The Dacians: Rome\'s Greatest Enemy?

[Frostwulf]

Hello again diegis.

Mostly by Dacians

Depends of the time frame, if your looking at the 80's, then most likely, we don't know how many troops were lost to the Marcomanni during this one time. If your looking prior at the 70's or 90's, you need to look to the Suebi once again and to the Sarmatians(Rapax).

Tere are couple books and articles (Stefan, Everet Wheeler etc. dont have time to search for them now) that talk about the extraordinary fortification system of Dacians, including huge towers erected in mountains and used as artilery platforms. This fortified mountains was very hard to conquest, it was a fantastic realization by Romans, thats a letter of Pliny the Young talking about this

I skipped the first part about numbers because it will be addressed later. For this part I don't doubt this except the artillery platforms didn't exist until after 89, if your saying before that, you will need to provide source material. As for Stefan(interesting article) and Everet Wheeler(Did you see what he said about the Gothic culture and how it simultaneously existed with a Dacian culture?)the were good articles from the most part that I read(its has been about 6 months since I skimmed them).

Fuscus wasnt quite ambushed, i think Dio Cassius said he was surprised, which may imply he and his army didnt expected the apparition of Dacian army nor the development of the battle

I can't recall where they received their information from- Tacitus, Oros,Juv,Suet,Jord, the Ha,etc, etc. But the ones I have read say these things:

The Emperor Domitian decided to restore order and organized defenses on the basis of an Upper and Lower Moesia. The following year General Cornelius Fuscus crossed the Danube and was marching on Sarmizegetusa, when he was killed in an ambush and his army massacred. pg.10-11

There are others who write about the same thing or can be inferred by and also the previous links I posted. There is more to this then just Dio.

Who said that Dacians was heavily defeated? Dio Cassius or some Roman authors, same people that talk about large armies destroyed by Dacians and same authors who refused to write about the Roman losses. How was heavily defeated if Tetius Iulianus retreated imediatly after the battle?
Presumably (according with the same Dio Cassius) scared by the aparition of new Dacian army, but which was actually just trees cut at human height and dressed in armors and with weapons put on them to look as soldiers from the distance.
I dont know why but this sound kinda fishy to me. I mean, really, if they just scored a big victory and tried to march further in Dacia they didnt dare to send at least some scouts to see whats about with that new Dacian army?

Blanchard for one, then there are these for not continuing on:

Shortly after, news reached Rome of Julianus’ victory over the Dacians at Tapae, only the lateness of the season preventing him from pressing home the advantage. Domitian took his fifteenth and sixteenth imperial salutations at the end of the year, and with the gateway to the Dacian Basileion stormed, could reasonably look forward that winter to outright victory in the coming season - only to be distracted from achieving his aims once again, this time by an insurrection fomented by L. Antoninus Saturninus, army commander of Moguntiacum (Mainz) and Upper Germany. Pg.29

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. Little is known of the details of the preliminaries of the battle, or the troops involved. The Dacians were soundly defeated, but not eradicated. Dio describes how Vezinas, next in rank to Decebalus, pretended to be dead and later escaped. The story continues with the bizarre description of how Decebalus cut down trees and placed armour on the remaining stumps so that the Romans would think they were warriors and withdraw, instead of attacking the royal residence. Nothing more is known of the fighting, save the decorations won by a centurion of II Adiutrix may have been won during the campaign. The battle of Tapae may have been fought too late in the year to pursue the Dacians right into their capital. Domitian had recieved two further Imperial salutations by September 88, and another by October, reaching a total of 17. Julianus probably thought it prudent to avoid pursuing the campaign in hostile territory in winter and Domitian may have approved or advocated plans for another attack beginning in the following spring. But before the victory could be followed up and the coup de grace delivered, another rather more immediate problem had arisen. Pg.100

Good God my friend, are you serious? How the heck 2 legions is a "large force"? Tacitus, Dio Cassius, Paulus Orosius, Jordanes, all talk about large armies, large forces etc. I know we disagree about Germans vs Dacians but this is a bit hilarious to believe thats a "large army" or a "large force". (btw, i will send you or post here an article of Guy Hallsal about Germanic migrations and barbarians etc).

Well from the quote you posted here:
<< Eutropius, Book VII, 23
"Oppius Sabinus, a man of consular rank, and Cornelius Fuscus, the praetorian prefect, were slain with large armies by the Dacians." >>
Eutorpis says here that both Oppius Sabinus and Cornelius Fuscus were slain with large armies. Well lets see what large army is attested to by these authors:

Strobel argues instead for summer 85, and reconstructs a timetable which takes into account Domitians’s two Imperial salutations between September 85 when he was still IMP IX and February 86, by which time he was IMP XI. According to Strobel’s argument, Diurpaneus crossed the Danube in June 85, Oppius Sabinus mobilized V Macedonial from Oescus and I Italica from Movae, met the Dacians and defeat simultaneously, and news of the disaster reached Rome in July. Domitian and Fuscus mobilized an pushed the Dacians back by October, resulting in two Imperial salutations at very close intervals in September and October 85. At the same time, Domitian became censor for life. Pg96

In 84 CE Oppius Sabinus, Governor of Moesia, moved an army into the Dobrogea region to counter a threat by the Dacians, which had once more crossed the Danube. With the I Italica and a strong vexillation from the V Macedonia along with a collection of auxilia, he met the Dacians near Novae and was destroyed.

So according to these authors about 2 legions is what Oppius Sabinus had. According to Eutropius, Oppius Sabinus had a large army, which again is about 2 legions. So yes 2 legions is a large army!

I usually saw 5-6 legions for Fuscus, i think even Sabinus had more then 2 legions.

Wikipedia used to say 5-6 legions, they have since changed the article. The only other place I saw 5-6 legions(I at one time was mistaken as well about the 5-6 legions)was at the UNRV article, which has a few differences then do Southern,Blanchard,Bennett and Jones. UNRV article is not referenced nor does it explain where Fuscus could have gotten his 5-6 legions. Where could he possibly get that many legions?

Domitian resolved the problem with both Marcomani and with Saturninus in Germania by 89 i think. And he was assasinated in 96. Plenty of time to attack again Dacia or at least to end the payment of the tribute.
In fact, Marcomani wasnt any threat for the empire, Domitian just wanted to punish them because they didnt followed him in the war against Dacians. They asked for peace twice before to be attacked. The problem with them was resolved in 89 i think, and the problem in Germania was resolved same year, by some local governors there without Domitian even reaching there.

Again, not according to the professionals:

Despite the derision of contemporary observers, all writing after the fact, it is clear that Domitian’s Suebic-Sarmatic wars were the necessary preliminaries to an intended military settlement of the Dacian problem. And such a settlement was required, to avenge the defeats of Sabinus and Fuscus and to escape the crippling subsidies agreed with Decebalus for his neutrality after the debacle of 89, which included large sums of money ‘as well as artisans of every trade pertaining to both peace and war’. In the event, Domitians never resumed hostilities against the Dacians, perhaps because intermittent warfare with the Suebi continued to occupy his armies. That, at least, can be inferred from the lack of even an ovatio over the Suebi, and an active state of war against them seems to have continued for another five years.
Pg.31

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

As the two above authors pointed out, Domitian couldn't continue his assault on the Dacians until the Marcomanni/Sarmatians were taken care of. As I have shown you in other quotes, Domitian had intention to attack Dacia but was unable to until he took care of the Marcomanni situation first. He was unable to in his lifetime to take care of the Germani et Sarmatae.

So he have at least 6 years to attack again Dacia or at least stop the tribute, which he didnt, as Nerva didnt either and continued to pay that tribute during his reign.
It was just Trajan that stopped that and started imediatly the preparation for war, for 3 years

I don't know much about Nerva, but where did you get that he started preparing 3yrs in advance? According to Bennet the policy of building defensive and logistical support "should the need arise".

Again, thats a little hilarious to say that Trajan used just 4 legions, no offence. Not to mention the double standards used, like Tettius Iulianus victory considered a great one and in the same time downplaying or ignoring the writings of same Roman authors who talk about large armies lost, legions lost, large forces lost etc.

I didn't say Trajan used 4 legions, I was merely pointing out the Tettius Julianus was able to crush the Dacians with around 4 legions. That being the case it's not likely that Trajan would need more(though I do believe the Dacians were stronger at this point due to improvements and the best fighter of the Dacians being the Roman deserters). Also as pointed out above, the large armies were about 2 legions.

Trajan with 12-13 legions (you can say with 8-10 legions if you wish) needed one year in both wars to reach Sarmizegetusa, the Dacian capital, failling to obtain a decisive victory in first war. Is laughable to think that Tettius Iulianus with 4 legions not just that defeated the Dacian army but was able to push to conquer the Dacian capital

I agree with Bennett(pg.88) and Goldsworthy of 9 legions. Moving men through that territory takes time, just like Tettius Julianus. The professionals I have read say that Trajan was being cautious and moving a good amount of men takes time.

"A slow and methodical advance, consolidating as they went, was characteristic of the Roman army; and with the memory of Fuscus' defeat still fresh in their minds, Trajan and his generals were doubly wary of being caught unprepared. Trajan's balance of grand strategy and tactical purpose, a more effective method than the rapid movement and shock tactics used by the impetuous Domitian and his generals, is emphasized on the Column. pg.92

Note, that is was not 1 year, but 1 campaign season, there is a difference. There is also no reason to assume that Tettius Julianus given more time could not have put an end to Decebaulus. He had already defeated him and given the time would have chased him to his capitol and taken it.

As for the number of legions is of no account. Did Domitian really nead 50,000-60,000 men to conquer the Chatti whom he had taken by surprise? That many men for one tribe(haven't seen any other tribe mentioned other then Chatti), would be hardly needed. What of the 12 legions against Maroboduus and the Marcomanni? Do you think it would really take that many legions to win? Of course not, it was overkill just like for Trajan and the Dacians. Tettius proved that victory could be attained over the Dacians with about 4 legions, for further conquest a few more men may be needed.

The problems with some (many) historians who dealt with the subjects, as i saw them, are that quite many (fortunately not all) Romanian historians are in awe/veneration for Romans and naturally downplay the Dacians as much as possible. In the same time some (again, fortunately not all) foreign historians inspire from them about this subject or are in awe of their own "barbarians", meaning Celts or Germanics, so downplay or not give many attention to other "barbarians".

You mean Romanian historians like Lica:

It is well-known that the Getae and the Dacians were reputed for their military value, to which one could add the recollection of their joining Pompeis’ party.

pg.98(21)

At the end of three difficult campaigns, during which the Dacians fought with a bravery matching their reputation, Decebalus had to ask for peace.

pg.201
Georgescu, Chrisan,Berciu,Haraszti,Pascu,Grumeza, etc. etc. who say about the same thing as Lica? Have you even bothered to read their books? I already know the answer is no, because you would hardly be saying that if you had!

Thats why primary sources are sometime most trustfull then some modern interpretations

Hence part of the problem, you only take what you like from the classical authors(Jordanes for instance) and you simply haven't read all the other classical authors which pertain to the said events, like the professionals have(at least for the most part.