Caesar’s mind, for he was planning to move against Dacia in 44 BC when he was assassinated. Pg197

So which Caesar Orosius was referring to I don’t know, but probably one facing the Goths, not the Getae.

Still need to see were i had the article of Guy Halsall about how Germans was used as a threat more in Roman propaganda, but for different reasons then a real military threat. Look for example at Vegetius who wrote a military treaty that tried to avoid propaganda and to improve the weakened Roman army of his era.

I'm pretty confident on what Halsall is writing about, and I'm very sure it's along the lines of Drinkwater. You are correct that in many cases that the Germani were used for propaganda reasons, such as Domitian and his Chattian war, or even Julius Caesar and the impending doom of the Germani flooding Gaul(though most do place strong credibility on this). Caesar used this propaganda (though likely true) as an excuse to attack Ariovistus and move on from there. This is also true of Dio and others who were doing the same as Trajanic propaganda (Southern,Jones). The vilification and incompetence leveled at Domitian is unmistakable, therefore all his efforts at war were just about useless(according to the "propagandists").
Regardless, the Teutons/Cimbri/Ambrones were not a threat? The Vandals sacking Rome just propaganda? The Marcomannic war nothing serious? I know what Drinkwater was talking about(I'm fairly sure Halsall as well), and they would say that the Germani were a threat at different times, but they were used for propaganda purposes as well. The same thing could be said of the Dacians, as they were really no more of a local threat.

I will put another quote from Julianus the Apostate writings (were he write about Trajanus)

<<Oh Zeus and the other gods, when I took over the empire it was in a sort of lethargy and much disordered by the tyranny that had long prevailed at home and by the insolent conduct of the Getae. I alone ventured to attack the tribes beyond the Danube, and I subdued the Getae, the most warlike race that ever existed, which is due partly their phsyical courage, partly to the doctrines that they have adotpted from their admired Zalmoxis. For they believe that they do not die but only change their place of abode, and they meet death more readily than other men undertake a journey. Yet I accomplished that task in a matter of five years or so.>>

And if Trajan would have been in Caesars place he would say the same of the Gauls, or the Germani if he had been in Marcus Aurelius's place. Here is an instance of this by Julian himself:

There were Celts and Galatians62 who had seemed invincible even to our ancestors, and who had so often like a winter torrent that sweeps all before it,63 poured down on the Italians and Illyrians, and, following up their repeated victories on the field of battle, had even invaded Asia, and then became our subjects because they had no choice. They had been enrolled in the ranks of our armies and furnished levies that won a brilliant reputation, being enlisted by your ancestors, and, later, by your father. Then, since they enjoyed the blessings of long-continued peace, and their country increased in wealth and population, they furnished your brothers with considerable levies, and finally, by compulsion, not choice, they all in a body took part in the usurper's campaign. The most enthusiastic of his followers were, in virtue of their ties of |91 kinship, the Franks and Saxons, the most warlike of the tribes who live beyond the Rhine and on the shores of the western sea.

Once again this proves not much as things like this are easily found.

From Europe he drew of the Sarmatian tribes, both the Basilidae and the Iazyges, the Coralli, and those Thracians who dwelt along the Danube and on the Rhodope and Haemus mountains, and besides these the Bastarnae, the bravest nation of all. Altogether Mithridates recruited a fighting force of about 140,000 foot and 16,000 horse. A great crowd of road-makers, baggage carriers, and sutlers followed.

The men of that country are naturally passionate, which is commonly the temper of some other of the barbarous nations also, as being not used to consider much about what they do; they are of robust bodies and fall upon their enemies as soon as ever they are attacked by them; and which way soever they go, they perform great exploits. When, therefore, these German guards understood that Caius was slain, they were very sorry for it, because they did not use their reason in judging about public affairs, but measured all by the advantages themselves received, Caius being beloved by them because of the money he gave them, by which he had purchased their kindness to him; so they drew their swords, and Sabinus led them on. Book 19.15

You have shown quotes that say the Dacians were warlike, again this is typical of Celts, Thracians, Germani, Spartans and etc. You can take actual instances(not just sayings) like the Nervii:

But the enemy, even in the last hope of safety, displayed such great courage, that when the foremost of them had fallen, the next stood upon them prostrate, and fought from their bodies; when these were overthrown, and their corpses heaped up together, those who survived cast their weapons against our men [thence], as from a mound, and returned our darts which had fallen short between [the armies]; so that it ought not to be concluded, that men of such great courage had injudiciously dared to pass a very broad river, ascend very high banks, and come up to a very disadvantageous place; since their greatness of spirit had rendered these actions easy, although in themselves very difficult. Book 2

Or perhaps this:

But the enemy, as soon as they saw our horse, the number of which was 5000, whereas they themselves had not more than 800 horse, because those which had gone over the Meuse for the purpose of foraging had not returned, while our men had no apprehensions, because their embassadors had gone away from Caesar a little before, and that day had been requested by them as a period of truce, made an onset on our men, and soon threw them into disorder. When our men, in their turn, made a stand, they, according to their practice, leaped from their horses to their feet, and stabbing our horses in the belly and overthrowing a great many of our men, put the rest to flight, and drove them forward so much alarmed that they did not desist from their retreat till they had come in sight of our army. In that encounter seventy-four of our horse were slain; among them, Piso, an Aquitanian, a most valiant man, and descended from a very illustrious family; whose grandfather had held the sovereignty of his state, and had been styled friend by our senate. He, while he was endeavoring to render assistance to his brother who was surrounded by the enemy, and whom he rescued from danger, was himself thrown from his horse, which was wounded under him, but still opposed [his antagonists] with the greatest intrepidity, as long as he was able to maintain the conflict. When at length he fell, surrounded on all sides and after receiving many wounds, and his brother, who had then retired from the fight, observed it from a distance, he spurred on his horse, threw himself upon the enemy, and was killed.

"Most of the tribes raised horses for riding, which were of a smaller size than most modern mounts but of good quality. Gallic cavalry were famous, and the mounted arm of the professional Roman army would subsequently copy many aspect of equipment, training and terminology from them. However, while very effective in a charge, the cavalry of the tribes, which inevitably consisted of the wealthier warriors, often showed little enthusiasm or aptitude for such important roles as patrolling." pg.204

The Gallic cavalry as others point out as well were famous, again this is something easy to highlight as your quotes of "Mars".

I could go on and talk of other such things like the battle in which the Marcomanni killed over 20,000 Roman troops in one battle, or the multiple wins of the TCA over the Romans, and etc. etc.

OK, so Gauls was impressed and even quite scared many times when they face Germans in battle.

The Romans were also fearful of the Germani as shown by Marius, Caesar and others. In the above instance Caesar had to shame his men into fighting the Germani, and Caesar himself was impressed with them.

However, see above what Orosius say, that Alexander the Great, Pyrrhus (also called "the new Alexander") and even Caesar was afraid of Getae/Dacians and even say in public that they must be avoided (and history tell us that they did that).

Yet Alexander crushed them.I have know idea where Orosius got the information about Pyrrhus saying so, and we don’t know which Caesar. Allot of what was said may have been Orosius's own interpretation, again being influenced by the situation with the Goths.

Again, I think the comparision is favourable to Dacians

Not according to the classical authors and of modern authors:

Both the Dacians and the Getae were perceived as a threat by the Empire, largely after they reached the line of the Danube through conquest, though a threat of no more than local significance. Pg.50

"Caesar threw his Germani into the fray-'some four hundred horsemen he had with him from the beginning'. the Gauls, unable to withstand their onslaught, broke and fled. Caesar's horse guard thus saved him from being trapped in certain defeat.
Holding back reserves until the decisive moment, Caesar had won by tactical skill. It is nevertheless astonishing that only four hundred men made such a difference. They must have been the kind of men Caesar's own army feared, 'huge, unbelievably bold and expert fighters'."pg.12

Local significance compared to actual invasions of Italy and conquest of Rome, well lets read this to:

Chapter thirty-seven has already been mentioned and discussed. Yet it is worth quoting because here above all appears a sense of the great respect that Tacitus and all Romans had for the Germans and what he perhaps hoped Trajan would be able to accomplish against them. Pg37

I have to disagree with you!

[Frostwulf]

I think the authors above might just missed the Appian mention of another 16 legions and 10,000 cavalrymen send by him from Italy to Ilyria in advance of his arrival (which may imply he would come with another small amount of troops, personal guard etc).
If we count as well those 6 legions from Macedonia we see that Roman army gathered at Dacian borders reached 22 legions and at least 10,000 cavalrymen (similar in number with almost another 2 legions). This number come close to army used by Trajan later.

Appian doesn't say all 16 legions and 10,000 cavalry were sent to the Dacian borders, he does say:

And now Caesar, either renouncing his hope, or being tired out, and wishing by this time to avoid this plot and odium, or deliberately giving up the city to certain of his enemies, or hoping to cure his bodily ailment of epilepsy and convulsions, which came upon him suddenly and especially when he was inactive, conceived the idea of a long campaign against the Getae and the Parthians. The Getae, a hardy, warlike, and neighbouring nation, were to be attacked first. The Parthians were to be punished for their perfidy toward Crassus. He sent across the Adriatic in advance sixteen legions of foot and 10,000 horse.Book 2.110

All the above quote says is that he sent them across the Adriatic. What Syme did was find out where they were stationed at. Hence only 6 were slotted for Macedonia for the Dacians and the other 10 were sent to the eastern provinces.

Then people who need to form the army gathered and marched togehter in places already established, were they would meet the king emissaries or generals. When an enough big army was formed they marched were was needed to fight the battle or executed the maneuvres ordered. This require probably more then a week, all over the country, and even if those using horses can move quicker those on foot require more time to gather and march were was needed

I have no problem with this, as I have posted this many times:

“This suggests that the mustering of an army was a long drawn-out process. When faced with an invasion by the army of another tribe, the slow speed of its advance might well have allowed time for a force to be gathered to confront it. When attacked by a small raid or a swift-moving Roman column, this was normally impossible. Pg.45

But now for your thoughts:

And Tettius raid defeated at most a small Dacian army gathered in a hurry at Tapae, he didnt defeated Dacia.
His raid was done right before the end of the season, meaning his intention wasnt at all to conquer anything in Dacia, just to show that Romans can fight back.
He knew he can't defeat Dacia or conquer it, but cleverly chose the autumn for attack, as was the season when crops and fruits are gathered and people prepare themselves for the coming winter (meaning look after fire woods, make repairings at houses, gather food for animals to have over the winter and such).

So he knew the Dacians who made the "big army" was mostly busy, and he can face just the smaller professional/permanent Dacian army, which was as well scatered all over the teritory with garrison duties and such.

Yet you cannot back any of this up.

Tettius deliberately chose the shorter but much harder road, basing himself on the surprise of his advance. Thats why Dacians managed to gather just a little army at Tapae, a place chosen as good to stop the Romans. This small army was probably made from a part of Dacian garrisons in the area and from locals from that area that was gathered in a hurry. They eventualy may lost to Romans, however seeing how Roman authors avoided to talk about Roman losses or even give any details about the battles with Dacians, and how Domitian celebrated all kind of victories when same authors say that he actually celebrate the loss of his legions, i kinda doubt about such a great Roman success. Especially as Dio inspire himself more probably from Roman propaganda writings of Domitian period. It was probably a tactical victory and as Tettius knew he can't do more anyway and probably sufered himself significant losses he retreated back to Roman forts.

And once again nothing you can back up.

You say-"Tettius deliberately chose the shorter but much harder road, basing himself on the surprise of his advance."

The Professionals say:

It is suggested that Julianus based himself at Viminacium when the time came to enter Dacia, since this is the gateway to the heartland, leading to the Dacian stronghold of Sarmizegethusa. This would lead him across the Banat- on the same route that Trajan followed in 101- leading to Tapae on the south-western edge of Transylvania, where the final battle was fought, a victory for the Romans. pg.100

From Viminacium, he led his army across the Banat to the Iron Gates of Transylvania en route for Sarmizegetusa, Decebalus’s capital, and defeated the Dacians at Tapae, presumably late in 88. In Rome Domitian had celebrated the Secular Games, probably in the middle of the year, and also his sixteenth and seventeenth salutations; he may even have been considering another journey to the Danube to accept in person the Dacians’ surrender. Trouble in Germany force a change of plan. Pg.142

These two sources are not the only who say this.

You then say that-"basing himself on the surprise of his advance." While this is possible it is highly unlikely because of these reasons.
1.Dio never said anything about the Romans surprising the Dacians, while he did say that the Romans surprised the Chatti.
2.It took a nearly a year for the troops to arrive, which could not have gone unnoticed by Decebaulus.

Domitian attended to his preparations for the whole of next year. He patiently collected troops and made no rash punitive assaults across the Danube, though the temptation to do so must have been quite strong, even if only to save face with regard both to the Dacians and to the Roman high command. pg.99

After a year’s inaction (87), Domitian was ready to avenge Fuscus. A new governor was appointed to upper Moesia. Vettonianus’s long Balkan posting (Dalmatia, Pannonia, and Upper Moesia in succession from 79/80 to 87/8 was over and he was replaced by his relative Tettius Julianus, another commander with Danubian experience. pg. 142

3.As I said before, is it really possible for 20,000 or so Roman soldiers to have gone unnoticed through this type of terrain? I think not, just as Trajan and Fuscus they would have seen TJ coming and prepared for him.

And finally you say-"Thats why Dacians managed to gather just a little army at Tapae" and "It was probably a tactical victory"

Yet Dio says:

He encountered the enemy at Tapae, and slew great numbers of them. One of them, Vezinas, who ranked next to Decebalus, finding that he could not get away alive, fell down purposely, as if dead; in this manner he escaped notice and fled during the night. 3 Decebalus, fearing that the Romans, now that they had conquered, would proceed against his royal residence, cut down the trees that were on the site and put armour on the trunks, in order that the Romans might take them for soldiers and so be frightened and withdraw; and this actually happened. Book LXVII.10

Great numbers(not little army) were slain and that the Romans had conquered is quite clear that there was a large army of Dacians that were crushed by Tettius Julianus were in effect conquered, had it not been for the lateness of season.

Had your theory been correct, Decebalus would not have continued to entreat Domitian and while the Romans were getting defeated by the Marcomanni he would have continued to raid Moesia. Sorry your theory makes no sense in light of everything written.

Romans kept many troops at the border with Dacia anyway to prevent a new invasion of Decebalus, this being probably the main reason why Domitian lost to Marcomani, against who he goes with a smaller army

Well that's hard to say, according to P.Southern there was only 2 legions(perhaps up to 9 vex. from other legions) but certainly later on:

In the last years of Domitian’s reign, then, there was a notable concentration of forces on the middle Danube. Five legions in Pannonia, numerous auxiliaries in Upper Moesia (presumably to deal with the possibility of intervention from Dacia) and vexillations from legions normally stationed outside the province assume a foe, not Dacia, but the Germani et Sarmatae. Appropriate senior appointment and transfers were made. Attention was paid first to the Sarmatians and later to the Suebi. By October 97 it was all over. Pg155

Regardless as shown by Tettius Julianus around 4 legions was all that was needed to conquer Dacia, and as Syme and Lica point out the 6 legions of Caesar were adequate.

[diegis]

As usual dont have much time so I will reply you now just to this

This is why I said “mostly”, look again at this quote:

16. O grief! The shame of human error! Women, fleeing from their native land, entered, overran, and destroyed Europe and Asia, the largest and most powerful sections of the world. For almost a hundred years they kept control of these lands by overthrowing many cities and founding others. The blame for the oppression of the times was nevertheless not to be imputed to the utter worthlessness of men. On the contrary, recently these Getae, who are at present also called Goths (Alexander publicly said that they must be shunned, Pyrrhus dreaded them, and even Caesar avoided them), after stripping their homes bare and abandoning them, united their forces in one body and invaded the Roman provinces. By proving themselves to be a menace over a long period of time, these barbarians hoped upon their request to obtain an alliance with Rome—an alliance which they could have won by force of arms. They asked only enough land for a small settlement, not a location which they themselves might choose, but one which we should grant them. These barbarians who were free to take for themselves as much as they wanted, since the whole world was subdued and lay open to them, these barbarians, I say, requested this favor. They who alone were feared by unconquered kingdoms offered now their services to protect the Roman Empire.

Since in their blindness the pagans do not see that these things were brought to pass by Roman virtue, and won through the faith [Christian] of the Romans, they do not believe and are unwilling to acknowledge, though they realize it, that it was through the mediation of the Christian religion, which unites all peoples in the recognition of a common faith, that those barbarians became subject to the Romans without a conflict—those men whose wives had destroyed the greater part of the earth with measureless slaughter.

Everything that I bolded, which would be that which is in parenthesis deals with the Getae, everything else deals with the Goths, hence " recently these Getae, who are at present also called Goths". Where Orosius received his information, I have no idea, or it may have been enhanced at this time due to the fear of the Goths. I do believe when he talks of Caesar he is not referring to Julius(we know Julius was preparing war against the Dacians). Not to mention:

Caesar’s original intention may well have been a Balkan campaign, probably to curb the growing power of the Dacian king Burebista, who was carving out a powerful empire around his heartland in what is now Transylvania. The region was wealthy, and scarcely explored by Roman armies, offering the glory attached to defeating a people never before encountered. He may well have been planning to advance in that direction, both in 58 BC and in later years, but events continued to provide him with ready opportunities for military adventures in Gaul, and the Balkan expedition never took place. Wven so, it never left Caesar’s mind, for he was planning to move against Dacia in 44 BC when he was assassinated. Pg197

So which Caesar Orosius was referring to I don’t know, but probably one facing the Goths, not the Getae.

First, Goths was made in majority from Getae/Dacians, but thats another discussion. Lets focus now on Caesar vs Getae.
I gived you just primary sources, which some of historians you quoted seem to not know or connect them or you seem to not quote them properly.
So let me tell you again. When Caesar was governor of Ilyria (and Galia Cisalpina and Transalpina) Dacians used to plunder at will Roman provinces as Macedonia and Ilyria, as Strabo I think say. However, Caesar, which was the governor in Ilyria, avoided to make any campaign against Dacians.
He abandoned the situation in Ilyria and chose a weaker, more easier prey, Ariovistus and Gauls, both to escape the pressure home because of his inaction against Dacians, and to get some money and glory as he wasnt quite OK financially from what i understand. Going against Getae he knew he have more chances to end at least without any glory or money if not worse. This was obvious for people back then and some write about it of course, and Orosius probably quote from those lost writings (not to mention Caesar arranged his biography to look good)

When Caesar became Dictator on life (Emperor, just not officially) and had all the Roman army at his comand, just then he considered is able to attack Getae/Dacians. For this, beside those 6 legions already in Macedonia (and I assume there was some troops in Illyira as well) he send from Italy in Illyria (this is over the Adriatic) another 16 legions and 10,000 cavalrymen. Appian said he send those troops in advance of his arrival (so is possible he may come with some others too) for the attack of Dacia, first in his list, second beeing Parthia.
Such army is close in numbers to that of Trajan in his Dacian wars and show how hard enemy they was seen by Caesar

I'm pretty confident on what Halsall is writing about, and I'm very sure it's along the lines of Drinkwater. You are correct that in many cases that the Germani were used for propaganda reasons, such as Domitian and his Chattian war, or even Julius Caesar and the impending doom of the Germani flooding Gaul(though most do place strong credibility on this). Caesar used this propaganda (though likely true) as an excuse to attack Ariovistus and move on from there. This is also true of Dio and others who were doing the same as Trajanic propaganda (Southern,Jones). The vilification and incompetence leveled at Domitian is unmistakable, therefore all his efforts at war were just about useless(according to the "propagandists").
Regardless, the Teutons/Cimbri/Ambrones were not a threat? The Vandals sacking Rome just propaganda? The Marcomannic war nothing serious? I know what Drinkwater was talking about(I'm fairly sure Halsall as well), and they would say that the Germani were a threat at different times, but they were used for propaganda purposes as well. The same thing could be said of the Dacians, as they were really no more of a local threat.

Teutoni and Cimbri was a threat, indeed. But that was mostly because of the stupidity of the patricians from Roman Senate who refused to let Marius to deal with them from the first time and keep sending all kind of incompetent generals on only base that they have a noble origin. Anyway, after that Germans was more of a threat in propaganda then for real. Thats why for example Vegetius dont mention them (or Celts for that matter) in his De Re Militari.
Later period, when Roman empire was at the end, thats another matter

<<Oh Zeus and the other gods, when I took over the empire it was in a sort of lethargy and much disordered by the tyranny that had long prevailed at home and by the insolent conduct of the Getae. I alone ventured to attack the tribes beyond the Danube, and I subdued the Getae, the most warlike race that ever existed, which is due partly their phsyical courage, partly to the doctrines that they have adotpted from their admired Zalmoxis. For they believe that they do not die but only change their place of abode, and they meet death more readily than other men undertake a journey. Yet I accomplished that task in a matter of five years or so.>>

And if Trajan would have been in Caesars place he would say the same of the Gauls, or the Germani if he had been in Marcus Aurelius's place. Here is an instance of this by Julian himself:

There were Celts and Galatians62 who had seemed invincible even to our ancestors, and who had so often like a winter torrent that sweeps all before it,63 poured down on the Italians and Illyrians, and, following up their repeated victories on the field of battle, had even invaded Asia, and then became our subjects because they had no choice. They had been enrolled in the ranks of our armies and furnished levies that won a brilliant reputation, being enlisted by your ancestors, and, later, by your father. Then, since they enjoyed the blessings of long-continued peace, and their country increased in wealth and population, they furnished your brothers with considerable levies, and finally, by compulsion, not choice, they all in a body took part in the usurper's campaign. The most enthusiastic of his followers were, in virtue of their ties of |91 kinship, the Franks and Saxons, the most warlike of the tribes who live beyond the Rhine and on the shores of the western sea.

Once again this proves not much as things like this are easily found.

From Europe he drew of the Sarmatian tribes, both the Basilidae and the Iazyges, the Coralli, and those Thracians who dwelt along the Danube and on the Rhodope and Haemus mountains, and besides these the Bastarnae, the bravest nation of all. Altogether Mithridates recruited a fighting force of about 140,000 foot and 16,000 horse. A great crowd of road-makers, baggage carriers, and sutlers followed.

The men of that country are naturally passionate, which is commonly the temper of some other of the barbarous nations also, as being not used to consider much about what they do; they are of robust bodies and fall upon their enemies as soon as ever they are attacked by them; and which way soever they go, they perform great exploits. When, therefore, these German guards understood that Caius was slain, they were very sorry for it, because they did not use their reason in judging about public affairs, but measured all by the advantages themselves received, Caius being beloved by them because of the money he gave them, by which he had purchased their kindness to him; so they drew their swords, and Sabinus led them on. Book 19.15

You have shown quotes that say the Dacians were warlike, again this is typical of Celts, Thracians, Germani, Spartans and etc. You can take actual instances(not just sayings) like the Nervii:

But the enemy, even in the last hope of safety, displayed such great courage, that when the foremost of them had fallen, the next stood upon them prostrate, and fought from their bodies; when these were overthrown, and their corpses heaped up together, those who survived cast their weapons against our men [thence], as from a mound, and returned our darts which had fallen short between [the armies]; so that it ought not to be concluded, that men of such great courage had injudiciously dared to pass a very broad river, ascend very high banks, and come up to a very disadvantageous place; since their greatness of spirit had rendered these actions easy, although in themselves very difficult. Book 2

Or perhaps this:

But the enemy, as soon as they saw our horse, the number of which was 5000, whereas they themselves had not more than 800 horse, because those which had gone over the Meuse for the purpose of foraging had not returned, while our men had no apprehensions, because their embassadors had gone away from Caesar a little before, and that day had been requested by them as a period of truce, made an onset on our men, and soon threw them into disorder. When our men, in their turn, made a stand, they, according to their practice, leaped from their horses to their feet, and stabbing our horses in the belly and overthrowing a great many of our men, put the rest to flight, and drove them forward so much alarmed that they did not desist from their retreat till they had come in sight of our army. In that encounter seventy-four of our horse were slain; among them, Piso, an Aquitanian, a most valiant man, and descended from a very illustrious family; whose grandfather had held the sovereignty of his state, and had been styled friend by our senate. He, while he was endeavoring to render assistance to his brother who was surrounded by the enemy, and whom he rescued from danger, was himself thrown from his horse, which was wounded under him, but still opposed [his antagonists] with the greatest intrepidity, as long as he was able to maintain the conflict. When at length he fell, surrounded on all sides and after receiving many wounds, and his brother, who had then retired from the fight, observed it from a distance, he spurred on his horse, threw himself upon the enemy, and was killed.

"Most of the tribes raised horses for riding, which were of a smaller size than most modern mounts but of good quality. Gallic cavalry were famous, and the mounted arm of the professional Roman army would subsequently copy many aspect of equipment, training and terminology from them. However, while very effective in a charge, the cavalry of the tribes, which inevitably consisted of the wealthier warriors, often showed little enthusiasm or aptitude for such important roles as patrolling." pg.204

The Gallic cavalry as others point out as well were famous, again this is something easy to highlight as your quotes of "Mars".[/quote][/quote]

Gosh, comparing someone with Mars, the god of war, is the ultimate praise for their martial qualities. And Romans compared only one nation with Mars (beside them, as Mars was their mythological father), and that was Getae/Dacians. This alone should end any discussion

Bastarne was "the bravest of all nations" quoted there, meaning beside them the Sarmatian tribes, both the Basilidae and the Iazyges, the Coralli, and those Thracians who dwelt along the Danube and on the Rhodope and Haemus mountains.

The Romans were also fearful of the Germani as shown by Marius, Caesar and others. In the above instance Caesar had to shame his men into fighting the Germani, and Caesar himself was impressed with them.

Marius wasnt for sure afraid of them. And about Caesar just keep in mind he avoided the Getae/Dacians but go with no problem against Suebii of Ariovistus and even go over the Rhine in proper Germania. Just later when he became the sole ruler of Rome he planned to finally fight Dacians, but for that he assembled a huge army

Yet Alexander crushed them.I have know idea where Orosius got the information about Pyrrhus saying so, and we don’t know which Caesar. Allot of what was said may have been Orosius's own interpretation, again being influenced by the situation with the Goths.

:-D no offence my friend, but what on earth are you talking about? Alexander didnt crush anything (maybe just some crops according to ancient authors), he had a campaign of just one day over the Danube. He managed to pass the big river by surprise and so he surprised the Dacian army who retreated, evacuating a nearby town along the way. Macedonians plundered quickly the emptied town but carefully not followed the Dacians (even if those was supposedly slowed down) for a fight deeper in their teritory. Imediatly after that and before the night fall Alex take his army back to south of Danube, and then prefered to sign a treaty with Dacians instead of make any other military move against them.
And he even say publicly that Dacians must be shunned, as Orosius mentioned (using probably sources that are lost today)

So he saw and feel something that make him think twice before go to a war against Getae. This proved to be a correct decision, as his general Zopyrion, left in charge in Thracia will be killed later with all his army (30,000 soldiers) by Getae. Then Lysimachos, one of the Diadochi, was defeated twice. In last campaign he used an army as big as 100,000 soldiers according with contemporary sources (posibly an exageration, but still an army at least as big as the one used by Alex in his Persia campaign if made such impression to contemproans). Getae king was Dromichaites who used a strategy that was a masterpiece that allowed him to kill and capture all Macedonian army, including Lysimachus, with little to none losses for him.
So yes, Pyrrhus dread the Getae after all these, and tried his luck against the Romans

Both the Dacians and the Getae were perceived as a threat by the Empire, largely after they reached the line of the Danube through conquest, though a threat of no more than local significance. Pg.50

An archaeologist Lady with not a broad knowledge of military history and still a little affected by the usual Romanophilia that most of Romanian historians suffer most of the time.
I will go with Strobel or Schmitz on this, and make my own idea by comparing periods, number of troops, primary sources and battles.

Local significance compared to actual invasions of Italy and conquest of Rome, well lets read this to:
I have to disagree with you!

Celts invaded Italy when Rome was a small town with some agricultural land around. Germans (but I will not include Goths here, as they was clearly a very mixed population with a significant Dacian component) make troubles to Romans when they (the Romans) was at the down of they era, plagued by huge internal problems and a shadow of their prime time, especially the western empire.
Dacians/Getae was their main enemy when Romans was going at the peak of their power, starting with Caesar and going up to Trajan.
And Romans offer them the ultimate praise, considering them the true image of Mars, their mythical father and god of war who was born among Dacians/Getae, the most warlike race that ever existed, living in a land ruled by the same god of war.

This is way much more then simple excellent horsemen and brave warriors

[Burzum]

No way.

If we going to label a true enemy and one that actually proved to be a thorn in the Roman empire, I'll have to say the Celts and Picts.

The Teuteberg massacre and battles similar were once off incidents and poorly led by low quality command.

If we see the financial contraints that Roman Britannia put the Empire through, then we see the first signs of a diminishing empire. And this vividly accurate but this is a theory more than a opinion of mine.

As far as actual historical evidence for this is concerned, I think one needs to look at what happened to the Empire after the fall of Boadicea, the Empire after that battle went through gradual decline in incremental stages.

I know for a fact that Nero poured tons of denari into the battle of Britannia it actually wasn't necessary and proved to be a huge waste of funds that were with out a doubt needed to secure other areas of Rome's Empire. It was because the Romans clinged onto Britannia and kept pouring denari into it, it actually drained her and put her into a debt crisis.

I mean we talk about recession now, that was the start of it. Britannia gave birth to an ancient recession, and I see nothing has changed even today LMAO.


I am not saying it was the soul cause of the decline, no, there was the entire empire causing it, but Britannia that Nero and others had a fetish with, ultimately caused the unseen force that pushed the Empire in a dreaded economical collapse.

[Burzum]

Had Caesar already dispatched his forward units before that ill-fated Ides of March?

We would of seen an Empire larger than Alexander's.

Seriously, I know this.


Caesar admired the feats and achievements of Alexander the Great. And he pledged he would be greater, and he was.

I will even go as far as to say that would of seen a Roman Empire clash with the Han dynasty.

[Dan Howard]

Take a look at how long it took to subdue Gaul compared to Dacia. One of my lecturers said that if you examine the Consuls list during the time in question you'll see at least one consul posted to Gaul almost every year for the best part of a century trying to pacify the natives.

[M. Demetrius]

Had Caesar already dispatched his forward units before that ill-fated Ides of March?

We would of seen an Empire larger than Alexander's.

Seriously, I know this.

The question is not answered by this and the following. Did Julius Caesar actually have his forward units in the area as a preliminary investment, prior to the proposed Parthian campaign, before he was assassinated? That's the question.

[Burzum]

Had Caesar already dispatched his forward units before that ill-fated Ides of March?

We would of seen an Empire larger than Alexander's.

Seriously, I know this.

The question is not answered by this and the following. Did Julius Caesar actually have his forward units in the area as a preliminary investment, prior to the proposed Parthian campaign, before he was assassinated? That's the question.

Ah, I didn't see on page 5 what the question was.

My bad.

But, what legio X was a force Caesar levied to conquer other lands to pay off a personal debt of Caesar's, evolved and fought along side other legions to be a conquering force that would of ultimately and may have created a Roman empire considerably larger than the one Alexander made.

[M. Demetrius]

No doubt Leg XE was a solid, experienced legion. They also were involved in the mutiny at the end of De Bello Gallico. Some of that legion may have stayed in service, but didn't the bulk of it retire and take pension? Wasn't that the reason they were mutinying in the first place?

Then the reformed LXE sided with Marcus Antonius in the Augustan Civil War, and lost their preeminent status. At least that's one version of their history.

[Burzum]

No doubt Leg XE was a solid, experienced legion. They also were involved in the mutiny at the end of De Bello Gallico. Some of that legion may have stayed in service, but didn't the bulk of it retire and take pension? Wasn't that the reason they were mutinying in the first place?

Then the reformed LXE sided with Marcus Antonius in the Augustan Civil War, and lost their preeminent status. At least that's one version of their history.

Yeah.


For me, I would like to think that legio X would of become a legion of triarii.

Caesar would of kept these men as his guard. I don't think they would of hung their swords and called it quits.

Because of the power gained he would of levied and deployed other legions on the battlefield. But legio X would of remained that special legion devoted to Caesar till the very end.

.