The Dacians: Rome\'s Greatest Enemy?

[diegis]

Hello Frostwulf. I do enjoy this discussions and I am really sorry I have not more time for them

Hello diegis,
I do enjoy these discussions when time allows.

Well the part that the Dacians/Getae invaded was not the part owned by the Romans:

The province of Illyria incorporated little more than the strip of Dalmatian coast captured at the end of the third century and spasmodically patrolled thereafter so as to discourage piracy. The hinterland was not conquered until the time of Augustus. The country as a whole was extremely poor, but because of its proximity to Italy was sometimes treated as a training area for Roman arms. Pg.38

As far as the Boii are concerned they were not in Roman territory, but outside of it. Caesar never mentions anything about them being pushed out by the Dacians, though in my opinion that is most likely the situation. The Suebi had already pushed the Boii out of the western part of their territory by the time Burebista attacked them, this more closely coincides with Caesar more so then the Suebi.

Is not the Boii that defeated there, is Scordiscii. Boii and Tauriscii was in Panonia, Socrdiscii was the ones mingled with Thracians and Illyrians
Suebii just move in after Dacians get rid of Boii. And moved in quite later, and just in some parts of Panonia. Jordanes said that Dacians of Burebista, at the advice of Deceneus (the high-priest) burned as well the lands of Germans that in his time (Jordanes time) was inhabited by Franks. I actually posted an article somewhere on the forum here (dont have time to search for it now) with Dacian artefacts (including remains of sanctuaries) discovered as far as Jutlanda.

You really need to look at the timeline. Caesar already had troops stationed near Roman Iyllria and was highly likely set to go north east, but the Helvettian problem arose before he could go north:

Yes, he already had troops there, just he do nothing with them, and then when Helvetii problem appeared he take the troops and moved there, leaving Dacia behind. This why Orosius said he avoided Dacians/Getae. If he really wished, he would attack Dacia because he had quite a while until Helveti or Gaul problem arised.
He just considered probably didnt have any chance with just 3 legions.
And he was right, Burebista not just that crushed and eliminated any significant Celtic presence in central and eastern Europe, but occupied (including after swift and brutal sieges) all Greek towns on Black Sea coast, up to Olbia near Crimeea.

The situation that developed in Gaul effectively prevented Caesar from undertaking an Illyrian campaign at this time (see next chapter). However when thirteen years later his supremacy was finally established at Rome, he seems to have planned another eastern offensive, which may shed some light on his intentions in 58. Pg.41

Once again, it seems that he had planned to go against them, but the Helvettian problem prevented this, he didn't avoid it, he had no choice. As all these historians point out, Caesar didn't move his troops from the border till he realized he needed them against the Helvetti

Exactly, he didnt moved even if he had all the time. And then took profit of Helveti problem and turn his back and move away from Dacia.
Sure, he didnt forget that, but when he really wanted to attack, he come with 16 legions and 10,000 cavalrymen

You mean Roman authors like Appian who wrote around 150yrs after Caesar as opposed to Orosius who wrote 400+yrs after Caesar? Not to mention Orosius doesn't say which Caesar and if he did mean Julius Caesar he probably didn't know about Caesars troop movements, or his concern of hanging onto Iyllria while willing to give up Gaul, not to mention his recon of the Iyllria, and of course Caesar actually moving troops into the area when he could. Then we should not for get what Appian said:

I think that other Illyrian tribes besides those mentioned had previously come under Roman rule, but how, I do not know. Augustus did not describe the transactions of others so much as his own, telling how he brought back those who had revolted and compelled them again to pay tribute, how he subjugated others that had been independent from the beginning, and how he mastered all the tribes that inhabit the summits of the Alps, barbarous and warlike peoples, who often plundered the neighboring parts of Italy.

It is a wonder to me that so many great Roman armies traversing the Alps to conquer the Gauls and Spaniards, should have overlooked these tribes, and that even Gaius [Julius] Caesar, that most successful man of war, did not dispatch them during the ten years that he was fighting the Gauls and wintering in that very country. But the Romans seem to have been intent only upon getting through the Alpine region on the business they were bestirring themselves about, and Caesar seems to have delayed putting an end to the Illyrian troubles on account of the Gallic war and the strife with Pompey, which closely followed it. It appears that he was chosen commander of Illyria as well as of Gaul - not the whole of it, but as much as was then under Roman rule. [§15]

I see no reason to believe that Orosius was talking about Julius Caesar, or if he was he was terribly ignorant of the situation.

I dont think he was, all the evidences point out that Orosius was right

I see Syme's professional view more compelling, as well as Nathan Ross.

I already say why I dont think his view is correct, but of course our opinions can differ

Tacitus does mention the Dacians once in the Germania, only in a geographical sense. He doesn't mention them in chapter 37 because they simply were not a big enemy like the Persians, Samnites,Celts etc. Sure the Dacians did some damage, just nowhere comparable to those mentioned in chapter 37 of Tacitus' book. Once again Tacitus mentions big tough opponents only in this chapter, but he doesn't consider the Dacians among the tough opponents.

He doesnt mention because Roman authors established to not talk about them, as Orosius said. And this seem to be correct, as you will not find the chapter Dacia of Tacitus, and all authors avoid to talk about the Roman losses

Your statement makes no sense considering Tacitus and others did write about it, and as you pointed out they talked of the lost men. Yet Orosius can say large numbers, and where did he get that information from, those same Roman/Greek authors. What the Romans didn't consider was Dacia as being any kind of a threat, other then locally.

When you say they did talk about it usually means couple vaguely propositions with short mentions as "large armies lost", "perish with large forces" and thats all. Read again what Orosius said please.
That was a huge humiliation for Rome, they paid a huge tribute, they lost large armies, the standards remained in Dacian hands, the emperor was humiliated as Decebalus didnt even bothered to come meet him, he just send his brother (who wasnt even the second in comand after him, if we look at Cassius Dio)

There are those who do say the Dacians were brave and warlike(and from my readings I agree). The only place Julian has Trajan saying the "Dacians are the bravest people in the world" is only in his comedy. No other author of antiquity says the Dacians are the bravest people in the world, this only takes place in Julians comedy. Trajan said no such thing.

How do you know what Trajan said? His "De bello Dacico" was lost. 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

You said:

Thats why for example Vegetius dont mention them (or Celts for that matter) in his De Re Militari.

I was merely pointing out that Vegetius did mention the Germani and Celts, contrary to what you said.
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/25-alli...=75#328456

Furthermore while I haven't read much of Vegetius, there are plenty of Roman/Greek authors who do write of the Celts, Germani, Spaniards, Pannonians, etc. etc. as being warlike. Vegetius was compartmentalizing each section and he used the relevant "peoples" at the time for examples, hence the height and strength of certain peoples compared to the Romans. Not to mention the Dacians, Macedonians, Spartans were no longer in existence/independent for when he wrote his De Re Militari.

I am sorry, let me say again. Vegetius, in the part where he talk about people whorty to be take as an example by Roman legions of his era, who was kinda weakened, dont mention Celts or Germans.
He mention Spartans, Macedonians, the old Romans of course, and Thracians/Dacians. Not to mention that he again say about the legends with Mars born among the Getae