Dacians, thracians, and their stuff.

Originally posted by TheARRGH Did the dacians make any particular large societal or military adaptations to their perpetual enemies, such as the romans, or did they generally stick to more traditional practices?

       I think the most important adaptation they try was in military ( trainning, organization, using of war machines, but trying to adapt to their traditional way of fight and to terrain ) ; they keep they original religion, culture and society ( even the slavery existed, thus little developed, it was more an oriental, patriarchal type, not exactly one see at greeks or especially at romans.

About Burebista reign, most translations i read was like that ( sorry for my english ) : "coming up in top of his people, who was exhausted by numerous wars, the get Burebista brink him up so much thru exercises, moderation, and obeying the comands that in couple years he create a powerfull "state"( this is the mostlly used word, but i saw too empire or realm, however, something more then a simple tribal union ruled by the big boss ), and submit to getians almost all neighbours..."                             About Burebista Argedava is much more probable to be in south Romania ( Muntenia ), since Strabon name Burebista GET, a nmae gived by greeks to dacian peoples from that area, and this is the location the most scholars agree, beeing probably a fortress from Argessos river area. About his corelation with Sarmisegetuza, this come mostly from archeology, the Orastie mountain complex of fortress, including Sarmisegetuza, was builded, or began to be build, or reinforced, in times of Burebista.                                                                     As well, Deceneu is said in almost all ancient sources debating the dacians ( i think Jordanes as well ) that remain the king of one of that 4 parts of former Burebista kingdom, the one from Transilvania with capital at Sarmisegetuza most probably, and is even gived the name of one who follow him at throne, Comosicus, Scorrilo ( reign 40 years ), Duras, and give as well the names of some who rule the other parts.                                                                   Vezina is considered as well the great priest but historians, not just second after king, the same situation as in Deceneu case ( i dont know for sure the translation from Dion Cassius 47,10 ).                                                                                       And now, about Deceneu and <belagines> laws. Ofcourse, Deceneu teach the dacians that laws, is no doubt about. Jordanes, ( as others too ) just consider the 2 peoples, gets and gots one and the same, this is the reason he write goths instead og gets. I see no conection between dacian belagines ( who suposedly was given to Zalmoxis by godess Hestia ) and your german tribal laws, who inever heard, sincerely, until now.

http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/italy/ravenna/santapollinare/0030.jpg

I think the most important adaptation they try was in military ( trainning, organization, using of war machines, but trying to adapt to their traditional way of fight and to terrain ) ; they keep they original religion, culture and society ( even the slavery existed, thus little developed, it was more an oriental, patriarchal type, not exactly one see at greeks or especially at romans.

There is almost not connection between the religion and the customs from 5-4th centuries and the ones from 1st century BC and AD, as appears in archaeology and literary records.

In 5-4th century it was a culture and religion imitating the one of the Southern Thracians.

After that, the culture of the Dacians suffered an evolution, a changement, losing its original characteristics, becoming more resemblant to Celtic and other "barbar" cultures of Europe.

In the time of Burebista it was implemented a new form of religion, implying regular forms of cult.

The material culture was missing original characteristics in the period of (and between) the rules of Burebista and Decebal.

There's no attestation of an Argedava there and Argessos also is not attested as a river (Herodotus gives Ordessos). The only attested such settlement is an Argidava/Arcidava on the road from Viminacium to Tibiscum (or in Ptolemy's coordinates, a bit west of Sarmizegetusa Regia)

In the inscription from Dionysopolis is Argedavon, which is quite different to Arcidava. And yourself sayed it's not at accusative.


Burebista could not be from Banat, because there is a much to big distance to Dionysopolis and in Banat there are not signifiant Dacian settlements.





Starting with the rule of Augustus, the Roman emperors tried to strenghten the guarding of the frontiers, making along them, in the enemy's territory (there where it was possible) the policy of the "secure area" -practicised by Romans also at the Lower Danube from the order of Augustus. Sextus Aelius Catus trasfers to South of Danube 50.000 Getae. In the midle of the 1st century AD, the legat of Moesia, Tiberius Plautius Silvanus Aelianus transfers oer 100.000 Getae (the number is exagerated).

Starting from this information, some historians (A. Alf�ldi) had considered that Muntenia was emptied of population and that in the place of the Getae entered the Roxolan Sarmatians. But haven't been discovered in Muntenia and the Romanian Plain Sarmatian graves anterior to 2nd century AD and the Geto-Dacian population, living in the hill area, started after 106 to expand in the plain area, lesser inhabited after the depopulations made by Romans in the 1st century AD.

In the land can be seen sometimes the consequences of the security policy: in the time of Augustus there are abandoned davae from the Danube Plain (Zimnicea, Popesti); in the time of Plautius Aelianus it is affected the line Tinosu (Prahova)-Matasari (D�mbovita), the South of Moldavia and of Bessarabia being affected too.

The destructions of the settlements was by firing, so the transfer was made bythe opposition of the Dacians. The Geto-Dacians turned back on the lands starting probably with the time of Trajan, when the territory of Muntenia and the South of Moldavia were included to Moesia Inferior (101-107). From the Hunt papyrus (dated in 105-106) results that the soldiers of the Cohort I Hispanorum veterana, with detachments at Piroboridava (Poiana -South of Moldavia) and Buridava (Oltenia) were periodicaly obtaining the grain tribute from the land, tribute that could be obtained only from the Geto-Dacians, the sedentary agricultors in the area.

The History of Roman Dacia



Edited by Menumorut - 25-Oct-2007 at 15:54

diegis, I do not have a "nail" but a simple principle: extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidences. If the arguments do not follow, why should we believe in them? Okay, we can launch as many hypotheses as you like, but this is what they will ever be: hypotheses. To move beyond that we need solid evidences. I hope you have noticed I have not described the Dacians as a "nothing" but at a similar level with Germans or Celts, other contemporary European and non-Roman civilizations. The claim that Dacians were some superior and brilliant civilization is extraordinary and requires a solid proof which I see lacking.  

Edited by Chilbudios - 25-Oct-2007 at 16:38

Like the materials on
dacia.org

and many of the materials on
enciclopedia-dacica.ro

and on other Dacoman sites, the work Dacia Preistorica is pure fantesy.

Is impressing the efforts of these people to edit so much things for web and is helpful in some aspects (when they take scientifical information and offer it without interpretations or when they are offering visual documentation).

Edited by Menumorut - 25-Oct-2007 at 21:11

A magnificent movie, but is an international production.

Chilbudios, i never claimed that Dacians are a sort of "uber" nation, and Celtics and Germanics some inferior races, maybe you see too much so called dacomaniacs in every word about dacians. I just said that they haved a superior organization of society and military, especial.                     About that nails, was presented on a public television, and dated by scientists from IFA Magurele, in Bucharest, and, as Menumorut present, by scientists from Rep. Moldova, so, if you want to consider that just hypotheses, is your opinion, i am not try to force you to believe anything.                                                                                             About the academician you said, he have until now a singular opinion, i think, in his, what i will call with your words, <hypothese>. Even lingvist and historian Aurora Petan, who pretend she translate the dacian write tablets have more suporters in shes theory.                                                  About Sarmisegetuza, as a capital, or began to be builded as a capital in times of Burebista, all the historians and archeologists who studied "the problem" agree with that. If you are one of them, and have another view, or know better what was in fact, please tell me your arguments ( or argues of historians.etc who you said not agree with that, i am quite courious to know ).                                       About Diodor, and the laws he write, he make a comparation between 3 profets, Zarathustra, Moses and Zalmoxis, and how all of them receiving the laws from a deity. He dont say "belagines", just laws. But Deceneu, the high priest of Zalmoxis cult, obviously teach the Zalmoxis laws ( named by Jordanes <belagines> )who this received in the past from godess Hestia.                                                                                                          About Gets=Gots, as you saw, is what not only the Orosius, but a lot of others in his time who believe that, and this not mean that one take it for other the idea, since they was all contemporans more or less, but this mean that this was the comon view in that times, and all think like this. Getae ( Dacians ) was still see as an individual "nation" at that time, since emperor Constantine the Great take the over name Dacicus Maximus, or another emperor, Galerius ( with thracian and Dacian origins ), as Lactantius said, even want to change the name of empire from Roman to Dacian.                                                                                                          As well, i will like to see what you said about similarity in clothes between dacians and sarmatians, for ex. Because the comon view of historians and ethnologists who study the dacians from roman representations and modern romanian popular clothes reach to the same conclusions, that if is not remain exactly the same ( as it is probably in mountains remoted areas), for sure coming from the ancient ones. And this is obvious even for not a specialized person, as was the situation with Badea Cartan, the transilvanian peasent who walk on foot until the Rome, in XIX century, to see the Traian Column, and about who italian journalists write in titles, after saw him on Column < A dacian come down from the Column >, the similarity of his "look" with the dacians sculpted there beeing obvious.

Manufacturing iron nails resistent to rust, having an exquisite political or economical infrastructure (when the sources are rather brief and sometimes silent about it), being an "arch-society" for the latter Goths, these are symptoms of "uber"ness I argue against. These obviously put the Dacians on a "next level" compared to Celtic and Germanic populations because the superiority of the former is affirmed through all these.

Edited by Chilbudios - 26-Oct-2007 at 14:22