Given my avatar and origins, I think it's about time that Dacia has a separate topic dedicated to it. It is a civilization relatively poorly known in the West, but it is quite interesting. The Dacians, while lacking a literary tradition (and this is probably one of the reasons for their relative obscurity), nevertheless posessed a fairly advanced urban civilization. For instance, they could create fortifications 3 meters thick and 10 meters high.

Their recorded history spans alomost six centuries: from Dromihetes who was involved in wars with one of Alexander's diadochs, to the Free Dacians who attacked the Roman Empire as late as the 4th century. Dacia briefly became an important player in the Mediterranean basin during the reign of Burebista, when the kingdom was a genuine threat to a Rome which was embroiled in the Mithridatic wars. Of course, I should mention Decebalus (or Decebal in Romanian), the last king of Dacia, who commited suicide rather than being captured by Trajan in 106.

Here are some introductory sites:

http://www.enciclopedia-dacica.ro/ - http://www.enciclopedia-dacica.ro/ - very good site: mostly in Romanian, but has a fairly good English section as well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burebista - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burebista
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decebalus - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decebalus

The following articles are from http://www.enciclopedia-dacica.ro/ - http://www.enciclopedia-dacica.ro/

The Dacians    
 
         

         
               1900 years ago Traian, one of the greatest emperors of Rome, began what was to be the adventure of his last important conquering: Dacia.
Situated at the northern borders of the empire, the Dacia of year 100 appeared more as an enemy rather than an “amicus et socius populi romani”, as was stated in the treaty of 89.
               In his attempt at reconstituting the political, economical, military and spiritual history of old Dacia the historian can use archaeological and literary sources. However, these have certain limits imposed by the vague, often contradictory information they contain (especially the written sources), and by the relatively limited possibilities allowed by a commonsense analysis of some archaeological discoveries.
               Starting from these premises, it’s easy to understand why pre-Roman Dacia couldn’t avoid a large number of interpretations, both in nuance and content, and the result was the formation of real schools, rarely sharing the same perspectives.
               On the other hand, we shouldn’t skip over a different aspect, still in fashion: that of proliferating a fantasist literature whose conclusions often trench on the absurd. Thus, the space of old Dacia became a mythical center of the universe, the Dacians appeared as builders of pyramids, while Sarmizegetusa became the meeting point of some spiritual leaders, astronomers and other key personalities of the pseudo-science. We should mention names such as Napoleon Savescu, Pavel Corut, continuers of Ovidiu Densusianu, the father of Dacomania.
               As a history, be it a synthetically-written one, of the Geto-Dacian space cannot be treated in such an article, we shall try, along some episodes, to bring into the reader’s attention some general aspects of this world.
               We should first answer this question: since when can we speak about Dacians? And we are already facing a controversial issue. From the perspective of the antic literary traditions, the Dacians were first mentioned by Caesar (that is, the middle of the 1st century BC), if not the end of the 2nd century BC( Frontinus, Stratagemata II, 4, 3). On the other hand, the Gets, who were said to speak the same language as the Dacians (Strabo), were mentioned a little bit earlier (the end of the 6th century BC) by Herodotus (History, IV, 93), on the occasion of Darius’ campaign against the Scythians. In this context, though we can speak about 2 communities, it is still difficult to prove an ethno-linguistic difference between the Gets and the Dacians, as some contemporary historians would say (K. Strobel). These were the first documentary attestations.
Archaeologically speaking, the invasion, at the end of the Eneolithic, of Indo-European tribes coming from the East, would put an end to the flourishing Eneolithical cultures, such as the Cucuteni culture, with its splendid civilization. New tribes, apparently diverse, were united by a warlike, solar ideology, opposed to the sedentary, chthonian-oriented character.
               Thus, during some 2 millenniums, the northern branch of the great Thracian nation would form and develop, 2nd in size after the Indians, if we were to believe Herodotus, who also said: “had they had a unique ruler or had there been peace among them, they would be invincible and much stronger than all other nations… the Thracians have more denominations, according to regions, but their customs are almost the same, except for the Gets, Trauhs and those living north of the Crestons” (Herodotus, V, 3). This fragment from Herodotus clearly states what the Greeks used to think around the middle of the 5th century BC about their northern neighbors. Thracia as a geographical notion was known as early as the 2nd millennium BC, as it can be deduced from the word “Tre-ke-wi-ja”, transmitted through linear writing B. Back then the term probably referred only to the area of contact between the Greeks and the Thracians situated on the northern coast of the Aegean Sea and the straits.
               Starting with the 14th century BC new tribes of nomad shepherds coming from the north Pontic (Pontus Euxin was the name of the Black Sea back then) steppes penetrate the areas east of the Carpathians and the lower Danube, causing a new ethnical and cultural synthesis. The fact that we can speak about Thracians at the end of the Bronze Age is proved by their being mentioned in Homer’s The Iliad, where the Thracian king Rhesos is mentioned because of his interference in the Trojan War.
               The Greeks’ understanding of the Thracians and Thracia enlarged only during the great colonization (8-6 BC), when they settled colonies on the shores of the Black Sea, developing stronger relations with the inland tribes. Thracia was perceived as either the area situated between the Balkans and the Aegean Sea, or as the southern half of the Balkan Peninsula, from the Danube to the Aegean Sea. It should be mentioned that the Danube didn’t represent an ethnical and cultural border, thing that was known to the Greeks, too; the Gets whom Herodotus considered, with good reason, to be Thracians lived on both sides of the river. Similarities between the archaeological discoveries from Northern Bulgaria and Dobrogea and those from the Meridional Sub-Carpathians show that as early as the 6-5 centuries BC, the notion of Gets included the populations inhabiting these regions. Therefore, we shall define as nucleus of the area inhabited by Thracians the vast geographical space situated east of the BP, from the Northern Carpathians to the Aegean Sea, as well as the North-West of Asia Minor. Among the most famous Thracian communities living north of the Danube we shall mention the representatives of the Monteoru, Otomani, Wietenberg, Tei and Costisa cultures.
               Gradually, these communities would face a growing uniformity until, around the 11th century BC, we witness the appearance of some large cultural entities that would stand at the basis of the Dacian and Getic civilization. It is probably in this period that the ethnical crystallization of the Gets and Dacians also takes place.
               A new step forward in the history of the Geto-Dacians came with the evolution towards the 2nd Iron Age whose historical expression consists in a massive development of the society, reflected in archaeological discoveries.
We distinguish 2 important steps in the historical development (from the moment of its first literary attestation) of the Getic and Dacian societies. The 1st step spans between the 5-3/2 centuries BC and is characterized by the existence of some powerful tribal groups in the extra-Carpathian space. Archaeologically speaking, these are represented by the size and monumentality of some fortifications (Cotofenii din Dos, Bazdana, Cascioarele, Satu Nou, Butuceni, Cotnari, Arsura), the impressive graves and the richness of some thesauruses, such as the one from Baiceni.
               Among the rulers that led such formations we shall mention the anonymous rex Histrianorum (king of Histria), who successfully stood against Ateas’ invasion in 339 BC, another one who contributed to the disaster of the Macedonian general Zapyrion in 326 BC (Curtius Rufus, X, 1, 43-45; Pompeius Trogus, XII, 2, 6), and the most famous personality of this period, Dromichaites, who won twice against the Macedonian king of Thracia, Lysimach, whom he would take prisoner, eventually. We shall also mention Rhemaxos, Phrad(amon?), Oroles, all of whom were chieftains of powerful tribal unions reflecting a strong social structure. There is no doubt that they were representatives of a military aristocracy, cultivating luxury and richness – a true princely ideology they would transpose through mythological sequences exposed in the found ceramic reminiscences.
The progress of the Getic society in this period was also favored by the cultural and economical exchanges with the Greek world that had been present in the region since the 6th century BC, when the first colonies were founded on the Black Sea Coast. It is from these colonies that the local rulers would take over and develop, in a personal manner, a culture in which the magnificence of the sovereign played an important role; that’s why this period is known as “the golden age of the Getic aristocracy”.
               We cannot speak about the same level of development for the entire Geto-Dacian space; in this respect, the Transylvanian space presents certain particularities. The Celts enter this territory in the middle of the 4th century BC and, for more than 2 centuries; they will hold political and military supremacy, thus limiting the manifestations of the local population. Some authors even deny the existence of a local element (already Dacian in its structure at the Celts’ arrival), but the presence of some artifacts of the local tradition prior to the Celts’ arrival (some pottery) constitute a strong argument against such ideas. In this period, we witness a cohabitation between Celts and Dacians, the former having social and political power. As for the Celts’ disappearance from the political arena of the intra-Carpathian space, it was explained either through assimilation by the natives or, as I, too, believe, their being driven away by Dacians as a result of the latter’s political development; this was also mentioned by antic writers as “incrementa dacorum per Rubobosten regem” (the growth of Dacian power under king Robobostes). It was the moment when, politically speaking, the center would move to Transylvania, a fact that concurred with important structural changes in the history of the Gets and that of the Dacians. But I shall speak about these on a different occasion.
 

The dacians Kings of Dacia
 
         

          This is a list of kings of the ancient land of Dacia. The chronology may not be very precise, since many of the Greek and Roman documents on Dacian history have been lost in time.

Zalmoxis

          Zalmoxis Σάλμοξις (or Salmoxis Σάλμοξις, Zamolxis Σάμολξις, Samolxis Σάμολξις) was a semi-mythical social and religious reformer, regarded as the only true God by the Thracian Dacians (also known in the Greek records as Getae Γέται). According to Herodotus (IV. 95 sq.), the Getae, who believed in the immortality of the soul, looked upon death merely as going to Zalmoxis, as they knew the way to becoming immortals.

Charnabon

          Charnabon was a king of the Getae, mentioned in Sophocles' tragedy Triptolemos as ruling the Getae, without a precise geographical location of his kingdom.

Dromichaetes

          Dromichaetes was ruler of the Getae north of Danube (present day Romania) around 300 BC. His capital was named "Helis" and was probably located somewhere in the Romanian Plain (in Wallachia). Ancient chronicles (Diodorus Siculus, Polybius, Plutarch, Pausanias) recorded his victory over Lysimachus, King of Thrace and former general of Alexander the Great. The most remarkable thing about Dromichaetes was his diplomacy. After he captured Lysimachus a symbolic feast was staged in which, Lysimachus was given the best food and ate from silver plates whilst, the Getae ate modest food from wooden plates. Eventually Lysimachus was set free and was offered lavish gifts, a peaceful relationship between he and the Getae being thus established. The peace between the Getae and Lysimachus was strenghtened further by the marriage between Dromichaetes and Lysimachus' daughter.

Burebista

          Burebista, the greatest king of Dacia, ruled between 70 BC and 44 BC. Dacian Kingdom, during the rule of Burebista, 82 BC  Enlarge Dacian Kingdom, during the rule of Burebista, 82 BC. He unified the Thracian population from Hercinica (modern day Moravia) in the West, to the Bug in the East and from Northern Carpathians to Dionysopolis, choosing his capital (called Argedava or Sargedava) near Costesti (the Orastie hills - see Dacian Fortresses of the Orastie Mountains).

The real name of Burebista was lost, but his fame was remembered by the Greek writers through the name of Byrebistas.  The spiritual center of the kingdom was called by Strabon Kagaion, the holy mountain, and is thought to be localized somewhere in the Bucegi mountains. On the south of Danube, the Proconsul of the province of Macedonia, the general Varro Lucullus, during the second Mithridatic War (74–72 BC) occupied the Greek cities on the west coast of the Black Sea from Apollonia to the Danube Delta. The Greek inhabitants of the conquered cities asked Burebista for help and the Roman army of Gaius Antonius Hybrida was defeated near Histria. The Greek cities of Tomis, Calatis, Dionysopolis and Apollonia then agreed to become part of Burebista's kingdom. Burebista continued his incursion in the region, conquering Aliobrix (Cartal, southern Bessarabia, now part of Ukraine), Tyras and Odessas.

          In 48 BC, Burebista interfered with the internal Roman dispute between Julius Caesar and Pompey, choosing the latter as an ally. Three years later Caesar defeated his adversary and planned on sending legions to punish Burebista, but on March 15, 44 BC before the decisive battle, Caesar was assassinated in the Senate. Within the same year Burebista had died in unknown circumstances. 

Coson

          Due to the lack of written information regarding the getae - Dacians history, many important names related to their civilization remain either unknown or controversial. The controversy regarding the name of this king came after the discovery of golden coins in scripted with the word KOSON in Greek characters. Such coins have been discovered in great number in Transylvania and has captured the attention of writers from the XVIth century. Thus, there are comments from Erasmus of Rotterdam in 1520 and Stefan Zamosius in 1593.

          Coins inscripted KOSON have been discovered in several big treasures hoards in Transylvania. The first thesaurus has been discovered in 1543, having several thousands coins and objects made of gold. It has been told that this thesaurus has been revealed in a bolted chamber under the river Strei, identified as the river Sargetia, also mentioned by Dio Cassius.Further research confirms this and places the thesaurus in one of the Dacians castles in Orastiei mountains, probably in Sarmisegetusa.

Decebal

          Decebalus (ruled 87-106 AD) (Decebal in Romanian) was a Dacian king. After the death of Great King Burebista, Dacia split into four or five small states. The situation continued until Decebalus managed to consolidate the core of Dacia around Sarmizegetusa in todays Hunedoara county. He reorganized the Dacian army and in 85 the Dacians began raiding the heavily fortified Roman province of Moesia, located south of the Danube.

          Domitian decided to send his prefect of the Praetorian Guards, Cornelius Fuscus, to punish and conquer the Dacians, but the two Roman legions sent were defeated and their battle standards (eagles) were captured by the Dacians. 

          Another attack on Dacia, in 88 AD, was successful, but revolts of the Germans on the Rhine required the military force of Moesia and the Romans were forced to pay large sums of money in the form of tribute to the Dacians for maintaining peace in this region. This humiliating situation continued until Trajan acceded as Emperor of the Roman Empire in 98 AD. He immediately engaged in a series of military campaigns that defeated the Dacians and expanded the Roman Empire to its greatest reach.

          Decebalus was defeated by the Romans when they invaded Dacia in 102 AD, but he was left as a client king under a Roman protectorate. Three years later Decebalus destroyed the Roman troops in Dacia resulting in a final Roman invasion that conquered Dacia and removed Decebalus from power.

Dacian chefs

          Diegis was a Dacian chief, the brother of Decebalus and his representative at the peace negotiations held with Domitian (89 AD).

          Vezina was the Dacian high priest during the reign of Decebalus, the most important man in the Kingdom after Decebalus. He took part in the Battle of Tapae in 88 AD.

          Seuthes was a general in the army of Dromihete who, pretending to be a traitor, joined the army of Lysimachus and helped the Getae capture the Macedonians.

          Zoltes was a chief of the southern Thracians, living in the Haemus mountains area. Leading small groups, he often made incursions into the Pontic cities and  their territories. He attacked the city of Hystria, calling off the siege only after having received 7500 drachmas and 5 talents (approx. 30000 drachmas).
 

Good. Now its a pseudo-scientifical work online and in english. Leave others to read it and form their own opinions.

• There was not enough time for the "romanians" to get to use a language that was not so different to the "vulgarian" Latin.
• How come that the lateast dacian relics are written in some kind of latin? ("Decebalus per Scorillo"?!?!) 

*I'll go on with Dacomaniacs on my side as far as my questions are answered.

1. You did not gave me an answer, you actually managed to be on your way of making  it so  that "if you can make them think as you do just be sure to make them be confused about the subject". So let me rephrase the question: "How come that we, Romanians< speak a more (according to linquists) proper "latin" than the people living in nowadays Italy?
2. The Dacians were using a Dacian language that was similar to Latin before they were conquered? Why would they do that?
3. Out of my first questions: How came that the language in Maramures, Oas, Bucovina, etc. is mainly Romanian (Dacian?!)? Those areas were nevere under Roman control. How is it that a southerner (Oltenia) doesn't find it hard to talk to a notherner(Oas/Maramures)?

1. If we (Romanians) are supposed to have aquired a latin language, how is it that it became so fast our native language since ther are less than 150 years between our "conquest" and our "abandon".
2. If "Decebalus per Scorillo" is not Latin then what is it?
3. Now, if the "costobocs" were different, why would they share the same language as the ... whatever Oltenia guys would be called.
4. If it's all about the accent how is it that even nowadays there is a huge discrimination upon being an "oltean" rather than an "ardelean"?

"Don't mess with us, Menumorut, we will make you pay for yoy being unworthy of your name!!!"

1. So, there were fewer Dacians than ...whatever in Dacia!?!?!
2. "The free Dacians were voluntary oriented for adopting ....." - like you've been here and seen them doing it! --- It's a theory and that's just about it!. There is no proof that the "Free Dacians" would have had to adopt a foreign culture(unless the Romans were on the same level!?!?)!. Why would they have done that? The Roman Empire was crackling. There were a lot of guys coming from the East that were very "convincing" (a sword/blade is the same, whatever civilisation taken on account). So how come they just keep on speaking the "almost same" language as those that were formerly under the rule of the decadent Roman Empire?
3. "Also, there is true that in Transylvania there is a higher level of civic and daily life morality." - Fortunately for you I'm the only one who replyes on this forum. Nevertheless are you sugesting that a women from Oltenia has a lower "civic and moral" {standards} than an "ardelean" one?. So we should crack our nation into "ardeleans" (who hold a "higher level of civic and daily life morality") and us, "the others", who are to be considered as ~"ardeleans"?. So Romania is made up of "ardeleans" and whatever are "~ardeleans"?
   

We're (not me) about to get you under. But that will come ... just not now.  How about wendesday? I mean, if it's OK for you, on the 15th of November?

It would be interesting to examine the effect that the treasure of Decebalus, captured by Trajan during the second Dacian war.

According to one of the most conservative estimates of French scholar J. Carcopino, the treasure of Decebalus summed up only 165000 kg of gold and 331000 kg of silver, though contemporary accounts (probably exaggerated) indicate alomost 10 times that.

3.3 billion $ in gold

1 denarius of silver - 20$ and 4.5 g

331,000kg of silver = 73,555,556 denarii = $1,471,111,111 = approx $1.5 billion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denarius - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denarius

1 aureus of gold -7.1 g = 25 denarii or $500

165,000 kg of gold = 23,239,437 aureus  or $11,619,718,310

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aureus - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aureus

This adds up to a windfall of about $13 billion, compared to the total GDP of the Roman Empire which has been estimated to be around $22 billion at the time. This is a collosal amount of money for the time and would be equivalent with the US receiving a sudden cash injection of 7 trillion dollars today, or close to $25,000 per inhabitant.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_past_GDP_(PPP)

This helped the Roman Empire to emerge from a serious economic crisis and fueled it for decades. Trajan embarked on a big spending spree, which includes the building of many of the monuments we now associate with Rome.

Yeah the dacians were fierce and capable warriors indeed!Long years they remained independent from the romans! If the modern romanians had a blood ties with the dacians they could be very powerfull nation!