Dacians, thracians, and their stuff.

Originally posted by Menumorut Thearrgh, I didn't heard until now about such things and I ratherly disbelieve such things existed, because the society of Dacians was too less organized. A centralized power existed for a too small period. Different to migratory populations or long life states, unions like those of Dacians, Gauls, Germans I believe could not create a real court and general administration.

Perhaps, but then again, perhaps not. While there was not a central power, nor was there in ancient greece, much of the americas,  and so on. They probably had a few "kings" of small pieces of what would later become a large unified entity. And some of those probably had a fair amount of money and influence, within their sphere. If they had that, they could have had some fairly established trade-even if it wasn't on the scale of more centralized societies.

Ofcourse you are not obliged, but you have assertions without proving them.


You are mixing together some criticists which had refered to different things. Sorin Olteanu didn't refered to Romanian scholars but to the amateur Dacomans.


Andrei Plesu is an arrivist, son of Communist nomenclaturists and after 1989 managed to became a public figure for obtaining advantages. His work is small and poor and how can you quote a philosopher in historical subjects?

Or how can you quote an ethnolog like Oisteanu?



Patzinakia group criticized the same Dacoman amateurs, not the Romanian scholars.



What you say about the work Istoria Rom�nilor shows me clearly that you are speaking about what you don't know, because this work was criticized for its bombastic language, starting with the title which, Niculescu or someone other (I'm almost sure Niculescu was) says, have to refer to the territory of Romania, not to Romanian people.



As for the maps, what you say could be appliable to the Spanish-made one, but for the Hungarian-made map, I hardly believe that they would take something about Romania without checking the original sources.


Anyway, reading what you have offered as primary sources, I conclude that these maps are correct, it is the most acceptable view to believe that the great union of tribes existed under the rule of a political leader.

In the introduction to his thesis, the author even admits he had to use mostly pre-1989 scholarship.

And is this that bad? Do you believe that everything pre-1989 is wrong? Have read any Romanian archaeological monographies writen in pre-1989 period? I have in front of mine 6-7 such monographies (each one about one site) and is not any forced interpretation. In these books there are presented the facts without being made ethnic atributions and in the Conclusions chapter there are sugested some ideas.

Your dilema about the literary sources on Burebista is not a problem for historians. To understand how a historian think, try to give and explanation to the aparition of those accounts from the ancient sources and also try to answer at these:
-what sort of organization was in Dacian society in 1st century BC?
-how appeared the state of Decebal?


Then, you can try to answer at a combination between the previous questions and the ones related to archaeological discoveries:

-why there are not sanctuaries before the Burebista's time and then, in his time sudenly appears similar (lines of rounded stones) sanctuaries in most the Dacian lands: on Dniestr river, in Carpathic Moldavia, in Muntenia and Oltenia, Transilvania?
-why appears the fasonated stone fortresses in South-East Transylvania in 1st century BC?
-why appear a political and religious center which seems to be of all Dacians, in the same area?

Edited by Menumorut - 14-Oct-2007 at 01:40

guys I have a question for you it is about the Martenitsa ritual in bulgaria/on 1st of march...I have a pic in my topic Bulgarian origins on the last page of the topic..any idea about its origins?I heard its practised in Romania and Moldavia too...do you agree of its protobulgar origin?

Sorry for the mistake.

Anyway, it was a double mistake, one confusing Moesia Inferior with Moesia Superior and one by the fact that these emperors were from both Moesia.

Originally posted by Chilbudios I will give you the sources I know of (in my translation if not said otherwise, the parantheses are added by me) on that and let you judge by yourself:   C. Velleius Paterculus (early 1st century AD), Historia Romana, II, 59, 4: He (Caesar) intended to take him (Octavianus) in his expeditions against Getae and the Parthians.   Appianus (1-2nd centuried AD), Historia Romanorum, De rebus Illyricis, XVII: Near this river (Sava) there was a fortification Caesar wanted to use for supplies and the war he was preparing against the Dacians and the Bastarnae living across the Ister.   Strabo, Geographia (early 1st century AD, from the translation I've already linked), VII, 3, 5: at the time when Byrebistas, against whom already the Deified Caesar had prepared to make an expedition, was reigning over the Getae and VII, 5, 12: However, certain men rose up against Boerebistas and he was deposed before the Romans sent an expedition against him; and those who succeeded him divided the empire into several parts.   Paulus Orosius (5th century AD, please note how late is this chronicle!), Adversum paganos, I, 16 Getae which today are called Goths (sic!), which Alexander the Great said he had to avoid them, Pyrrhus was terrified by them, and Caesar had to stay away from them.

One more question. Did Julius Ceasar planned to conquer Dacia and did he say smth. that the conquest of Dacia would be even more difficult than the conquest of Gaul ?

I will give you the sources I know of (in my translation if not said otherwise, the parantheses are added by me) on that and let you judge by yourself:

Edited by Chilbudios - 13-Oct-2007 at 22:34

One more question. Did Julius Ceasar planned to conquer Dacia and did he say smth. that the conquest of Dacia would be even more difficult than the conquest of Gaul ?

Much of the information here on Dacians is distorted. The group "Dacia Nemuritoare" (the Immortal Dacia) and several others (responsible for parts of the materials references here) are relatively well-known in the Romanian historiography for their "Dacomanism", or more generally "Protochronism", ideological movements which attempt to make the Dacian civilization much more brilliant and developed than it really was (after the most extreme form of it - the first civilization ever, starting with Tărtăria) and to make the Romanians the proud descendents of them (and usually in a total unscientific way, by inventing realities beyond what the evidences really say). In a way similar with some recent extremist positions from the thread on the origins of Bulgarians.

Edited by Chilbudios - 13-Oct-2007 at 20:26

How far did exactly Dacian infuence stretch to the East after the expedition of king Burebista against Olvia?

I wonder how big in terms of population their towns got...