The Dacians: Rome\'s Greatest Enemy?

[Frostwulf]

@diegis
Do you wonder why people don't take you seriously, and why I continue to disengage with you? You are so focused on trying to prove that the Dacians were the baddest, toughest and bravest people the Earth has ever known that you don't bother reading what people are saying. If it's contrary to your belief, then the historians/archaeologist know nothing, yet if there is but one snippet from said historian or author that supports your view then that one piece is heralded as absolute truth and cant be disproved. You seem not to bother reading what has been said, for instance:

So? Those was leftovers after Dacians passed by

The point of I was making was that the Scordisci were not in the Roman territory, they were in the hinterland that was not controlled by the Romans. You say things about the links not showing you anything, but everyone of them mention the Suebi invading Boii territory before the coming of the Dacians. You say this isn't so, but yet you put nothing down, just the usual "I know better" attitude and the majority of the time you are proven wrong.

Then there is the "big cover up"! Everybody is out to down play the greatness of the Dacians! It all started with the classical authors and now modern authors are trying to limit how great the Dacians were. That is of course the exception of Schmidt, though his "Dacian numbers are obviously wrong".

You have no clue what Caesar was doing. According to you he should have immediately on the very second he received Illyria he should have marched right up and attacked Burebista. It doesn't matter that he got married, it doesn't matter that his enemies in the senate were causing him problems, all that matters is he should have immediately left for Dacia. Because he didn't he must have been afraid of the Dacians, he wasn't afraid of the Gauls though, even though he didn't immediately march out against them. He was only afraid of the Dacians. I would love to put in new evidence by Lica, but there is just no point to it, it doesn't fit what you want to believe therefore it will be dismissed without contemplation.

You want to know why very few people(now including myself) don't take you seriously? It's from ignoring/dismissing historians/archaeologist while using your own interpretation, which the vast majority of the time either makes no sense and/or has nothing but wishful thinking/supposition to back it up. Things like this:

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.

You pick and choose what you want so you can say that the Dacians are the mightiest people who ever lived. Of course the 100,000 Macedonians you except as being real, but you refuse to accept the part of Dacians outnumbering the Macedonians(this is common to you). Here is when you were actually using sources and basing things from written authors:

300-292 Lysimachus
In first campaign (around 300 BC), yes, is possible that he underestimated the dacian strenght and he was outnumbered (even if this might be an excuse for losing the battle, not that un-common one indeed). However he faced just a dacian tribal union from today southern Romania and probably northern Bulgaria. In the second campaign, from your previous post (quote from Mircea Musat & Ion Ardeleanu)

<<In 292 B.c., Lysimachus was forced to start a second large-scale war, on the Getic political formation ruled by Dromichaites. Lysimachus’ army was this time much more numerous than the one he had used seven or eight years before. Its effectives mightily impressed the contemporaries, which explains the rather far fetched figure – still, the only one we know – given by Polyaenus: 100,000 men. The Thracian king fell a prisoner during that battle. Pg.25>>

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=375328

Not much more of that type of diegis. The above diegis is the one I enjoyed debating with, not this one:

We have so in Egeea Sea island names as Samos, SamoThrace and Karpatos (Samus is the ancient name of a Dacian river from Transylvania, called Somes today, and the relation between Carpathians and Karpatos is obvious, same the name Thrace with Thracians).
Even Sparta is a Thracian name (see Spartacus and other related Thracian names), and i think at the beginning Spartans was just a Thracian elite established there, and who was completely hellenized later.

If it sounds like it, it must be just doesn't work in these situations. Again wishful thinking/supposition with nothing to back this up with.

But for me what I get tired of is the Goffart/Theophany situations, do you remember them? The Goffart situation I had to explain to you 7 times!What of the Theophany, which in my view is the worst of these. You were not even willing to except this as not supporting your view even in light of the overwhelming evidence showing it was an error!

I also respect your opinion, but I do really wonder if you read all that is involved in the situation. Lets try again.
First the Theophany:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Lee-"Theophany"
Again, from the fragments of this Work hitherto brought to our notice, (see the places referred to above,) it seems sufficiently certain, that this is the work of Eusebius so described by Jerome. I would add, let the reader also examine in the following pages, the very many places marked as corresponding word for word, with several in the undoubted productions of our author. In our Second Book, for example, a very considerable number of the Sections or Paragraphs, are found to be identically the same with many |6 occurring in the "Oratio de laudibus Constantini:" ....
He compares the two(again the Oratio was taken directly from the Greek) and then has this later on:
Quote:
6. 1 My reason for this opinion is grounded on the fact, that many of the proper names found in this MS. are so deformed by the mistakes of the Copyists, as to make it extremely probable that many Copies had been made from the Translator's Autograph, before our Copy was written: e.g. p. 71, we have [Syriac] for [Syriac] or the like: p. 131, [Syriac] for probably; a corruption so great as to bid utter defiance to critical conjecture, had we indeed had nothing else to rely upon: p. 148, [Syriac], Herododus, for Herostratus: to which many others might be added. There are also some other errors, such as [Syriac], for [Syriac]see pp. 187, 223, 302, 276, &c.,--all of which, as far as they have occurred to me, I have corrected in the notes.
http://books.google.com/books?id=jmzC2VE...on&f=false
read pg.278
You do understand what is being said here, there are mistakes by the Copyists, deformed, corruption and other such errors. If you look through the Theophany you will see parenthesizes in places, these are the corrections or errors. The Goths are in the parenthesizes, as are the other "errors" and deformities.

So once again:
1. You have a direct comparison with the "Oratio de laudibus Constantini" and it is clearly Getae.
2. In Lee's translation(which Lee says so himself) you have admitted mistakes by copyists which the Getae-(Goths) is in Parenthesizes, as are the other errors.
3. Nowhere else does he mention the Goths as Getae, but always referring to the Goths as Scythians prior and after the Theophany.
If I brought to you this obvious mistake, would you take it seriously? It is clear that with the (Goths) being in parenthesizes that it is an error, there is just no other way about it.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthrea...st10009291

This is when I realized where you have drifted to. This was at least the 3rd time I explained it to you but you refused to accept it, offering nothing for evidence to the contrary. You just wanted to believe so badly that you ignore the obvious.

I'm sure we will end up debating again and hopefully you will produce some interesting material. But you have again just retreaded the same supposition with nothing but wishful thinking to back it up. So this time, I really mean it(I think)that I will not participate in this discussion further.