The Dacians: Rome\'s Greatest Enemy?

[diegis]

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

I sympathize with you, as I have the same problem, hence the time between my replies.

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.

You gave me "some" primary sources, certainly not all. This is the reason I seek the professional opinion because they generally have the bigger picture, as you will now see. It was not they nor I(not quoting them properly) that the mistake is with.

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. 7.3.11

Roman provinces were not raided during the reign of Burebista:

And he began to be formidable even to the Romans, because he would cross the Ister with impunity and plunder Thrace as far as Macedonia and the Illyrian country; and he not only laid waste the country of the Celti who were intermingled2 with the Thracians and the Illyrians, but actually caused the complete disappearance of the Boii3 who were under the rule of Critasirus,4 and also of the Taurisci.5 To help him secure the complete obedience of his tribe he had as his coadjutor

He plundered as "far as" but not including Macedonia and Illyria(least not the Roman part). Have another quote about this further down. Please note, this is of Burebista as king, nothing before or after.

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.

Here is Goldsworthy's quote which you may think I posted incorrectly:

In 58 BC it was not obvious where Caesar’s campaigns would lead him. He had first been granted Cisalpine Gaul and Illyricum as his province, and Transalpine Gaul was only added after the sudden death of its governor. 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. Even so, it never left Caesar’s mind, for he was planning to move against Dacia in 44 BC when he was assassinated. Pg197

As you see he is hardly ignorant of the situation of Caesar and Illyricum, he also in earlier pages explains in detail how Caesar achieved getting Cisalpine Gaul, Illyricum and Transalpine Gaul.

So why does Goldsworthy, Matthias Gelzer(Caesar Politician and Statesman pg.82), James Sabben-Clare, C.Matthias(Caesar,C. Goudinau (Cesar et la Gaule) come to this conclusion of Caesar preparing to attack Burebista:

The province of Illyria incorporated little more than the strip of Dalmatian coast captured at the end of the third century and spasmodically patrolled thereafter so as to discourage piracy. The hinterland was not conquered until the time of Augustus. The country as a whole was extremely poor, but because of its proximity to Italy was sometimes treated as a training area for Roman arms. Pg.38

The province of Illyria by itself could not offer Caesar very much scope and it seems more likely that his reason for taking it was to enable him to come to grips with the expanding empire of the Getae. These people came from the Danube basin and seem to have been spreading their influence westwards at about this time under their king Burebistas. Pg39

Yet in the spring of 58 BC there was every sign that Caesar was wrong-footed by the Helvetii. Perhaps he had been surprised by the timing of the migration, or maybe its sheer scale. He had four legions at his command, but only one of these was in Transalpine Gaul. The remaining three were camped near Aquileia on the border of Cisalpine Gaul nearest to Illyricum. It is not known who stationed the troops there, but even if it had not been Caesar, then he had made no effort to alter this disposition. Even when he hastened to the Rhone he made no effort to send new orders to these troops. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that he was still thinking very much in terms of a Balkan campaign. Perhaps it was only when he arrived near Geneva that he appreciated the full scale of the problem. The Helvetii and the allied clans who joined them in the migration had piled their possessions into wagons and set off with great purpose. Pg.209

Caesar’s Illyrian provance is easily forgotten in face of his achievements in Gaul, but it had been assigned to him before Transalpine Gaul and it did offer immediate prospects of conquest; what is more, at the beginning of his command he had three legions stationed at Aquileia, the natural starting point for any campaign beyond the north-east frontier. Pg.66

Caesar was given governorship in 59 and was married shortly after that. He had 3 legions in place that could strike NE, so why didn't he? Well as Goldsworthy already stated the Helvetii came into play and Caesar had to force march north to meet the menace.

The situation that developed in Gaul effectively prevented Caesar from undertaking an Illyrian campaign at this time (see next chapter). However when thirteen years later his supremacy was finally established at Rome, he seems to have planned another eastern offensive, which may shed some light on his intentions in 58. Pg.41

After the Belgian campaign Caesar regarded the conquest of Gaul as virtually complete (see below), and he could take another look at the Illyrian situation. As a preliminary he sent Galba to open a route through the Alps which would give his troops direct access to Cisalpine Gaul and beyond, while he himself conducted a personal reconnaissance (winter 57/56). Pg.66

Caesar even went to Illyricum, why bother if he was afraid? The Roman territory was not yet in jeopardy. There are other things to consider, such as just before the civil war Caesar(or at least his allies) were willing to give up Gaul, but not Illyria! Then of course there is this:

I think that other Illyrian tribes besides those mentioned had previously come under Roman rule, but how, I do not know. Augustus did not describe the transactions of others so much as his own, telling how he brought back those who had revolted and compelled them again to pay tribute, how he subjugated others that had been independent from the beginning, and how he mastered all the tribes that inhabit the summits of the Alps, barbarous and warlike peoples, who often plundered the neighboring parts of Italy.

It is a wonder to me that so many great Roman armies traversing the Alps to conquer the Gauls and Spaniards, should have overlooked these tribes, and that even Gaius [Julius] Caesar, that most successful man of war, did not dispatch them during the ten years that he was fighting the Gauls and wintering in that very country. But the Romans seem to have been intent only upon getting through the Alpine region on the business they were bestirring themselves about, and Caesar seems to have delayed putting an end to the Illyrian troubles on account of the Gallic war and the strife with Pompey, which closely followed it. It appears that he was chosen commander of Illyria as well as of Gaul - not the whole of it, but as much as was then under Roman rule. [§15]

Yes this is speaking of the Illyrians, but if he couldn't take care of them because of the Gallic war and Pompey, he hardly could have gone after the Dacians either.

Thanks, I still have no much time for proper answer (and sorry RAT, for me the reply system look a little awkward

More on topic now, as you can see in the quote from Strabo Burebista "laid waste" of the teritories of Celts (meaning Scordisci) that was mingled with Thracians and Illyrians. That means Dacians raided the teritories of Illyria as well. And he caused the "complete dissapereance" of Boii and Tauriscii
And this happened before Caesar turn his attention to Gaul or Helveti. In fact he mentioned in his writings that he found there (in Helvetia) some remains of the Boii who tooked refuge there after Dacian campaign in Central Europe.

In other words, the expansion of Dacians/Getae in the Balkans and central Europe including the destructions of the Celts intermingled with Illyrians, Illyria being the province under Caesar governship, happened before the problem with Helveti or Ariovistus.
Caesar had the time to intervene against Getae/Dacians, who as your quote from Goldsworth said, offered the glory (and even wealth) desired by Caesar.
Yet he avoided that, and took profit of the new situation with Helveti and Ariovistus Suebii to turn west.

This must not escaped to Roman authors and they write about it so we hear about from Paulus Orosius, who clearly say that Caesar avoided the Getae/Dacians. Sure, Caesar arranged his biography when he became the sole ruler of Rome

Now about his 16 legions army and Syme book that Nathan posted.
As he disagree with Strobel I dare to disagree as well with Syme. First of all, from a military point of view is illogical to spread the legions all over and not concetrate them were is needed. I mean, if Caesar wanted to attack Dacia and then Parthia, why the heck he kept 3 legions in Egypt?
Apian clearly said that those 16 legions and 10,000 cavalrymen was sent in advance (which mean is possible Caesar to come later with even more troops) from Italy over Adriatic Sea, meaning in Illyria.
This mean those was troops raised in Italia for this war, or concentrated in Italia before to be send in Illyria (and Macedonia). At the death of Caesar is possible that the core of that army, 6 legions with lots of archers and cavalry to be placed already in Macedonia, and some 10 more to be placed in Illyria, In Syme book it is even mentioned the probabilty that some 10 legions to participated to the pacification and conqueirng of Panonia and Illyria.

Is very possible that after Caesar's death those 10 legions from Illyria to be called back in Italia, disbanded, send to other areas, took over by one or others from the camps that was formed.
And the army from Macedonia to still remain in place until MArcus Antonius took over the comand.

This is more logical in my opinion, then Syme hyopthesis with Appian doesnt know what he talking about and confusing an army sent in Illyira with the whole Roman army in eastern provinces

[diegis]

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.

The fable of Mars is fine, I believe it started with Virgil and grew from there(I could be wrong). The quote you use for Trajan is comical, and I mean that in a real sense. I read where it came from, a comedy written by Julian!

Julian The Caesars :
http://www.attalus.org/translate/caesars.html#320
The emperor Julian wrote this short comic sketch on the occasion of the Saturnalia, in December 361 A.D. It describes a contest between the Roman emperors, with Alexander the Great called in as an extra contestant, in the presence of the assembled gods. The conversation allows Julian to pass judgement concisely on many of his predecessors.

Stung by the taunt, since he was not deficient in eloquence, though intemperance often made him seem more stupid than he was, Trajanus began again. "O Zeus and ye 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 to their physical courage, partly to the doctrines that they have adopted from their admired Zamolxis. 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. [328] That of all the Emperors who came before me I was regarded as the mildest in the treatment of my subjects, is I imagine, obvious, and neither Caesar here nor any other will dispute it with me. Against the Parthians I thought I ought not to employ force until they had put themselves in the wrong, but when they did so I marched against them, undeterred by my age, though the laws would have allowed me to quit the service. Since then the facts are as I have said, do I not deserve to be honoured before all the rest, first because I was so mild to my subjects, secondly because more than others I inspired terror in my country's foes, thirdly because I revered your daughter divine Phiosophy?" When Trajanus had finished this speech the gods decided that he excelled all the rest in clemency; and evidently this was a virtue peculiarly pleasing to them.

Trajan never said that, it was all made up by Julian as a comedy!

Now lets talk about real history:

In the same winding tract of Germany live the Cimbrians, close to the ocean; a community now very small, but great in fame. Nay, of their ancient renown, many and extensive are the traces and monuments still remaining; even their entrenchments upon either shore, so vast in compass that from thence you may even now measure the greatness and numerous bands of that people, and assent to the account of an army so mighty. It was on the six hundred and fortieth year of Rome, when of the arms of the Cimbrians the first mention was made, during the Consulship of Caecilius Metellus and Papirius Carbo. If from that time we count to the second Consulship of the Emperor Trajan, the interval comprehends near two hundred and ten years; so long have we been conquering Germany. In a course of time, so vast between these two periods, many have been the blows and disasters suffered on each side. In truth neither from the Samnites, nor from the Carthaginians, nor from both Spains, nor from all the nations of Gaul, have we received more frequent checks and alarms; nor even from the Parthians: for, more vigorous and invincible is the liberty of the Germans than the monarchy of the Arsacides. Indeed, what has the power of the East to allege to our dishonour; but the fall of Crassus, that power which was itself overthrown and abased by Ventidius, with the loss of the great King Pacorus bereft of his life? But by the Germans the Roman People have been bereft of five armies, all commanded by Consuls; by the Germans, the commanders of these armies, Carbo, and Cassius, and Scaurus Aurelius, and Servilius Caepio, as also Marcus Manlius, were all routed or taken: by the Germans even the Emperor Augustus was bereft of Varus and three legions. Nor without difficulty and loss of men were they defeated by Caius Marius in Italy, or by the deified Julius in Gaul, or by Drusus or Tiberius or Germanicus in their native territories. Soon after, the mighty menaces of Caligula against them ended in mockery and derision. Thenceforward they continued quiet, till taking advantage of our domestic division and civil wars, they stormed and seized the winter entrenchments of the legions, and aimed at the dominion of Gaul; from whence they were once more expulsed, and in the times preceding the present, we gained a triumph over them rather than a victory.

This book was written around 98 AD, and in this chapter he mentions Samnites, Carthaginians, Gauls, Parthians and Spaniards, all very potent enemies. This is around 120 years after Burebista and around 10 years after Decebalus and no mention about the Dacians when talking about their fiercest enemies. Probably because Tacitus was worried about threats to Rome, not just threats of a locality.

Tacitus mentioned "armies" lost in Moesia and Dacia, and the reason we dont see much of his writings about Dacians is this:

<< Orosius, Historiae adversum pagano, Book 7
"I would like to tell in detail of the great battles fought by the Dacian king Diurpaneus against the general Fuscus, as well as of the extent of the Roman losses. But Cornelius Tacitus, who wrote an exhaustive history of these events, has declared that Sallustius Crispus and very many other authors established the practice of keeping silence about the numbers of the slain, and that he himself preferred to do likewise.">>

It was probably too humiliating for Romans to write about this war, especially as it ended with them paying tribute (first time in the history of the Empire) and still having the standards lost in battles in the hands of the enemy

About Julian the Apostate, well, that phrase appear in a book intended to be a satire, but is not something he made up because as I posted previously others said the same thing before (and after) him, regarding Dacians/Getae.

Like Vegetius for example. The quotes from him, were Celts or Germans appear, talk about the bravery or skill of older Romans, who win against those even if Celts was more numerous or Germans was of large build, or Iberians had greater physicall strenght.
When he mention Dacians however, he mention them as an example to be look at (and to be followed) by the Roman legions of his time, alongiside Macedonians, Spartans or older Romans. This is the part were Germans or Celts are not included

[Nathan Ross]

Is very possible that after Caesar's death those 10 legions from Illyria to be called back in Italia, disbanded, send to other areas, took over by one or others from the camps that was formed.

Unlikely, I think. Such a large force would need a commander appointed by the senate, even to disband them, and such an individual would have been very powerful if the legions in question were anywhere close to Italy. No such person is mentioned in the sources. Antony, too, would have been keener to get his hands on ten legions rather than six!

More likely, then, that such a force, if it existed in a cohesive group, was too far away to be useable in an Italian conflict (already in Syria, for example), or, as Syme suggests, that it was split up all over the eastern empire and only the six legions in Macedonia were kept together.

Of course, there's still the possibility of a transcription error in Appian - the first 'sixteen legions' sent out should have been the 'six legions' that returned...

(and sorry RAT, for me the reply system look a little awkward

It might be neater if you just quoted the part(s) of other people's posts you were replying to, rather than the whole thing! ;-)

[diegis]

Now few more quotes from ancient authors

Lucanus - Pharsalia book II
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text...card%3D234

<<O superi, motura Dahas ut clade Getasque,
Securo me, Roma cadat.>>

This is roguely translated as
<< Oh, heavenly gods, protect me if by some disater the Dacians and the Getae will move (against us) and Rome will fall>>

This was supposedly Cato saying this, and it show the fear of Romans during civil war, that Dacians/Getae will set in motion and will bring down Rome

And now about Getae king Dromichaetes vs the diadoch Lysimachus (is from Polyaenus: Stratagems - BOOK 7 )

http://www.attalus.org/translate/polyaenus7.html#25.1

<<Dromichaetes was king of Thrace, and Lysimachus was king of Macedonia. When Lysimachus made war on Thrace, Dromichaetes used the following stratagem against him. Seuthes, his general, pretended to resent some insult which he had received from the Thracian king, and deserted to Lysimachus. Lysimachus trusted his loyalty, and followed his directions. But Seuthes brought the Macedonian army into such a situation, that they had to contend at the same time with famine, thirst and a powerful enemy. Dromichaetes took the opportunity to attack them when they were in this situation. Although the Macedonian army is reported to have amounted to a hundred thousand men, he defeated them with great slaughter, and took Lysimachus prisoner.>>

As I said before, this is a masterpiece of military strategy that will amaze Sun Tzi as well.
Deceiveing the enemy, infiltrating him and luring him in some bad areas and weakening him even before the battle to begin, guide him right at the place you chose for the battle and make him to get in a bad position, then attack and destroy him despite his huge number.

This war was the brutal ending of Hellenistic expansion north of Haemus (Balkans) mountains. Lysimachus escaped by giving Dromichaetes the teritories he wished and his daughter as wife, and Greeks never returned with an army here.
This was the war that made Pyrrhus to dread the Getae and turn west to attack Romans instead.
So Alex the Great knew well whats about when he said in public that the Getae must to be shunned, and Caesar as well when he avoided them at first, when he had just 4 legions under his command

[diegis]

Is very possible that after Caesar's death those 10 legions from Illyria to be called back in Italia, disbanded, send to other areas, took over by one or others from the camps that was formed.

Unlikely, I think. Such a large force would need a commander appointed by the senate, even to disband them, and such an individual would have been very powerful if the legions in question were anywhere close to Italy. No such person is mentioned in the sources. Antony, too, would have been keener to get his hands on ten legions rather than six!

More likely, then, that such a force, if it existed in a cohesive group, was too far away to be useable in an Italian conflict (already in Syria, for example), or, as Syme suggests, that it was split up all over the eastern empire and only the six legions in Macedonia were kept together.

Of course, there's still the possibility of a transcription error in Appian - the first 'sixteen legions' sent out should have been the 'six legions' that returned...

Well, we know that camps started to be formed, with Brutus and Cassius on one side and Antonius and Octavianus on the other side, plus the Senat, Dolabela and such. It was a chaotic situation there and we dont know for sure what migth've happened with those legions.

I doubt the hypothesis of Syme because from a military point if view is illogical. Why would Caesar assemble 16 legions for a war against Dacia and Parthia, send them across Adriatic (meaning in Illyria) and then spread them all over provinces, Macedonia, Egypt, Bythinia, Syria etc ?

First of all, why sending them over Adriatic, when was much easy and normal to send them by sea over Mediterana, right in Syria or Egypt? Did they walk all over from Illyria to Macedonia to Egypt? Those provinces doesnt have already some troops based there?

But again, I see no purpose of preparing such important campaigns and assembling an important army, then instead to concentrate the forces in the war zone or campaign area, to spread them at big distances one from another. To me this is ilogical

[Nathan Ross]

why sending them over Adriatic, when was much easy and normal to send them by sea over Mediterana, right in Syria or Egypt? Did they walk all over from Illyria to Macedonia to Egypt?

Large scale troop movement by sea was very rare - navigation was difficult or impossible for half the year anyway, and the risks were immense: just look at the trouble Caesar had conveying his army from Sicily to north Africa, a voyage of only a few days. A voyage to Syria could have taken weeks, and many vessels would have been lost or scattered on the way.

The usual way to send troops eastward was by land, precisely as Appian describes. A short sea crossing of the Adriatic from Brundisium, then a march across Macedonia by the via Egnatia and the Bosphorus and down through Asia. Roman armies took this route repeatedly. If Caesar wanted an army in Syria ready for the campaigning season of 44BC, sending them by the land route early in the year would have them in place when they were needed.

So, if we have sixteen legions 'sent on ahead', and six later based in Macedonia, it seems clear that the remaining ten were marched straight down to the eastern front in preparation for the Parthian war, and the six in Macedonia were kept back for the campaign against the Getae.

[Frostwulf]

Hello diegis,
I do enjoy these discussions when time allows.

In other words, the expansion of Dacians/Getae in the Balkans and central Europe including the destructions of the Celts intermingled with Illyrians, Illyria being the province under Caesar governship, happened before the problem with Helveti or Ariovistus.

Well the part that the Dacians/Getae invaded was not the part owned by the Romans:

The province of Illyria incorporated little more than the strip of Dalmatian coast captured at the end of the third century and spasmodically patrolled thereafter so as to discourage piracy. The hinterland was not conquered until the time of Augustus. The country as a whole was extremely poor, but because of its proximity to Italy was sometimes treated as a training area for Roman arms. Pg.38

As far as the Boii are concerned they were not in Roman territory, but outside of it. Caesar never mentions anything about them being pushed out by the Dacians, though in my opinion that is most likely the situation. The Suebi had already pushed the Boii out of the western part of their territory by the time Burebista attacked them, this more closely coincides with Caesar more so then the Suebi.

Caesar had the time to intervene against Getae/Dacians, who as your quote from Goldsworth said, offered the glory (and even wealth) desired by Caesar.
Yet he avoided that, and took profit of the new situation with Helveti and Ariovistus Suebii to turn west.

You really need to look at the timeline. Caesar already had troops stationed near Roman Iyllria and was highly likely set to go north east, but the Helvettian problem arose before he could go north:

The situation that developed in Gaul effectively prevented Caesar from undertaking an Illyrian campaign at this time (see next chapter). However when thirteen years later his supremacy was finally established at Rome, he seems to have planned another eastern offensive, which may shed some light on his intentions in 58. Pg.41

Once again, it seems that he had planned to go against them, but the Helvettian problem prevented this, he didn't avoid it, he had no choice. As all these historians point out, Caesar didn't move his troops from the border till he realized he needed them against the Helvetti

This must not escaped to Roman authors and they write about it so we hear about from Paulus Orosius, who clearly say that Caesar avoided the Getae/Dacians. Sure, Caesar arranged his biography when he became the sole ruler of Rome

You mean Roman authors like Appian who wrote around 150yrs after Caesar as opposed to Orosius who wrote 400+yrs after Caesar? Not to mention Orosius doesn't say which Caesar and if he did mean Julius Caesar he probably didn't know about Caesars troop movements, or his concern of hanging onto Iyllria while willing to give up Gaul, not to mention his recon of the Iyllria, and of course Caesar actually moving troops into the area when he could. Then we should not for get what Appian said:

I think that other Illyrian tribes besides those mentioned had previously come under Roman rule, but how, I do not know. Augustus did not describe the transactions of others so much as his own, telling how he brought back those who had revolted and compelled them again to pay tribute, how he subjugated others that had been independent from the beginning, and how he mastered all the tribes that inhabit the summits of the Alps, barbarous and warlike peoples, who often plundered the neighboring parts of Italy.

It is a wonder to me that so many great Roman armies traversing the Alps to conquer the Gauls and Spaniards, should have overlooked these tribes, and that even Gaius [Julius] Caesar, that most successful man of war, did not dispatch them during the ten years that he was fighting the Gauls and wintering in that very country. But the Romans seem to have been intent only upon getting through the Alpine region on the business they were bestirring themselves about, and Caesar seems to have delayed putting an end to the Illyrian troubles on account of the Gallic war and the strife with Pompey, which closely followed it. It appears that he was chosen commander of Illyria as well as of Gaul - not the whole of it, but as much as was then under Roman rule. [§15]

I see no reason to believe that Orosius was talking about Julius Caesar, or if he was he was terribly ignorant of the situation.

This is more logical in my opinion, then Syme hyopthesis with Appian doesnt know what he talking about and confusing an army sent in Illyira with the whole Roman army in eastern provinces

I see Syme's professional view more compelling, as well as Nathan Ross.

Tacitus mentioned "armies" lost in Moesia and Dacia, and the reason we dont see much of his writings about Dacians is this:

Tacitus does mention the Dacians once in the Germania, only in a geographical sense. He doesn't mention them in chapter 37 because they simply were not a big enemy like the Persians, Samnites,Celts etc. Sure the Dacians did some damage, just nowhere comparable to those mentioned in chapter 37 of Tacitus' book. Once again Tacitus mentions big tough opponents only in this chapter, but he doesn't consider the Dacians among the tough opponents.

It was probably too humiliating for Romans to write about this war, especially as it ended with them paying tribute (first time in the history of the Empire) and still having the standards lost in battles in the hands of the enemy

Your statement makes no sense considering Tacitus and others did write about it, and as you pointed out they talked of the lost men. Yet Orosius can say large numbers, and where did he get that information from, those same Roman/Greek authors. What the Romans didn't consider was Dacia as being any kind of a threat, other then locally.

About Julian the Apostate, well, that phrase appear in a book intended to be a satire, but is not something he made up because as I posted previously others said the same thing before (and after) him, regarding Dacians/Getae.

There are those who do say the Dacians were brave and warlike(and from my readings I agree). The only place Julian has Trajan saying the "Dacians are the bravest people in the world" is only in his comedy. No other author of antiquity says the Dacians are the bravest people in the world, this only takes place in Julians comedy. Trajan said no such thing.

Like Vegetius for example. The quotes from him, were Celts or Germans appear, talk about the bravery or skill of older Romans, who win against those even if Celts was more numerous or Germans was of large build, or Iberians had greater physicall strenght.
When he mention Dacians however, he mention them as an example to be look at (and to be followed) by the Roman legions of his time, alongiside Macedonians, Spartans or older Romans. This is the part were Germans or Celts are not included

You said:

Thats why for example Vegetius dont mention them (or Celts for that matter) in his De Re Militari.

I was merely pointing out that Vegetius did mention the Germani and Celts, contrary to what you said.
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/25-alli...=75#328456

Furthermore while I haven't read much of Vegetius, there are plenty of Roman/Greek authors who do write of the Celts, Germani, Spaniards, Pannonians, etc. etc. as being warlike. Vegetius was compartmentalizing each section and he used the relevant "peoples" at the time for examples, hence the height and strength of certain peoples compared to the Romans. Not to mention the Dacians, Macedonians, Spartans were no longer in existence/independent for when he wrote his De Re Militari.

[Frostwulf]

Now few more quotes from ancient authors

Lucanus - Pharsalia book II
www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Pe...ook%3D2%3Acard%3D234

<<O superi, motura Dahas ut clade Getasque,
Securo me, Roma cadat.>>

This is roguely translated as
<< Oh, heavenly gods, protect me if by some disater the Dacians and the Getae will move (against us) and Rome will fall>>

This was supposedly Cato saying this, and it show the fear of Romans during civil war, that Dacians/Getae will set in motion and will bring down Rome

This is part of the paragraph, the Latin part:

o superi, motura Dahas ut clade Getasque
securo me Roma cadat. ceu morte parentem
natorum orbatum longum producere funus
ad tumulos iubet ipse dolor, iuuat ignibus atris
inseruisse manus constructoque aggere busti 300
ipsum atras tenuisse faces, non ante reuellar
exanimem quam te conplectar, Roma; tuumque
nomen, Libertas, et inanem persequar umbram.
sic eat: inmites Romana piacula diui

http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/lucan/lucan2.shtml

Now lets see what is really said, first the direct translation:

O Gods of heaven, die frantic notion that Rome
may fall, in its ruin to affect the Dahans 1 and the Getans,
while I am free from care. As grief itself bids the parent
bereaved by the death of his sons, to head the long fu-
nereal procession to the tomb ; it gives him satisfaction to
have thrust his hands amidst the blackening flames, and
himself to have held the swarthy torches - in die heaped-up
structure of die pile ;

http://archive.org/stream/pharsaliaofluc...a_djvu.txt

Now the proper translation:

Shall unknown nations, touched by western strife, And monarchs born beneath another clime Brave the dividing seas to join the war? Shall Scythian tribes desert their distant north, And Getae haste to view the fall of Rome, And I look idly on? As some fond sire, Reft of his sons, compelled by grief, himself Marshals the long procession to the tomb, Thrusts his own hand within the funeral flames, Soothing his heart, and, as the lofty pyre Rises on high, applies the kindled torch: Nought, Rome, shall tear thee from me, till I hold Thy form in death embraced; and Freedom's name, Shade though it be, I'll follow to the grave.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/...i.htmLucan

or this:

Heaven's will be the crime
To have made even Cato guilty. Who has strength
To gaze unawed upon a toppling world?
When stars and sky fall headlong, and when earth
Slips from her base, who sits with folded hands?
Shall unknown nations, touched by western strife,
And monarchs born beneath another clime
Brave the dividing seas to join the war?
Shall Scythian tribes desert their distant north,
And Getae haste to view the fall of Rome,
And I look idly on? As some fond sire,
Reft of his sons, compelled by grief, himself
Marshals the long procession to the tomb,
Thrusts his own hand within the funeral flames,
Soothing his heart, and, as the lofty pyre

http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/602/pg602.html

Nothing about the "Dacians and the Getae will move (against us) and Rome will fall>>" but simply they would love to see Rome fall. And also Dahas is a Scythian tribe, click on the name in the link you provided, it will say a Scythian tribe, then click on the Lewis & Short.

Other things from this poem:
" When Cato falls Let Rhine's fierce barbarous hordes and both the hosts Thrust through my frame their darts!"

As I said before, this is a masterpiece of military strategy that will amaze Sun Tzi as well.
Deceiveing the enemy, infiltrating him and luring him in some bad areas and weakening him even before the battle to begin, guide him right at the place you chose for the battle and make him to get in a bad position, then attack and destroy him despite his huge number.

So Dromichaetes tricks and ambushes Lysimachus and he is a "Sun Tzi", yet when Arminius or others do the same thing, they fought incompetent/inept commanders.

Again I'll say this was a great political victory, but militarily the Getae/Dacians showed no real martial prowess, the same thing with the Zopyrion indecent. Both Zopyrion, Lysimachus and there troops were in no position to really defend themselves, being weakened and outnumbered.

This was the war that made Pyrrhus to dread the Getae and turn west to attack Romans instead.
So Alex the Great knew well whats about when he said in public that the Getae must to be shunned, and Caesar as well when he avoided them at first, when he had just 4 legions under his command

Alexander and Pyrrhus are unlikely to have gotten themselves into the trouble that Zopyrion and Lysimachus got themselves into. Yet Caesar probably figured he only needed 3 legions to combat Burebista's Dacians. Considering Tettius Julianus in the words of Dio "conquered" the Dacians with around 4 legions, surely Julius Caesar could do it with 3.

[diegis]

Large scale troop movement by sea was very rare - navigation was difficult or impossible for half the year anyway, and the risks were immense: just look at the trouble Caesar had conveying his army from Sicily to north Africa, a voyage of only a few days. A voyage to Syria could have taken weeks, and many vessels would have been lost or scattered on the way.

The usual way to send troops eastward was by land, precisely as Appian describes. A short sea crossing of the Adriatic from Brundisium, then a march across Macedonia by the via Egnatia and the Bosphorus and down through Asia. Roman armies took this route repeatedly. If Caesar wanted an army in Syria ready for the campaigning season of 44BC, sending them by the land route early in the year would have them in place when they were needed.

So, if we have sixteen legions 'sent on ahead', and six later based in Macedonia, it seems clear that the remaining ten were marched straight down to the eastern front in preparation for the Parthian war, and the six in Macedonia were kept back for the campaign against the Getae.

I believe you might be right about Romans marching across Macedonia by the via Egnatia and the Bosphorus and down through Asia.
However, I still dont see what Syme said as something realistic. First, because he mention them all over eastern provinces, Egypt, Syria, Bythinia, and so on. Thats not something one will do for a campaign, when forces are concentrated in war zone or operations area and not spread all over 3 continents.
And second, I think Caesar was killed 4 days after he send those 16 legions over Adriatic, hardly a time long enough for 3 legions to reach Egypt or even Syria.

So I dare to disagree with this idea, and I think part of the army come back to Italy, some remain in Macedonia, maybe some was taken by Dolabella in east and so on. But for sure the 16 legions was send and based in Illyria and Macedonia, and not in Egypt or Bythinia, that have no logic from a military pov

[diegis]

Hello Frostwulf. I do enjoy this discussions and I am really sorry I have not more time for them

Hello diegis,
I do enjoy these discussions when time allows.

Well the part that the Dacians/Getae invaded was not the part owned by the Romans:

The province of Illyria incorporated little more than the strip of Dalmatian coast captured at the end of the third century and spasmodically patrolled thereafter so as to discourage piracy. The hinterland was not conquered until the time of Augustus. The country as a whole was extremely poor, but because of its proximity to Italy was sometimes treated as a training area for Roman arms. Pg.38

As far as the Boii are concerned they were not in Roman territory, but outside of it. Caesar never mentions anything about them being pushed out by the Dacians, though in my opinion that is most likely the situation. The Suebi had already pushed the Boii out of the western part of their territory by the time Burebista attacked them, this more closely coincides with Caesar more so then the Suebi.

Is not the Boii that defeated there, is Scordiscii. Boii and Tauriscii was in Panonia, Socrdiscii was the ones mingled with Thracians and Illyrians
Suebii just move in after Dacians get rid of Boii. And moved in quite later, and just in some parts of Panonia. Jordanes said that Dacians of Burebista, at the advice of Deceneus (the high-priest) burned as well the lands of Germans that in his time (Jordanes time) was inhabited by Franks. I actually posted an article somewhere on the forum here (dont have time to search for it now) with Dacian artefacts (including remains of sanctuaries) discovered as far as Jutlanda.

You really need to look at the timeline. Caesar already had troops stationed near Roman Iyllria and was highly likely set to go north east, but the Helvettian problem arose before he could go north:

Yes, he already had troops there, just he do nothing with them, and then when Helvetii problem appeared he take the troops and moved there, leaving Dacia behind. This why Orosius said he avoided Dacians/Getae. If he really wished, he would attack Dacia because he had quite a while until Helveti or Gaul problem arised.
He just considered probably didnt have any chance with just 3 legions.
And he was right, Burebista not just that crushed and eliminated any significant Celtic presence in central and eastern Europe, but occupied (including after swift and brutal sieges) all Greek towns on Black Sea coast, up to Olbia near Crimeea.

The situation that developed in Gaul effectively prevented Caesar from undertaking an Illyrian campaign at this time (see next chapter). However when thirteen years later his supremacy was finally established at Rome, he seems to have planned another eastern offensive, which may shed some light on his intentions in 58. Pg.41

Once again, it seems that he had planned to go against them, but the Helvettian problem prevented this, he didn't avoid it, he had no choice. As all these historians point out, Caesar didn't move his troops from the border till he realized he needed them against the Helvetti

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

You mean Roman authors like Appian who wrote around 150yrs after Caesar as opposed to Orosius who wrote 400+yrs after Caesar? Not to mention Orosius doesn't say which Caesar and if he did mean Julius Caesar he probably didn't know about Caesars troop movements, or his concern of hanging onto Iyllria while willing to give up Gaul, not to mention his recon of the Iyllria, and of course Caesar actually moving troops into the area when he could. Then we should not for get what Appian said:

I think that other Illyrian tribes besides those mentioned had previously come under Roman rule, but how, I do not know. Augustus did not describe the transactions of others so much as his own, telling how he brought back those who had revolted and compelled them again to pay tribute, how he subjugated others that had been independent from the beginning, and how he mastered all the tribes that inhabit the summits of the Alps, barbarous and warlike peoples, who often plundered the neighboring parts of Italy.

It is a wonder to me that so many great Roman armies traversing the Alps to conquer the Gauls and Spaniards, should have overlooked these tribes, and that even Gaius [Julius] Caesar, that most successful man of war, did not dispatch them during the ten years that he was fighting the Gauls and wintering in that very country. But the Romans seem to have been intent only upon getting through the Alpine region on the business they were bestirring themselves about, and Caesar seems to have delayed putting an end to the Illyrian troubles on account of the Gallic war and the strife with Pompey, which closely followed it. It appears that he was chosen commander of Illyria as well as of Gaul - not the whole of it, but as much as was then under Roman rule. [§15]

I see no reason to believe that Orosius was talking about Julius Caesar, or if he was he was terribly ignorant of the situation.

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

I see Syme's professional view more compelling, as well as Nathan Ross.

I already say why I dont think his view is correct, but of course our opinions can differ

Tacitus does mention the Dacians once in the Germania, only in a geographical sense. He doesn't mention them in chapter 37 because they simply were not a big enemy like the Persians, Samnites,Celts etc. Sure the Dacians did some damage, just nowhere comparable to those mentioned in chapter 37 of Tacitus' book. Once again Tacitus mentions big tough opponents only in this chapter, but he doesn't consider the Dacians among the tough opponents.

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

Your statement makes no sense considering Tacitus and others did write about it, and as you pointed out they talked of the lost men. Yet Orosius can say large numbers, and where did he get that information from, those same Roman/Greek authors. What the Romans didn't consider was Dacia as being any kind of a threat, other then locally.

When you say they did talk about it usually means couple vaguely propositions with short mentions as "large armies lost", "perish with large forces" and thats all. Read again what Orosius said please.
That was a huge humiliation for Rome, they paid a huge tribute, they lost large armies, the standards remained in Dacian hands, the emperor was humiliated as Decebalus didnt even bothered to come meet him, he just send his brother (who wasnt even the second in comand after him, if we look at Cassius Dio)

There are those who do say the Dacians were brave and warlike(and from my readings I agree). The only place Julian has Trajan saying the "Dacians are the bravest people in the world" is only in his comedy. No other author of antiquity says the Dacians are the bravest people in the world, this only takes place in Julians comedy. Trajan said no such thing.

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

You said:

Thats why for example Vegetius dont mention them (or Celts for that matter) in his De Re Militari.

I was merely pointing out that Vegetius did mention the Germani and Celts, contrary to what you said.
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/25-alli...=75#328456

Furthermore while I haven't read much of Vegetius, there are plenty of Roman/Greek authors who do write of the Celts, Germani, Spaniards, Pannonians, etc. etc. as being warlike. Vegetius was compartmentalizing each section and he used the relevant "peoples" at the time for examples, hence the height and strength of certain peoples compared to the Romans. Not to mention the Dacians, Macedonians, Spartans were no longer in existence/independent for when he wrote his De Re Militari.

I am sorry, let me say again. Vegetius, in the part where he talk about people whorty to be take as an example by Roman legions of his era, who was kinda weakened, dont mention Celts or Germans.
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

[diegis]

This is part of the paragraph, the Latin part:

o superi, motura Dahas ut clade Getasque
securo me Roma cadat. ceu morte parentem
natorum orbatum longum producere funus
ad tumulos iubet ipse dolor, iuuat ignibus atris
inseruisse manus constructoque aggere busti 300
ipsum atras tenuisse faces, non ante reuellar
exanimem quam te conplectar, Roma; tuumque
nomen, Libertas, et inanem persequar umbram.
sic eat: inmites Romana piacula diui

http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/lucan/lucan2.shtml

Now lets see what is really said, first the direct translation:

O Gods of heaven, die frantic notion that Rome
may fall, in its ruin to affect the Dahans 1 and the Getans,
while I am free from care. As grief itself bids the parent
bereaved by the death of his sons, to head the long fu-
nereal procession to the tomb ; it gives him satisfaction to
have thrust his hands amidst the blackening flames, and
himself to have held the swarthy torches - in die heaped-up
structure of die pile ;

http://archive.org/stream/pharsaliaofluc...a_djvu.txt

Now the proper translation:

Shall unknown nations, touched by western strife, And monarchs born beneath another clime Brave the dividing seas to join the war? Shall Scythian tribes desert their distant north, And Getae haste to view the fall of Rome, And I look idly on? As some fond sire, Reft of his sons, compelled by grief, himself Marshals the long procession to the tomb, Thrusts his own hand within the funeral flames, Soothing his heart, and, as the lofty pyre Rises on high, applies the kindled torch: Nought, Rome, shall tear thee from me, till I hold Thy form in death embraced; and Freedom's name, Shade though it be, I'll follow to the grave.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/...i.htmLucan

or this:

Heaven's will be the crime
To have made even Cato guilty. Who has strength
To gaze unawed upon a toppling world?
When stars and sky fall headlong, and when earth
Slips from her base, who sits with folded hands?
Shall unknown nations, touched by western strife,
And monarchs born beneath another clime
Brave the dividing seas to join the war?
Shall Scythian tribes desert their distant north,
And Getae haste to view the fall of Rome,
And I look idly on? As some fond sire,
Reft of his sons, compelled by grief, himself
Marshals the long procession to the tomb,
Thrusts his own hand within the funeral flames,
Soothing his heart, and, as the lofty pyre

http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/602/pg602.html

Nothing about the "Dacians and the Getae will move (against us) and Rome will fall>>" but simply they would love to see Rome fall. And also Dahas is a Scythian tribe, click on the name in the link you provided, it will say a Scythian tribe, then click on the Lewis & Short.

Other things from this poem:
" When Cato falls Let Rhine's fierce barbarous hordes and both the hosts Thrust through my frame their darts!"

I read the translation from couple Romanian sources, and I do understand a little Latin (mostly due to Romanian being a Latin based language and one year i did years ago in school). So allow me to trust more the translation I present. Dahae is the Dacians, the old Dahae didnt existed anymore back then, they vanished soon after Alex the Great conquered Persia. I think is just a misunderstanding there

So Dromichaetes tricks and ambushes Lysimachus and he is a "Sun Tzi", yet when Arminius or others do the same thing, they fought incompetent/inept commanders.

Again I'll say this was a great political victory, but militarily the Getae/Dacians showed no real martial prowess, the same thing with the Zopyrion indecent. Both Zopyrion, Lysimachus and there troops were in no position to really defend themselves, being weakened and outnumbered.

Well, lets see the differences. Varus had some 25,000 soldiers, asa medium. Lets say 30,000 if you wish. Lysimachus had 100,000 soldiers.
Varus thought he march in a friendly, subdued teritory, and didnt expected any attacks (even dismissed such informations, so yes, he was inept enough). Lysimachus knew he march in enemy teritory and was prepared for battle, not to mention he was an experienced comander who was all the time near Alex the Great during his battles
Arminius was a Roman citizen and trusted Roman oficer, Seuthes (Dromichaetes general) was a foreign that needed to gain the trust of Macedonians
Arminius attack lasted several days, and a part of Roman troops (true, not a large part) managed to escape. Dromichaetes attack anihilated the entire Macedonian army (several times bigger then VArus one)
Arminius army was formed from all Germanic tribes over the Rhine (with only exception that was Marcomani in the east), Dromichaetes army was raised just from his area, which was southern parts of Dacia.
After this battles Romans send another army, with Germanicus. He massacred couple Germanic tribes, heavily defeated Arminius who barely escaped alive by playing dead among the bodies on the battlefield, captured Arminius wife and the families of most important Germanic tribal leaders and marched up and down there, up to the North Sea, bring in back the lost flags too. Just emperor Tiberius political plans stopped him to transform Germania in a province, and nevertheless Germans killed themselves Arminius and accepted the tribal kings imposed by Romans. Romans who considered is more cheaper to rule those areas like that, as it wasnt profitable for them to transform them in a imperial province
On the other side, Lysimachus was forced to cede to Dromychaetes the teritory he wished, and gived as well his daughter to be the wife of the Getae king. And since then it was never a Macedonian or Greek army to venture again against Getae.

I hope I pointed out all the essential things

Alexander and Pyrrhus are unlikely to have gotten themselves into the trouble that Zopyrion and Lysimachus got themselves into. Yet Caesar probably figured he only needed 3 legions to combat Burebista's Dacians. Considering Tettius Julianus in the words of Dio "conquered" the Dacians with around 4 legions, surely Julius Caesar could do it with 3.

YEs, unlikely as they avoided even to attack Dacians. And apparently Alex even said that publicly. Pitty for Zopyrion and Lysimachus didnt listen that
Caesar figured he need 16 legions and 10,000 cavalrymen apparently
About Tettius, all the evidence show us that he just made a simple raid at the end of the season, to surprise the Dacians. More so as it was during harvesting season here, so the Army was gathered more slowly and probably in less numbers. This alone tells you that was not a conquest attempt, just a response to show to Dacians that Romans are still able to bite back. Thats why he chose the shortest road too (but the heaviest in the same time), to go and return as quickly as possible, before some bigger Dacian army will be formed
So Tettius met just a little Dacian army gathered in a hurry at Tapae and made of parts of garrisons there and some "civlians" from that area, as the professional Dacian army was small and when was needed was reinforced with "civilians" (half time warriors half time farmes, cattle breeders, wod cutters etc etc).
Even so I doubt Romans obtined more then a maybe inconclusive tactical victory, as they turned back imediatly and come to that fantastic (but little silly for anyone with little knowledge of how armies function) story of Decebalus dressing trees in armors and trick them with this apparition of a new big army.
As one of those authors posted before said, Domitian celebrated some victories at Rome, but those was actually the loss of his legions.

[trajan]

Once again Tacitus mentions big tough opponents only in this chapter, but he doesn't consider the Dacians among the tough opponents.

LOL. Actions are a lot more powerful than words.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan%27s_Column

The Romans built a massive, massive 35 metres high column commemorating their win over the Dacians/Getae, situated in the centre of Rome, very near the ancient Forums.

where is the column dedicated to the germans, or gauls, or british? Yeah, they didnt even bother.

[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.

[Nathan Ross]

where is the column dedicated to the germans, or gauls, or british? Yeah, they didnt even bother.

Actually the column dedicated to the Germans is just up the road: ;-)

Column of Marcus Aurelius

For the Gauls, you'd have to go to Gaul:

Arch of Arausio

As for the Britons, there was originally an arch at Richborough, but it was later turned into a lighthouse! They were more of a nuisance than a threat though...

Back in Rome, there's a monument in the Forum to victory over the Parthians:

Arch of Severus

And another nearby, to the conquest of the Jews:

Arch of Titus

Plus of course one to the defeat of some other Romans!:

Arch of Constantine

If Trajan had survived his Parthian campaign, he would very likely have built a monument to commemorate it more spectacular even that the Dacian war column.

However, those who invaded Parthia/Persia seldom returned... :neutral:

[Frostwulf]

@ diegis I skipped the first one and you will see why

Well, lets see the differences. Varus had some 25,000 soldiers, asa medium. Lets say 30,000 if you wish. Lysimachus had 100,000 soldiers.
Varus thought he march in a friendly, subdued teritory, and didnt expected any attacks (even dismissed such informations, so yes, he was inept enough). Lysimachus knew he march in enemy teritory and was prepared for battle, not to mention he was an experienced comander who was all the time near Alex the Great during his battles

Yes Varus did have less men the Lysimachus, but Dromichaetes outnumbered Lysimachus, whereas Varus outnumbered Arminius!
Varus did have military experience with the revolt in Judea(Lysimachus was certainly more experienced) and he was warned about the situation(as you pointed out) from Aminius father in law Segestes, not to mention he hardly could have failed to be aware of the locals dislike for the Romans, after all he was going to quell an uprising.

Arminius was a Roman citizen and trusted Roman oficer, Seuthes (Dromichaetes general) was a foreign that needed to gain the trust of Macedonians

And this is more of Seuthes doing, not Dromichaetes. Seuthes was able to convince Lysimachus to walk into a trap as did Arminius to Varus. That's it, end of story! No difference that both were led to a trap, which hardly enables you to call Dromichaetes a "Sun Tzi". Dromichaetes didn't perform any tactical feats of mention, just that his general, not himself but his general led Lysimachus into a trap.

Furthermore if you are to compare the armies, you have the typical citizen army of Lysimachus who was:

In the event, the army which finally faced Dromichaetes was clearly at its last gasp. Lysimachus sustained crushing losses: his personal surrender is variously ascribed to nobility or thirst! For Lysimachus’ reception by Dromichaetes and his subsequent release we are largely dependent on Diodorus XX.F.12. While part of this passage probably derives from Hieronymus, its reliability as a whole as evidence for the constitution of Dromichaetes’ ‘stat’ and his economic position is questionable. Pg.48

Lysimachus had no chance, as his men(citizen, not professional)were on the verge of dying from thirst and hunger were attacked by a foe who outnumbered Lysimachus. Now you have to wonder how intelligent Lysimachus was to allow his army to get into that situation of supply, where it is unlikely the Romans would have let that happen.

Now comparing Arminius who was facing a numerically superior and professional army led the Romans into an elaborate trap, which did kill most of the Romans. Does this make Arminius a "Sun Tzu", hardly, but his Germani accomplished much more then Dromichaetes did as far as the battle goes.

Politically I would call it even, as Tacitus seems to hint at that the massacre of Varus was pretty much the end of any dream of conquering Germania.
For Dromichaetes he received land and an ally. So yea pretty much even politically, certainly a win for the Germani and Arminius militarily.

About Tettius, all the evidence show us that he just made a simple raid at the end of the season, to surprise the Dacians. More so as it was during harvesting season here, so the Army was gathered more slowly and probably in less numbers. This alone tells you that was not a conquest attempt, just a response to show to Dacians that Romans are still able to bite back. Thats why he chose the shortest road too (but the heaviest in the same time), to go and return as quickly as possible, before some bigger Dacian army will be formed

No this is the evidence: Domitian was building up forces in Moesia which would not have gone unnoticed by Decebalus. Paraphrasing Dio, he states that large numbers were killed by the Romans in which that Decebalus was considered conquered. That is the evidence, what you put forth was simple supposition based completely on wishful thinking. It is as the professionals say, Decebalus was crushed by Tettius Julianus and came pleading to Domitian.