11-10-2012, 04:03 PM
Quote:Nobody could deny that the Dacians presented a formidable challenge in the later 1st to early 2nd centuries - the wars of 85-88, 101-103 and 105-106 were hard-fought imperial expeditions. During this period, therefore, they could be called Rome's greatest foreign enemy (although the Jews were arguably more troublesome, with three wars under Nero-Vespasian, Trajan and Hadrian - the first and last very hard and costly conflicts indeed).
However, once Trajan had conquered their country the Dacians themselves ceased to be much of a threat, unlike many other peoples before and since. Juvenal, writing under Hadrian, mentions the Moors and the Brigantes as the most prominent adversaries of Rome - both inhabitants of territories supposedly conquered by Rome in the first century!
We've discussed the composition of Trajan's army before (here, for example) - as you know, Razvan, I don't agree that it was the largest ever mustered by Rome, by any means! Trajan's column has given a perhaps undue prominence to the campaign - it was important in its day, but hardly the life and death struggle that the later barbarian wars of Marcus Aurelius and the third century emperors surely were.
As for tribute - many 'barbarian' peoples were paid by Rome at one time or another. Caches of Roman silver have turned up in southern Scotland, and Dio mentions silver payments to the Caledonians to keep them quiet. This doesn't so much reflect the awesomeness of the barbarians themselves, just that the Romans found it cheaper at that time to pay them than to fight them!
Possible Dacian influence in Gothic origins is a controversial subject debated often here before, I believe...
I know you wasnt quite convinced about the numbers of Romans, but quite few other historians are. And as Trajan prepared quite few years (even raising new legions) for those wars, i do think that those 12-14 legions that participated was in complete number
As well i dont believe Dacians ceased to be a threat. Hadrian was about to evacuate Dacia in 117 i think (again, the Roman province Dacia which comprised a large part of Decebalus kingdom, but a lot of Dacian teritories was not part of that).
Many Roman emperors continued to fight against "free Dacians" or other Dacian tribes as Costoboci or Carpi, finally being forced to abandon the province to "free Dacians" and Goths (which had anyway a large Dacian component).
Then look what Lactantius wrote about Decius death
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0705.htm
<<This long peace, however, was afterwards interrupted. Decius appeared in the world, an accursed wild beast, to afflict the Church—and who but a bad man would persecute religion? It seems as if he had been raised to sovereign eminence, at once to rage against God, and at once to fall; for, having undertaken an expedition against the Carpi, who had then possessed themselves of Dacia and Moesia, he was suddenly surrounded by the barbarians, and slain, together with great part of his army; nor could he be honoured with the rites of sepulture, but, stripped and naked, he lay to be devoured by wild beasts and birds, — a fit end for the enemy of God.>>
Carpi was a Dacian tribe from the outside the borders of Roman province. Lactantius, a contemporan of those events, mentioned them as the ones who defeated and killed Decius.
I know that some historians go to Jordanes description of events where he replace Carpi with Goths, but we know that he did that change of names (Getae/Dacians as Goths) all over his writings.
Julian the Apostate said too (probably quoting some writings from Trajan era, if not Trajan own "De bello Dacico" unfortunately lost today) that Getae (Dacians) was the most warlike people that ever existed and Romans (from Vergilius to Vegetius) said that in their legends the god Mars was born among Getae/Dacians.
Caesar himself avoided at first the Dacian "empire" of Burebista (even if Dacians pillaged one of the provinces were he was governor, Illyria, beside Macedonia, another Roman province back then) and go for an "easier prey", the Gauls (according to same Paulus Orosius)
Dacians was arguably the most respected enemies at Rome. They was the only ones that was represented in statues (quite lots of them). But none of those statues show Dacians as prisoners or in chains or dying.
Rumors in Rome at some point said (i think Suetonius write about this, i need to check) that Octavianus (the future Augustus) want to marry the daughter of Dacian king Cotiso, and ofered his daughter Iulia as wife for that king, in exchange of military help against Marcus Antonius and his new ally, Cleopatra.
As well, Trajan captured Decebalus sister and treated her very well. So later one of her offsprings (more then probably), Regalianus, even become emperor (well, self proclaimed or proclaimed by his troops at Danube border but still a huge achievemnt for a grand-grand-grand son of Decebalus, one of the main enemies of Rome). I think there is even coins emited by him.
Now compare this with the treatment received by Arminius wife and kid, who ended up dead in an arena where was put to fight as gladiator. Or dont even need to mention the sado-maso orgy done by some rather low-rank Romans with Boudica and her daughters (as someone mentioned the Britons). This show quite a huge difference in Roman views of this different "barbarians".
About the tribute paid by Romans, i think this was one of the main reasons for Domitian assasination, and probably was one of the reasons of Dacian invasion in Moesia (when they beheaded the governor). That was because Domitian tried to end that payment, it was a punishment expedition. At the end Domitian ended by paying again a lot of money and send lots of engineers and military instructors to help Decebalus profesionalize his army. The Roman defeat and humiliation is made more clear by the fact that Roman standards captured by Dacians remind in Decebalus hands (probably including the Pretorian Guard standard of Cornelius Fuscus, which normally should had lead to disbanding of Pretorian Guard but Romans covered this). This was recovered later by Trajan.
As well Roman prisoners, deserters and the Roman war machines captured by Dacians was kept too by Decebalus. None of such agreements exiisted between Romans and other enemies or people that was in relation as clients.
This was considered very probably a huge humiliation at Rome, which provoked the strong respons from Trajan.
Marcus Aurelius problems with barbarians (including Dacian tribes too, as Costobocii who reached even Greece and burned down the Eleusin mysteries temple) occured after a successful war against Parthians. However soldiers contacted there a disease (maybe plague or smallpox) that basically decimated the Roman army and killed lots of people in Roman empire (up to a third part of population in some areas).
Thats why Romans had such problems with Barbarians all over Danube, but they ended those wars as victorious anyway.
Again, this can't be compared with the situation during Trajan reign, when Rome power was at its peak and the only enemy was Dacians.
So, i agree that Carthage was a great enemy of Rome, but that was at the begining of Rome power. During the wars with Hanibal Rome didnt even controled whole Italia, but quite few there jumped in Hanibal camp. Compare this with Rome during Trajan, streching from Britania to Mesopotamia and from Germania to Sudan, and with no other enemies to fight except Dacians. Dacians who doesnt had complexes in actually attacking Roman empire, invading Roman provinces and extracting tribute from them.
Germans was a danger mostly at the end, when Romans was at their dusk anyway, split and too weakened by all kind of internal problems.
Razvan A.
