The Dacians: Rome\'s Greatest Enemy?

[Frostwulf]

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

There certainly is a misunderstanding, and that is from you:

let the Elbe and the unconquered
mouth of the Rhine send out swarms of fair-haired
Suebians from the uttermost North ; make us foes
to every nation — but let civil war pass from us I
Let the Dacians attack us on one side, the Getae on
the other; let one of the rivals^ confront the
Spaniards, and the other ^

Albis et indomitum Rheni caput ; omnibus hostes
Reddite nos populis : civile avertite bellum.
Hinc Dacus, premat inde Getes ; occurrat Hiberis
Alter^ ad Eoas hie vertat signa pharetras ;

Dahae is Royal Scythians, Dacus is Dacians! If you look into Lucans writings you will see he puts Dacus for Dacians, not Dahae.

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).

While I don't doubt you on your year of Latin, I don't believe you on the translation Why do I say this:

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. Yea! let the cruel gods exact in full Rome's expiation: of no drop of blood The war be robbed. I would that, to the gods Of heaven and hell devoted, this my life Might satisfy their vengeance.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/...can_ii.htm

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,

http://omacl.org/Pharsalia/book2.html

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,

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text...card%3D234

if kings who reign in another
clime beyond the seas, join the madness of Italy
and the standards of Rome, shall I alone dwell in
peace? Heaven keep far from me this madness,
that the fall of Rome, which will stir by her disaster
the Dahae and the Getae, should leave me in-
different!

http://archive.org/stream/lucancivilwarb...t_djvu.txt

The above is a slight variant but nevertheless still means the same thing. There is not one thing about "<< Oh, heavenly gods, protect me if by some disater the Dacians and the Getae will move (against us) and Rome will fall>>"
You can check any website, any book or any other source and you will see the same thing;"And Getae haste to view the fall of Rome".

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

So either your Romanian "sources" are incompetent(very unlikely)or you misread the sources(most likely). You getting to the point where I feel like I'm explaining Goffart or worse yet the Theophany to you, and its for this reason I will withdraw from this debate.

[Frostwulf]

@Nathan Ross
You beat me to it, but I will add to it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Column_of_Arcadius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Column_of_the_Goths
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropaeum_Alpium

[trajan]

Again the Dacians were just not a threat.

Yeah that is why they made the Romans paid tribute to them, because they were not a threat. Good thinking.

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.

Trajan built a massive column in the Centre of Rome dedicated to the Dacians. That is clear indication what the Romans and Trajan thought of the Dacians.

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.

The father of history, Herodotus, called the Dacians "the bravest and fairest of all the Thracians". But what does he know eh? What Julian knows? you know better.

In other words, Trajan never said such a thing.

No, he just built a massive column dedicated to Dacians right in the centre of Rome. Obviously because the Dacians were weak and wimpy. Good thinking.

[trajan]

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

Column of Marcus Aurelius

Poor imitation of the original.

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.

Or maybe not more spectacular.

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

Maybe because Parthia was so far far away.

[trajan]

but his Germani accomplished much more then Dromichaetes did as far as the battle goes.

You sure about that? his Germani accomplished to be crushed next time Rome sent troops against them, while Macedonians/Greeks never again threatened Dacia. That is even :-D

It is as the professionals say, Decebalus was crushed by Tettius Julianus and came pleading to Domitian.

If Decebalus was crushed by Julianus, why didnt Julianus continue? So after crushing them, he became scared of them? He became scared of a forest. LOL Not even small kids fall for that BS.
Its very clear what went on. Julianus maybe won a minor skirmish, mayyyyybe, and then "retreated". Smells to me like the german retreats in the second WW, when they lost battles vs russians, they "strategically retreated".

[trajan]

@Nathan Ross
You beat me to it, but I will add to it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Column_of_Arcadius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Column_of_the_Goths
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropaeum_Alpium

Goths = Getae = Dacians = Not Germanic

So that is 3 major, major monuments dedicated to the Dacians by Romans. Not bad for such a weak and wimpy people, who in the end managed to overrun Rome.

[Dan Howard]

Creates an account just to troll in one thread. Do we perhaps have a protochronistic sockpuppet?

[trajan]

Creates an account just to troll in one thread. Do we perhaps have a protochronistic sockpuppet?

You cant handle the truth mister? Thats too bad for you.

[Macedon]

Gentlemen, please keep it civil...

[Robert Vermaat]

Goths = Getae = Dacians = Not Germanic.

Sorry, but that's incorrect, as has been shown here so many times already. This 'denetification' only rests on the names used by ancient authors, who often used older names for later peoples: The Huns were named 'Scythians', and medieval armies from Western Europe were still styled 'Celts'. Should we take those identifications literally too? Of course not. Goths aren't Getae (let alone Dacians).
Alaric styled himself 'Rex Gothorum', not 'Rex Getae'.
The Goth language is undeniably Germanic and not Dacian.

[diegis]

The Scordisci didn't come under Roman controll until 15 B.C., defeated by Tiberius.

So? Those was leftovers after Dacians passed by

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.

I am sorry, most of those links didnt show anything to me. Anyway, is supposed that Dacians campaign against Celts was around 60 BC, as in 58 BC the remains of Boii and Tauriscii ar mentioned in Noricum.
Same Boii joined Helvetii and are mentioned by Caesar there. Those are the Boi that was runing from Dacians.
Suebii will just push themselves in Bohemia, later, as it was a teritory not included in Dacian empire of Burebista. Even so, you will see in one of the books you quoted that some Celtic oppidum survived up to 20 BC. So the arival of Suebi is obviously later then the Burebista expansion. Which presumly go up to Baltic Sea following the Vistula, and up to the Danube springs acording to Strabo and Jordanes (and this included the burning of Germans lands)

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.

Yes, he had at least one year to go against Dacians (59-58) that was already destroyied Scordisci and Boi and Taurisci and was knocking on his Ilyria province.
In that period he did nothing, and then turned to a smaller or weaker enemy, in west.

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.

See above. He had to chose betwen two enemies, Dacians and Helveti (and Suebi of Ariovist and Gauls etc). And he chose, meaning not to go against Dacians, not then.
Remember that Dacians just destroyed a Celtic kingdom probably stronger then one from Gaul, and almost as big. A kingdom unified under one king, Critasiros, and who was strong enough to deflect the Cimbri attempt to enter in their area. Same Cimbri and Teutoni that caused troubles to Romans after that, until Marius.

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.

It was an entire chapter about Dacia, that vanished. We just know few phrases, as "large armies lost in Moesia and Dacia". For Romans, who mentioned any details, its strange (is not just Tacitus, but most other authors) to nit talk about such losses in more detail. So Orosius was right, they kept the silence, on the Latin principle "verba volant scripta manent", the words fly away, the writings remain. Thats a cover up, not the first and not the last in history, others tried too to cover some humiliations and rewrite the history

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

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.[/quote]

Sure, he write they was weak, despite he used the biggest Roman army ever against a foreign enemy, erected the first and biggest column ever in the memory of those wars and celebrated in Rome for no less then 123 days and spared the Roman citizens to pay the taxes back then.
And it seem you dont understand what was about with the satire of Julianus. He write that as a common knowledge (I can show you few others authors who write about Zalmoxis and Getae/Dacians who became immortals following his teachings, or tought they are immortal and so on).
The satire wasnt directed to Dacians, but to the life of Roman emperors (is not just Trajan mentioned there) and their realizations and what gods thought about them or how gods judge them

Roman god Mars is not a copy of Ares. Mars was part of the main Roman trinity, with Jupiter and Quirinius, and was their (Romans) mythical father, was way more important then Ares. Jupiter is not even the father of Mars in Roman mythology.
So yes, if you will think at cold, it is how I say, comparing the Getae/Dacians with Mars is the ultimate praise to their warlike attributes. No one else was compared to Mars himself by Romans, this alone should end the discussion. Many was brave or skilled, but just ones was the true image of the god of war, meaning the Getae/Dacians

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.

Gosh, I really can't follow your logic. They are not mentioned because they are from old, they are mentioned because they was that good and they are an example to follow and to look at by his era legions.
I understand it may turn upside down some preconceptions, but thats the cold fact

[diegis]

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

Yes, he was warned and rejected those warnings. That was much of his competence

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.

Seuthes did was Dromichaetes asked him to do. His job was obviously much harder than that of Arminius. Seuthes was a foreigner, Arminius was a Roman citizen and officer.
Seuthes bring the Macedonians in the trap, following the plan of Dromichaetes, of course

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.

What on Earth are you talking about my friend? Lysimachus army was at its last gasp because of thirst and because was tired, hungry and affected by Getae raids. Lysimachus had no chance because Dromichaetes masterpiece battle plan to bring him in that situation.
And how the heck the Getae outnumbered those 100,000 Macedonians? You should see the propaganda betweent the lines my friend, that was a simple excuse to explain the lose.
Dromihete ruled over a tribal union in south Dacia, maybe 10 times smaller then later Burebista empire. Which had a posibility to call in army 200,000 warriors. How do you think Dromihete was able to bring 150,000 lets say?
Just few years after this disaster (Macedonians lost another battle with Dacians few years before) Lysimachus was able to defeat Demetrius Poliorcetes and Pyrrhus of Epirus (the new Alexander), ones of the most brilliant comanders of that era, and take for himself Macedonia from them. What kind of soldoers you think he had, and what kind of comander you think he was?

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.

:grin: sorry, they didnt acomplished even half as Dromichaetes, are you for real? A part of Romans escaped (sure, a small part), he was in a much better position to foul Varus, a sort of incompetent comander as compared with Lysimachus, and Roman army was few times smaller then MAcedonian army (which was totally anihilated, no one escaped).
And Dromihete was the king of some tribal union in southern Dacia, Arminius was the leader of all Germanic tribes (except Marcomani). Then Arminius end killed by his own people who rushed to surender to Romans. Dromihete instead ended with some new teritories, taking Lysimachus daughter as wife and make Hellenistc armies to never dare come here again

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.

Except it was not the end. How can you forget Germanicus is beyond my understanding. Germania wasnt transformed in a province because Tiberius didnt want that. And because didnt worth it enough for the Roman empire, too little benefits or profit to be made there. Make it in an area ruled by client kings was cheaper for them. If problems, they will send some legions again and again. Even in infamous III rd century, see Maximinus Trax

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.

Of course it wasnt unoticed. The problem was that Dacian professional army was obviously much smaller compared with Roman one. So a large part was made by part time warriors. Who can't stay permanently in the army, but they was needed to go home, work the fields, raise cattles, made ceramica, weapons or tools, whatever. And they was called to reinforce the ranks of the smaller profesional army when was needed
This is when Tettius took profit and make his raid in autumn, the harvest season when most people was occupied (Dacian war seasons seem to be mostly in summer and winter when the work on the fields and such was stoped, they was among the only ones back then making large military operations in winter).
So he met just a little Dacian army made of parts of local garrisons and whatever part time warriors was able to show up at Tapae. He didnt conquered anything as he didnt faced the main Dacian army and I doubt that battle was more then a tactical clash with little importance.

It is mentioned in passing by Dio Cassius, but not by any of those who mentiond (about Roman battles with Dacians) "the large armies lost" or "perished with large forces".
I think Cassius take that from imperial propaganda of Domitian, who made a huge succes from a simple raid ended with a rather minor clash at Tapae, followed by Romans retreat. Except Roman official propaganda the other authors didnt bothered to talk much about this success (if we can call it like this, as it was just a tactical victory in a raid)
Domitian knew he is in trouble (he lost next year to Marcomani precisely because he keep most of the troops at the border with Dacia, fearing a new invasion) so rushed to Decebauls to ask for peace. And Roman empire ended in a humilitaing position, with no clear victory but with big defeats, with llost standards still in enemy hands, paying a huge tribute and having the emperor too humiliated as dealing with smaller ranks Dacians, as Decebalus didnt even bothered to meet Domitian. The situation was similar with some foreign kings dealing just with Roman governors or generals, not with the emperor.
Some said that this humiliation was one of the reasons that lead to Domitian assasination later

[diegis]

Goths = Getae = Dacians = Not Germanic.

Sorry, but that's incorrect, as has been shown here so many times already. This 'denetification' only rests on the names used by ancient authors, who often used older names for later peoples: The Huns were named 'Scythians', and medieval armies from Western Europe were still styled 'Celts'. Should we take those identifications literally too? Of course not. Goths aren't Getae (let alone Dacians).
Alaric styled himself 'Rex Gothorum', not 'Rex Getae'.
The Goth language is undeniably Germanic and not Dacian.

No, it rest on archaeology too. The majority of artefacts found in Santana de Mures/Cerneahov culture (the Goths culture) is of Dacian origin. This was presented many times as well
After Radagaisus invasion of Italy, on Honorius or Stilicho Arch of triumph are mentioned Getarum, not Gothorum.
Getae and Dacians are the same (is like Alemani and Franks, they are both Germans)
The so called Gothic language is know mostly from Codex Argenteus, but I doubt that Codex is a Gothic one, but probably it belonged to Longobards, so there is Longobard language. Goths back then was already Romanized and used Latin. Is interesting as well how that Codex shows up first time in a monastery in Germanic areas, soon after Luther split from Vatican/Roman church. Interesting indeed

Either way Goths wasnt for sure a homogenous people, but a mix of people. And more then sure they didnt migrated from Scandza either, nor wandered some 2 mileniums until arrived at Danube. Majority of modern historians reject now that tale of Jordanes

[diegis]

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:

The fact is the Trajan Column was the first and the biggest and most impressive of such Columns, the others are smaller ones inspired by this. But the Column isnt the only monument, Trajan made a huge Forum, with lots of Dacian statues (I think there are at least 100 known until now, they are spread in various places and museums, and 8 of them was put by Constantine on his Arch). Interesting, none of those statues depict Dacians as prisoner, like chained, fall on the ground or dying

Then Romans celebrated the victory for 123 days, which is an enormous period. There was 10,000 gladiators fighting (not only Dacians of course) and over 11,000 animals in arenas and at Colliseum.

Such celebration of a victory was unheard before and after

[diegis]

sorry, double post