The Dacians: Rome\'s Greatest Enemy?

[Frostwulf]

Nope, he clearly refferes to Getae/Dacians, especially when he mention them in relation with Alex the Great, Pyrrhus and Caesar, this is no doubt about. Maybe you want to say about his own time frame, if is correct that in Orosius times Getae to be called Goths, or other way around. This is something we can talk about (again) but its another discussion.

This is why I said “mostly”, look again at this quote:

16. O grief! The shame of human error! Women, fleeing from their native land, entered, overran, and destroyed Europe and Asia, the largest and most powerful sections of the world. For almost a hundred years they kept control of these lands by overthrowing many cities and founding others. The blame for the oppression of the times was nevertheless not to be imputed to the utter worthlessness of men. On the contrary, recently these Getae, who are at present also called Goths (Alexander publicly said that they must be shunned, Pyrrhus dreaded them, and even Caesar avoided them), after stripping their homes bare and abandoning them, united their forces in one body and invaded the Roman provinces. By proving themselves to be a menace over a long period of time, these barbarians hoped upon their request to obtain an alliance with Rome—an alliance which they could have won by force of arms. They asked only enough land for a small settlement, not a location which they themselves might choose, but one which we should grant them. These barbarians who were free to take for themselves as much as they wanted, since the whole world was subdued and lay open to them, these barbarians, I say, requested this favor. They who alone were feared by unconquered kingdoms offered now their services to protect the Roman Empire.

Since in their blindness the pagans do not see that these things were brought to pass by Roman virtue, and won through the faith [Christian] of the Romans, they do not believe and are unwilling to acknowledge, though they realize it, that it was through the mediation of the Christian religion, which unites all peoples in the recognition of a common faith, that those barbarians became subject to the Romans without a conflict—those men whose wives had destroyed the greater part of the earth with measureless slaughter.

Everything that I bolded, which would be that which is in parenthesis deals with the Getae, everything else deals with the Goths, hence " recently these Getae, who are at present also called Goths". Where Orosius received his information, I have no idea, or it may have been enhanced at this time due to the fear of the Goths. I do believe when he talks of Caesar he is not referring to Julius(we know Julius was preparing war against the Dacians). Not to mention:

Caesar’s original intention may well have been a Balkan campaign, probably to curb the growing power of the Dacian king Burebista, who was carving out a powerful empire around his heartland in what is now Transylvania. The region was wealthy, and scarcely explored by Roman armies, offering the glory attached to defeating a people never before encountered. He may well have been planning to advance in that direction, both in 58 BC and in later years, but events continued to provide him with ready opportunities for military adventures in Gaul, and the Balkan expedition never took place. Wven so, it never left Caesar’s mind, for he was planning to move against Dacia in 44 BC when he was assassinated. Pg197

So which Caesar Orosius was referring to I don’t know, but probably one facing the Goths, not the Getae.

Still need to see were i had the article of Guy Halsall about how Germans was used as a threat more in Roman propaganda, but for different reasons then a real military threat. Look for example at Vegetius who wrote a military treaty that tried to avoid propaganda and to improve the weakened Roman army of his era.

I'm pretty confident on what Halsall is writing about, and I'm very sure it's along the lines of Drinkwater. You are correct that in many cases that the Germani were used for propaganda reasons, such as Domitian and his Chattian war, or even Julius Caesar and the impending doom of the Germani flooding Gaul(though most do place strong credibility on this). Caesar used this propaganda (though likely true) as an excuse to attack Ariovistus and move on from there. This is also true of Dio and others who were doing the same as Trajanic propaganda (Southern,Jones). The vilification and incompetence leveled at Domitian is unmistakable, therefore all his efforts at war were just about useless(according to the "propagandists").
Regardless, the Teutons/Cimbri/Ambrones were not a threat? The Vandals sacking Rome just propaganda? The Marcomannic war nothing serious? I know what Drinkwater was talking about(I'm fairly sure Halsall as well), and they would say that the Germani were a threat at different times, but they were used for propaganda purposes as well. The same thing could be said of the Dacians, as they were really no more of a local threat.

I will put another quote from Julianus the Apostate writings (were he write about Trajanus)

<<Oh Zeus and the other gods, when I took over the empire it was in a sort of lethargy and much disordered by the tyranny that had long prevailed at home and by the insolent conduct of the Getae. I alone ventured to attack the tribes beyond the Danube, and I subdued the Getae, the most warlike race that ever existed, which is due partly their phsyical courage, partly to the doctrines that they have adotpted from their admired Zalmoxis. For they believe that they do not die but only change their place of abode, and they meet death more readily than other men undertake a journey. Yet I accomplished that task in a matter of five years or so.>>

And if Trajan would have been in Caesars place he would say the same of the Gauls, or the Germani if he had been in Marcus Aurelius's place. Here is an instance of this by Julian himself:

There were Celts and Galatians62 who had seemed invincible even to our ancestors, and who had so often like a winter torrent that sweeps all before it,63 poured down on the Italians and Illyrians, and, following up their repeated victories on the field of battle, had even invaded Asia, and then became our subjects because they had no choice. They had been enrolled in the ranks of our armies and furnished levies that won a brilliant reputation, being enlisted by your ancestors, and, later, by your father. Then, since they enjoyed the blessings of long-continued peace, and their country increased in wealth and population, they furnished your brothers with considerable levies, and finally, by compulsion, not choice, they all in a body took part in the usurper's campaign. The most enthusiastic of his followers were, in virtue of their ties of |91 kinship, the Franks and Saxons, the most warlike of the tribes who live beyond the Rhine and on the shores of the western sea.

Once again this proves not much as things like this are easily found.

From Europe he drew of the Sarmatian tribes, both the Basilidae and the Iazyges, the Coralli, and those Thracians who dwelt along the Danube and on the Rhodope and Haemus mountains, and besides these the Bastarnae, the bravest nation of all. Altogether Mithridates recruited a fighting force of about 140,000 foot and 16,000 horse. A great crowd of road-makers, baggage carriers, and sutlers followed.

The men of that country are naturally passionate, which is commonly the temper of some other of the barbarous nations also, as being not used to consider much about what they do; they are of robust bodies and fall upon their enemies as soon as ever they are attacked by them; and which way soever they go, they perform great exploits. When, therefore, these German guards understood that Caius was slain, they were very sorry for it, because they did not use their reason in judging about public affairs, but measured all by the advantages themselves received, Caius being beloved by them because of the money he gave them, by which he had purchased their kindness to him; so they drew their swords, and Sabinus led them on. Book 19.15

You have shown quotes that say the Dacians were warlike, again this is typical of Celts, Thracians, Germani, Spartans and etc. You can take actual instances(not just sayings) like the Nervii:

But the enemy, even in the last hope of safety, displayed such great courage, that when the foremost of them had fallen, the next stood upon them prostrate, and fought from their bodies; when these were overthrown, and their corpses heaped up together, those who survived cast their weapons against our men [thence], as from a mound, and returned our darts which had fallen short between [the armies]; so that it ought not to be concluded, that men of such great courage had injudiciously dared to pass a very broad river, ascend very high banks, and come up to a very disadvantageous place; since their greatness of spirit had rendered these actions easy, although in themselves very difficult. Book 2

Or perhaps this:

But the enemy, as soon as they saw our horse, the number of which was 5000, whereas they themselves had not more than 800 horse, because those which had gone over the Meuse for the purpose of foraging had not returned, while our men had no apprehensions, because their embassadors had gone away from Caesar a little before, and that day had been requested by them as a period of truce, made an onset on our men, and soon threw them into disorder. When our men, in their turn, made a stand, they, according to their practice, leaped from their horses to their feet, and stabbing our horses in the belly and overthrowing a great many of our men, put the rest to flight, and drove them forward so much alarmed that they did not desist from their retreat till they had come in sight of our army. In that encounter seventy-four of our horse were slain; among them, Piso, an Aquitanian, a most valiant man, and descended from a very illustrious family; whose grandfather had held the sovereignty of his state, and had been styled friend by our senate. He, while he was endeavoring to render assistance to his brother who was surrounded by the enemy, and whom he rescued from danger, was himself thrown from his horse, which was wounded under him, but still opposed [his antagonists] with the greatest intrepidity, as long as he was able to maintain the conflict. When at length he fell, surrounded on all sides and after receiving many wounds, and his brother, who had then retired from the fight, observed it from a distance, he spurred on his horse, threw himself upon the enemy, and was killed.

"Most of the tribes raised horses for riding, which were of a smaller size than most modern mounts but of good quality. Gallic cavalry were famous, and the mounted arm of the professional Roman army would subsequently copy many aspect of equipment, training and terminology from them. However, while very effective in a charge, the cavalry of the tribes, which inevitably consisted of the wealthier warriors, often showed little enthusiasm or aptitude for such important roles as patrolling." pg.204

The Gallic cavalry as others point out as well were famous, again this is something easy to highlight as your quotes of "Mars".

I could go on and talk of other such things like the battle in which the Marcomanni killed over 20,000 Roman troops in one battle, or the multiple wins of the TCA over the Romans, and etc. etc.

OK, so Gauls was impressed and even quite scared many times when they face Germans in battle.

The Romans were also fearful of the Germani as shown by Marius, Caesar and others. In the above instance Caesar had to shame his men into fighting the Germani, and Caesar himself was impressed with them.

However, see above what Orosius say, that Alexander the Great, Pyrrhus (also called "the new Alexander") and even Caesar was afraid of Getae/Dacians and even say in public that they must be avoided (and history tell us that they did that).

Yet Alexander crushed them.I have know idea where Orosius got the information about Pyrrhus saying so, and we don’t know which Caesar. Allot of what was said may have been Orosius's own interpretation, again being influenced by the situation with the Goths.

Again, I think the comparision is favourable to Dacians

Not according to the classical authors and of modern authors:

Both the Dacians and the Getae were perceived as a threat by the Empire, largely after they reached the line of the Danube through conquest, though a threat of no more than local significance. Pg.50

"Caesar threw his Germani into the fray-'some four hundred horsemen he had with him from the beginning'. the Gauls, unable to withstand their onslaught, broke and fled. Caesar's horse guard thus saved him from being trapped in certain defeat.
Holding back reserves until the decisive moment, Caesar had won by tactical skill. It is nevertheless astonishing that only four hundred men made such a difference. They must have been the kind of men Caesar's own army feared, 'huge, unbelievably bold and expert fighters'."pg.12

Local significance compared to actual invasions of Italy and conquest of Rome, well lets read this to:

Chapter thirty-seven has already been mentioned and discussed. Yet it is worth quoting because here above all appears a sense of the great respect that Tacitus and all Romans had for the Germans and what he perhaps hoped Trajan would be able to accomplish against them. Pg37

I have to disagree with you!