02-04-2013, 03:18 PM
Quote:
No source, ancient or modern, claims that Trajan's army was the biggest, or even one of the biggest, ever fielded by Rome. In fact, no ancient source tells us anything about the size of his army at all. I've already suggested evidence for an army of perhaps between fifty and sixty-five thousand. If you have other evidence, what is it?
Well, I remember I already posted few sources, Strobel, Schmitz, even Julian Bennet I think
Quote: You seem to know a lot about the first battle of Tapae all of a sudden! :-)
As I've already written, Tettius' expedition was probably not intended to conquer Dacia (otherwise the emperor would have led in person). The battle at Tapae was clearly believed (at least by the Romans) to have been a definite victory: the war ended there, and we have inscriptions from soldiers decorated in what was almost certainly the same campaign. Domitian was very popular with the army, as shown after his murder - this would not have been the case if he had been 'humiliated' or 'run away' in Dacia.
Its just educated guess and common logic. The raid was made at the end of the season, in autumn. So surely not intended to last or to conquer anything, and as you said wasnt comanded by the emperor. Dacian army was made of a smaller proffesional one and a bigger one formed when was needed and made by part-time warriors, who was busy with harvest season and preparation for winter in autumn.
This mean that army was gathering slower. The smaller permanent one was spread all over garrisons.
The route taken by Tettius is the shortest possible one but the hardest one (Tapae is a hard place to pass by), and was taken precisely to surprise the Dacians and dont give them much time to gather a big enough army. In less then 3 days probably Tettius was at Tapae, which means the Dacian army that face him there was formed in a big hurry with local elements and part of garrisons from fortresses around the capital, so was a small one
Romans may win the battle, but was shattered enough to turn around and retreat imediatly after. Hardly an important victory.
Dio Cassius mention it in passing, and all other authors who talk about roman armies lost under Domitian dont mention it at all.
Even the explanation why Tettius didnt push further after he defeated Dacian army is a hilarious one, with Romans being scaried by a wooden army transformed over night by Decebalus.
All this point to the fact it was a raid intented to show to Dacians that Romans can bite back too. The fact that Domitian signed such hard peace for the empire show who had the upper position after all
Quote: Who says this? Domitian was murdered eight years after the end of the Dacian war, by a cabal of palace officials, mainly because he had switched from executing senators to executing his own staff. Or do you know different?
Well, Domitian executed people who talk about his rule, and the humiliation from Dacia was surely among those. Roman authors even avoided to talk about the losses in Dacian wars, wonder why?
Quote: Actually the Column of M Aurelius is a few feet higher (mainly the base, I think) and the same diameter. Whatever you think of its artistic merits, it was obviously intended to be as impressive as Trajan's version.
However, Trajan was a great builder with plenty of time and money to renovate Rome; Marcus Aurelius was not. Trajan's column, forum etc were intended as propaganda, to reflect the glory of the emperor himself, not that of his conquered foes.
Well, is higher because the pedestal or base is bigger. And obviously is a copy of Trajan one
Quote: They do actually - or did. Sketches of reliefs from the Great Trajanic Frieze (in T's forum) show Dacian captives being led in chains, and sitting in a cart with chains around their necks. There's also, of course, the depiction on the Adamklissi reliefs of chained captives.
The Dacian figures later reused on the Arch of Constantine and elsewhere all stand with heads bowed and hands clasped before them, probably a gesture of humility and surrender. They may be intended to show the emissaries of a defeated nation, rather than captives taken in war.
There's also, of course, the large heap of Dacian spolia at the base of the column. Either way, these depictions are obviously of a conquered people - since the monuments they adorned were set up to celebrate a victory...
;-)
I was talking about statues, like the ones from Constantine Arch. As far as I know no other foreign enemy have statues of them made by Romans
Some of those statues have the head bowed as they was placed on pedestals in Trajan Forum, so to a higher position, and was intended to look down at the people who entered there.
http://www.euratlas.com/Atlas/rome/constantine_arch.jpg
[img] http://romaniadacia.files.wordpress.com/...omania.jpg[/img]
http://eenymeenyminymo.files.wordpress.c....jpg?w=700
[img] http://data.whicdn.com/images/34805972/d..._large.jpg[/img]
[img] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...070614.jpg[/img]
Some was quite big, I read about some as big as 4 meters high.
This is one of those, one found in Vatican museum (just upper half was preserved)
http://www.smp.org/dynamicmedia/size/540...G.540x.jpg
Sure, they show Dacians in a non threatening position, but not broken or imprisoned. Its a sign of respect for them.
As well, as far as I know, the Trajan Column and Adamclisi monument are the only imperial propaganda monuments were Roman soldiers are ever depicted as killed, wounded or taken prisoners and tortured.
Which again is a sign of how hard and bloody was those wars, so much that would look silly or embarassing to not show that on those monuments
Razvan A.
