The Ancient Romans were Liberators!

The people, conflicts, and daily life of the Roman army.

Moderator: Aldus Marius

Were the Ancient Romans Liberators?

Yes
6
37%
No
4
25%
Undecided
6
37%
 
Total votes : 16

The Ancient Romans were Liberators!

Postby Lucius Tyrrhenus Garrulus on Wed Sep 24, 2003 5:32 am

Sorry about the deceptive title. But I really want to get everyone's input on this.
Can a case be made for the ancient Romans as liberators? Perhaps not through the political sense, but in cultural, linguistic, scientific terms? Can it be said that the legacy of the ancient Romans has been more good than harm?
NOX EST PERPETVA VNA DORMIENDA
Lucius Tyrrhenus Garrulus
Eques
Eques
 
Posts: 158
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:39 am
Location: PA, USA

Postby Tiberius Dionysius Draco on Wed Sep 24, 2003 1:54 pm

Salve Garrule,

I kind of misunderstand the term "Liberators" here I'm afraid. Whenever I think of the Romans as Liberators, it sounds to me as if they saved people from tirants or something like that. But I might be horribly wrong too! :?

However you're talking about the heritage that the Romans has left us. Then I think that they did indeed leave us important things. They thaught us a great deal about the army (formations and tactics), infrastructure (roads), politics (their voting system and the senate) and many other things!

Even though I cannot always give examples, I know that there are a lot of small things that are still visible in our daily life today that the Romans have left us.

So I think I'm going to vote "yes". But I'm going to wait a little until you can specify what you mean by "Liberators".

Vale bene,
Tiberius Dionysius Draco
User avatar
Tiberius Dionysius Draco
Curator
Curator
 
Posts: 458
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2002 5:18 pm
Location: Belgica

Postby Horatius Piscinus on Wed Sep 24, 2003 3:28 pm

Salvete

Romans as cultural liberators. Just see Monty Python's "Life of Brian" for a statement on that. In the Greek east it was true that Rome was called upon to protect smaller states from their larger Greek kingdoms. One reason some kings willed their domains to Rome, or asked that disputes be handed over to Rome. Rome was also called to defend Greece from Macedonian ambitions. Greeks had two views of Rome, one being scrupulously honest in their negotiations, the other being ruthlessly honest in their negotiations. The thing was that once a bargain was struck, a Roman kept his word. In the west, in North Africa, and in Gaul, Rome was called on to defend neighbors against more barbarous peoples, or defend the local leaders against internal strife. It was not all just Roman propaganda projecting themselves as defenders of others, or as mediators in foreign disputes. Other peoples did look to Rome for just such services. Even restive Palestine at first regarded Romans as liberators. There is however a price to pay when dealing with a foreign power like Rome. They do not appreciate ingratitude.

Valete bene
M Horatius Piscinus

Sapere aude!
User avatar
Horatius Piscinus
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 7:39 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Postby Lucius Tyrrhenus Garrulus on Wed Sep 24, 2003 9:56 pm

Tiberius Dionysius Draco wrote:Whenever I think of the Romans as Liberators, it sounds to me as if they saved people from tirants or something like that.

You got it! I was also thinking of liberation from ignorance. Such as in the furthering of science. But I don't want to say too much. I would much rather let others guide this thread.
Vale bene
NOX EST PERPETVA VNA DORMIENDA
Lucius Tyrrhenus Garrulus
Eques
Eques
 
Posts: 158
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:39 am
Location: PA, USA

Rome was an improvement but ...

Postby C.AeliusEricius on Thu Sep 25, 2003 3:25 am

My first thought when I read the question was, "Please define your terms." The succeeding responses illucidated things well enough.

The Life of Brian definitely says it, but it's too long to quote, so here's an URL:

http://arago4.tn.utwente.nl/stonedead/m ... ne-10.html

But "liberators"? I think there must be a better word to choose, though I can't think of it. The Romans didn't see themselves as liberating the people or the lands they absorbed, the inhabitants didn't either.

The self styled freedom fighters might well say, "All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?"

Valete.

C. Aelius Ericius.
Roman.[/b][/i]
User avatar
C.AeliusEricius
II. Legionary
II. Legionary
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2003 3:51 pm
Location: San Francisco, California

Postby Gnaeus Dionysius Draco on Thu Sep 25, 2003 11:39 am

Salve Garrule!

As with most things in geopolitics, liberation is a concept that is to be used with some caution. In WW2 the Red Army liberated most of Eastern Europe from the Nazis but replaced it with the tyranny of stalinism. Probably stalinism was a bit better than Nazism but the difference was small. A clear-cut example of liberation is again, in WW2, the Allied forces freeing Western Europe. However, it would divide the world for the coming 45 years. Is that really a form of liberation then?

I tend to agree with Piscinus that the Romans were probably not as imperialist as they are sometimes depicted (even by professors) but on the other hand, one can barely say that for example Caesar liberated Gallia. He wrote "Gallia pacata est". Sure, it was peaceful because all of Gaul was united under one ruler by force, and because there was barely anyone left to fight. However, the Gallo-Roman population of the area was later indeed peacefully integrated into the empire and would flourish in the 3rd and 4th century CE.

It remains a difficult question. That's why I voted undecided.

Vale bene,
Draco
Gn. Dionysius Draco Invictus
User avatar
Gnaeus Dionysius Draco
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 1618
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 8:04 pm
Location: Belgica

Postby Gaius Iulius Tabernarius on Fri Mar 21, 2008 4:19 pm

Undeniably yes!

It goes to the kind of life you would prefer to live, I'd much rather live in an advanced roman city than a small barbarian village.

The Hellenic empires were at war so often that sieges, sackings, and raids were daily events. Compared to that, the pax romana would have been a blessing.

And you know the old spiel, republican government, modern military, and civil structure, sanitation, health care, and a peaceful prosperous rule.
"O Tempora! O Mores!!" Cicero
User avatar
Gaius Iulius Tabernarius
II. Legionary
II. Legionary
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 9:09 pm
Location: MA, USA

Postby Tiberius Iulius Draco on Wed May 21, 2008 9:57 am

I'd disagree that Romans were liberators... For example, they came in Dacia for political reasons (gold mines, lush lands, strong work-force) and also for the megalomania of Trajan (who wanted the fame of conquering these tough, strong and wise people). After conquering Dacia through force they destroyed the capital fort (Sarmisegetuza) brick by brick... that's not liberation. They hunted down all dacian priests (and when christians came to power the priests were considered evil spirits; search for "Hultan"<sg> or <pl>"Hultani"). Plus that Hadrian placed huge taxes on these people... Again, doesnt seem like liberation.
Also i wish to mention that Dacian politics were quite influenced by the greek democracy, and the chieftains and the high priest formed a council mediated by the King and they discussed issues in a democratic way. So we dont have primitive tribe political system, we have a nice aristocratic pseudo-government... so Romans can't even claim to have culturalized us considering that some dacians knew latin and greek at least as good as romans and greeks. Not to mention the military genius, the bravery, honor and so many other glorious things... Either way, point is that romans didn't come as liberators in Dacia... there was no tyranny to save the people from, and no need to "civilize" as dacians were quite evolved in all points of view...
"Victory or Valhalla!"

Vide
Avde
Vole
Tace
User avatar
Tiberius Iulius Draco
Socius
Socius
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 9:41 am
Location: Dacia

The Contrarian

Postby Aldus Marius on Wed May 21, 2008 8:46 pm

Salvete amici!

> I'd much rather live in an advanced roman city than a small barbarian village.


*chuckles*

What about living in an advanced barbarian city? Or a large barbarian village...or a 'backwards' Roman village...or...? So many possible combinations!

(I can't help it, amici; such statements always tease out the contrarian in me!) >({|;-]

Leviter,
Aldus Marius Peregrinus.
User avatar
Aldus Marius
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 3:16 am
Location: Within hailing distance

Terrae Liberatae a Romanis?

Postby Valerius Claudius Iohanes on Wed May 21, 2008 10:27 pm

Salvete, Sodales Sociique omnes -

"Liberation" exists or not depending on the viewpoint of the person/people being "liberated". That is, if liberation is the act of freeing, then you can spot increased freedom in some areas, and simultaneously increased restriction in other areas.

It seems to me that the Romans gave, in varying degrees to various peoples:
-Access to the Mediterranean cosmopolis for some among the provincial elite;
    -Opportunities to make a fortune;
    -Literacy and History for the educated;
    -Certain kinds of military know-how;
    -Technology: aqueducts, roads, multi-storey concrete construction, etc.;
    -A rather tolerant umbrella-system for Deities;
    -Roman citizenship, as available.
But then they also brought:
    -Taxes and tax-gatherers;
    -Exploiters and masters;
    -A money economy;
    -War and its horrors;
    -Subordinations and subjugations of nations;
    -and still more taxes.
It's not that Rome did not enrich the world or leave a legacy, but the initial acts of conquest, retribution and so on were rarely liberating for any but the Romans themselves. Or so it seems to me.

Valete!
Valerius Claudius Iohannes
Curator anno MMDCCLXII
Centurio Honorarius Societatis

:: Adversitas bono viro intelligentiam docet. ::
User avatar
Valerius Claudius Iohanes
Curator
Curator
 
Posts: 674
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 4:28 am
Location: Sancti Leandri Oppidum, California Franciscencis, Conpactae Civitates Americae

Postby Tiberius Iulius Draco on Thu May 22, 2008 8:47 am

Aldus Marius, have you seen ruins of dacian cities? Dacians were not like germanic tribes... They had huge forts, stone walls, they were already civilized peacefully by the greeks through commerce and connection. There were several greek colonies in eastern Dacia and at the capital there was a very good school.
As such, romans here did not come as liberators, we were already "liberated"... they came as conquerers wanting fame and gold... same thing happened with maya and conquistadors... you tell me maya was under-evolved ;)

Claudius Iohanes, you say romans brought
It seems to me that the Romans gave, in varying degrees to various peoples:
-Access to the Mediterranean cosmopolis for some among the provincial elite;

-Opportunities to make a fortune;
-Literacy and History for the educated;
-Certain kinds of military know-how;
-Technology: aqueducts, roads, multi-storey concrete construction, etc.;
-A rather tolerant umbrella-system for Deities;
-Roman citizenship, as available.

As i've said before, in other regions they DID come as liberators (see caesar who freed gauls from inner conflict and truly civilized this truly barbaric nation). However, in Dacia, they did not come as liberators. We already had great access to the "mediterranean cosmopolis" (through greek trade; Burebista had political connections with Pompei, Dacian princes studied in Rome or Athens,etc), as i've stated above, there were many schools, greatest at Sarmisegetuza (dacians could read and write perfectily in greek, and many were well-versed in Homer and others).
As for technology, let's face it, romans stole everything from greeks, and only improved over time. And military... :lol: dacians defeated roman military time and again through traps, guerrilla warfare, covert ops, etc.

All this talk about dacians and greeks however brings me to the other point... how were romans "liberators" for greeks? This was always a dilemma for me... We have the young and growing roman soldiers, and the old and still in shape greeks... Considering that romans were actually "grecisised" instead of "romanizing" the greeks, i wonder who Truly won the war...

PS: Don't get me wrong with all this "anti"-roman thingy, i consider myself daco-roman, i love roman military, i love roman ways, otherwise i wouldn't be here.. but most of all, i love debate :D
"Victory or Valhalla!"

Vide
Avde
Vole
Tace
User avatar
Tiberius Iulius Draco
Socius
Socius
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 9:41 am
Location: Dacia

Postby Tiberius Dionysius Draco on Thu May 22, 2008 5:01 pm

Salve Tiberi,

Tiberius Iulius Draco wrote:As I've said before, in other regions they DID come as liberators (see Caesar who freed Gauls from inner conflict and truly civilized this truly barbaric nation).


Whoa, easy there. Gauls barbarians and uncivilized? I won't deny that there was conflict amongst tribes, but to say they weren't civilized makes it sound like they were still rolling in the mud and lived in caves.

There is a lot we do not know of the Gaulic tribes simply because there are few written sources about them (that are non-Roman). However, when we look at their jewelry for example, one can see that they posessed a high level of technology and craftmanship.

I guess it all depends on what "civilization" exactly means according to you.

By the way, nice username, reminds me of someone I know :wink: .

Vale bene,
Tiberius Dionysius Draco
User avatar
Tiberius Dionysius Draco
Curator
Curator
 
Posts: 458
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2002 5:18 pm
Location: Belgica

(Makin' a) Mess o' America

Postby Aldus Marius on Thu May 22, 2008 7:26 pm

Salve iterum, Tiberi Iuli!

Scripsiti:


> ...same thing happened with Maya and conquistadors... you tell me Maya was under-evolved!


You do like debate! And you have a taste for research; always a good thing. We are casual here, but we do strive to be scholars.

The first draft of my post was on the serious side, and did indeed mention Mesoamerica. But I changed it into a mathematical digression; taking our base set as "Roman", "Barbarian", "village", "city", "large", and "small", we get (IIR math C; no guarantee on that) two-to-the-6th minus one potential combinations of those terms, including "all of the above" and "none of the above". What can I say? --I'm the Resident Madman hereabouts, and sometimes my mind takes me off on some interesting side-trips. You'll get used to them. >({|:-)

But I count among my probable ancestors Celtiberians and Carthaginians, Greeks, Romans, Moors and Arabs from my native Hispania; Inca and other Andean Indians from Venezuela, my family's first stop in the New World; and, yes, those selfsame conquistadores. (My greats and grands were merchants, lawyers, scholars and physicians; we've even had a diplomat. I am the first member of my traceable family line to have actually had a military career.) Mater is an honorary member of the Oklahoma Delaware tribe; my sister is one-quarter Cherokee. Ita, I likes my native peoples. I wish I knew as much about the Celts in Spain as you do about the Dacians, but if they were anything like the Gauls, their civilisation was nothing to sneeze at.

Stereotypes don't do anybody any good. I can be a proud Roman Spaniard without snubbing the Ethiopians. (They had cities too, and diplomatic and trade relations with Rome.) I do snub the Greeks, but for other reasons--not least for what I perceive as their arrogance in believing, and causing present-day scholars to believe, that they were the authors of everything good and fine in the Classical world. 'Course, as with everything else I say, I'm willing to be proven wrong! >({|;-)

In amicitia et fide (and mighty glad to have you on board!),
Aldus Marius Peregrinus.
User avatar
Aldus Marius
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 3:16 am
Location: Within hailing distance

Postby Tiberius Iulius Draco on Thu May 22, 2008 9:35 pm

Tiberius Dionysius Draco wrote:I guess it all depends on what "civilization" exactly means according to you.

By the way, nice username, reminds me of someone I know :wink: .

Vale bene,


Well by "uncivilized" i meant in this case "barbaric" by roman standards (foreign tribe-organized people). I personally dont consider uncivilized barbarian peoples, they were less corrupt, more efficient politics (as they included morality and honor), etc. And thanks for the compliment :P

Mighty glad to read your lines Aldus Marius "Augustus" *bows head in approval*. "Barbarians" were more evolved spiritually (and in some cases) mentally then both greeks and romans, both having grown too megalomaniac. Barbarians sticked to tradition, sticked to honor... Vikings lived for centuries without king and there was little crime if at all. Gauls invented a sword which took the romans 3-4 centuries more to dare use... And now comes that which i am most proud of... Two accounts of dacians:
1 - Herodotus (if i recall correctly) mentions of the dacians as being "the bravest and most honorable of thracians".
and 2 - the first roman expedition that crossed the Danubius into dacian turf, well, they were shocked big-time; the captain's journal was found and said stuff like "we arrived in hell and fought white demons"...
And examples can go on and on...

But thing is that Romans were most evolved indeed... otherwise let's face it, by that time's standards, they would have had nothing... they're only fault was Caesar's "primordial" fault... Not dissolving the corrupt Senate! And even during Imperial times the Senate was influential, and in time Emperors became proud for no good reason... true pride must have a stable foundation, one must deserve to be proud. Emperors grew weak and foolish and continued the corruption of the Senate...
Look what happened when barbarism was combined with roman armies: romano-british warlords, rose as kings and ultimately as what is now known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain which is one of the most powerful states in the world... (although nowadays probably as corrupt as all democracy... this is my reason for disliking greeks...)
Imagine more countries that would have used a combination of nice barbaric spirit with nice roman mind!

I'm done with my plea, i've probably said too much anyway :roll:

Take care friends!
Ave Serpens Lux
"Victory or Valhalla!"

Vide
Avde
Vole
Tace
User avatar
Tiberius Iulius Draco
Socius
Socius
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 9:41 am
Location: Dacia

Postby Marcus Tullius Ioannes on Fri May 23, 2008 1:17 am

Remember the barbarian chieftan in Tacitus, in his work on Agricola, I think? "They [the Romans] create a desert and call it peace."

I doubt many of the peoples of the empire considered the Romans to be liberators. I think the Romans were unabashed imperialists, and that very few people of the time expected them to be anything else. They were confident of the superiority of their culture, and may in some vague way have believed that they were "liberating" people from barbarism in expanding the empire, but such a feeling did not motivate the creation and maintenance of the empire.

That said, I think the situation changed over time, as citizenship was extended, and as a remarkable number of diverse peoples came to--and were allowed to--compete in and benefit from Roman culture. The Romans did not liberate, but they did assimilate, and although the prejudices which we still experience today must have existed then, many of those in the provinces managed to make their mark, and are remembered even now. That can't be said of many empires, even that of those great imitators of the Romans, the British.
Philosophia est ars vitae
User avatar
Marcus Tullius Ioannes
I. Auxiliary
I. Auxiliary
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:53 pm
Location: Wisconsin, U.S.A.

Postby Gaius Iulius Tabernarius on Fri May 23, 2008 4:20 am

To Tiberius Iulius Draco,

True but to be fair the Dacians were constantly breaking imperial treaties and manning raids south of the Danube.

I am inclined to think that while money was defiantly a huge factor, the cost of keeping troops along the border and the idea to defend against constant attacks rather than just eliminating your enemy was also part of the equation.

Although as Rome aged its foreign policy seams more and more dubious...

But the destruction of their capital is explainable enough, the Dacian king broke a peace treaty twice and I think its fair to say Trajan wanted blood for that. Not excusing it, just explaining it.

I would also add however that while the dacians may have become advanced with time, when Rome conquered the region they,. (after wrecking the place bringing it back to square one) defiantly speed up the process by a few centuries at least.

Its a vexing mystery to me how Greece Rome and other such civilizations managed to achieve the things they did so early, when most other culture were still tribe based and rather primitive.

I know admittedly less about Dacia but I do know that they lacked civil institutions like schools, sewers, and running water, or I think I do, at least nothing on the scale of their neighbors to the south... I guess I am a sucker for public works... then again that's my dads job.

Actually if you can offer some resources on traditional Dacian city planning and administration that would be good. Admittedly a lot of what I know comes from a history mod for a video game, (but I must stress they are very very good! they defiantly did their homework.)

To Aldus Marius,

Good point, well I guess I judge from the top not the bottom. The way I see it, a civilizations potential is in how its best citizens live, but as for how many people share in that prosperity that's more how to properly judge their overall worth.

I think Rome had the highest high, but perhaps the most exclusive as well? No, actually I think that would go to Sparta, you don't get much lower than helot.

Then again Spartan kings were still Spartan so that's not so high in rewards as it is in less tangible concepts, still fame glory and valor counts for something to me.

Overall I kind of think the barbarians were the worse off it terms of living conditions, even the roman slaves could watch the games and take baths... at least the lucky ones.

But your average citizen had the bread and circuses to enjoy, not the drudgery of serfdom that plagued the middle ages.

To Valerius Claudius Iohanes,
I have just one question for your roman assessment, what's wrong with a money economy? Having a standard currency as apposed to bartering for everything was one of the most important institutions of a modern, (or ancient) cosmopolitan culture.

To all, I look at the end result, would the world be a better or worse place if Rome remained a city state and never existed as an empire?
What future did Rome steal or liberate us from? I think an empire like Rome was inevitable considering the policies of the Hellenistic east, Persia, Carthage and even the Gauls and Dacians who seam to have been trying their best to consolidate.

But what would the world look like if that took place? I'm not sure, but I am grateful that it is the way it is, and I think we could stand to learn a lot from the classical world, especially a certain city built on the Tiber river...
"O Tempora! O Mores!!" Cicero
User avatar
Gaius Iulius Tabernarius
II. Legionary
II. Legionary
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 9:09 pm
Location: MA, USA

A treat?

Postby Aldus Marius on Fri May 23, 2008 4:59 am

Salvete iterum, amici!

> Two accounts of dacians:


Make that three; a bunch of us ganged up, early on, to write a "novelisation" of the events leading up to Trajan's conquest. I think Decebalus' perspective is well-presented; mi Tiberi Iuli, would you like to go have a look, tell us if we have the gist of it? (If not, bene, we're always looking for Web-site contributions!) <g>

As to the ideal melding of barbarian spirit with Roman mind, I agree with you strongly...though, of course, among Romans of Rome my Celtiberian side keeps getting me into trouble! A long time ago I wrote the following in a tale of a soldier of Roman Britain:


"But then, as a child of two cultures I have had ample opportunity to compare them both... We are both peoples of passion, peoples of pride; we throw ourselves completely into whatever we are doing at the moment, and wish our exploits to be remembered in story or song. The Britons have their Bards, the Romans their historians...these crafts spring from a common desire. Family is important to both; so is reputation, and a desire to excel. In short, I think a Roman is a Celt with discipline, and a Celt is a Roman on fire; and in most things I have not found the distance between them to be too far to walk."


In amicitia et fide,
Aldus Marius Peregrinus.
User avatar
Aldus Marius
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 3:16 am
Location: Within hailing distance

Postby Tiberius Iulius Draco on Fri May 23, 2008 7:57 am

To Tiberius Iulius Draco,

True but to be fair the Dacians were constantly breaking imperial treaties and manning raids south of the Danube. I am inclined to think that while money was defiantly a huge factor, the cost of keeping troops along the border and the idea to defend against constant attacks rather than just eliminating your enemy was also part of the equation.


--- the lands south of danube were of kinsmen, wouldnt you fight for cousins and brother?

But the destruction of their capital is explainable enough, the Dacian king broke a peace treaty twice and I think its fair to say Trajan wanted blood for that. Not excusing it, just explaining it.


--- so (as king) breaking a peace treaty which enslaves your people and your country is a bad thing? That peace treaty was made first off because romans won the war (saying cheated by kidnapping Decebal's sister, would be inappropriate as it was war thus understandable), and second off so that Decebal could re-organize his army.
Nonetheless the destruction of the capital was a sign that the romans feared dacians more then any previous enemies... (and they had reason too, because even after the war the Free Dacians and Carps continued to wage minor war, only to reconquer the land of their forefathers a few centuries later with the help of Goths).

Its a vexing mystery to me how Greece Rome and other such civilizations managed to achieve the things they did so early, when most other culture were still tribe based and rather primitive.


--- one word: spirituality. Didnt want to say religion... Thing is that greek/roman religious morality drives man to a scholarly/scientific point, while the religious morality of "barbarians" drives man to evolution of self(be it through warfare -those under Wotan/Gebeleizis-, be it through hermitage and ascetism -those under Mithra, Zamolxis, etc). Either way, barbarian religion never stressed that there should be great economy or anything... they couldnt care less whether they had 10 gold crates and 100, they wanted to go down in history, to live on through descendants, to be strong and powerful in order to deserve entry in Walholl (germanic) or above the skies (dacian/celtic).

I know admittedly less about Dacia but I do know that they lacked civil institutions like schools, sewers, and running water, or I think I do, at least nothing on the scale of their neighbors to the south... I guess I am a sucker for public works... then again that's my dads job.


--- They didnt lack civil institutions, they had fewer obviously as they didnt need bureaucracy, however they had water mills (and from what i know many barbarian peoples had), sewers surely started in the eastern sea-side greek colonies but probably developed in other places as well. But it's true, the quantity (and for sewers quality as well) was not of the magnitude of the greeks and romans... However, the quality of the schools was laudable considering that the dacians knew of herodot, could recite homer, and so on. Plus, some (as i've said) studied in Athens, Corinth, Rome, etc... And i wish to add that Decebal was one of the greatest generals of his time having outsmarted and intimidated romans time and again(one example would be when dacians put shields on trees to make romans think that there's lots more dacians, romans fell for it). The reason Trajan won was that he had more numbers... sole reason... As Mark Anthony said(i think): "Even a lion can be killed by a hundred of hungry dogs."

Actually if you can offer some resources on traditional Dacian city planning and administration that would be good. Admittedly a lot of what I know comes from a history mod for a video game, (but I must stress they are very very good! they defiantly did their homework.)


--- all i could offer you or others is in Romanian... some information can be found here http://www.geticagame.com/index.php?sec ... ns&lang=en (a historical game in creation by a history-oriented organization)
In rest just google the net saying "dacians", "getae" or "Dacia"[/quote]
"Victory or Valhalla!"

Vide
Avde
Vole
Tace
User avatar
Tiberius Iulius Draco
Socius
Socius
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 9:41 am
Location: Dacia

Postby Tiberius Iulius Draco on Fri May 23, 2008 8:10 am

Aldus Marius, i like the celt with discipline and roman on fire text, congratulations.
As for the depiction of Decebal in the "Conquest of Dacia" i've read only the prologue cause i dont have too much time right now... Dunno physical descriptions of him so i can't contest the red hair and blue eyes :P however he wasnt a ranger/druid type like celts to be a tree huger and worshiper of nature. No, he was like all the other dacians loyal to the old gods (Gebeleizis, Bendis, etc) and to the new god (Zamolxis, which i personally do not accept). The priests of that time were very wise and smart and spiritual people, and the High Priest was the most trusted councillor of Decebal (goes by the name Vezina, and was a warrior priest as custom called). Another very trust councillor was Decebal's brother, Diegis, and one of the best army commanders was Velatos (Diegis's son). Anyway, back to Decebal... he was very passionate, and loved his family and people more then himself (seems to be a usual dacian-king trait). He didnt care about winning or loosing, what mattered was to retain his ancestor's lands and keep the people safe.
"Victory or Valhalla!"

Vide
Avde
Vole
Tace
User avatar
Tiberius Iulius Draco
Socius
Socius
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 9:41 am
Location: Dacia

Postby Gaius Iulius Tabernarius on Sat May 24, 2008 8:14 pm

To Tiberius Iulius Draco,

"the lands south of danube were of kinsmen, wouldnt you fight for cousins and brother?"


Perhaps but they did more looting than saving.

"so (as king) breaking a peace treaty which enslaves your people and your country is a bad thing?"


No, but it is a break in international diplomatic convention, and grounds for war.

"That peace treaty was made first off because romans won the war (saying cheated by kidnapping Decebal's sister, would be inappropriate as it was war thus understandable), and second off so that Decebal could re-organize his army."


Yes, that is correct of course, but the strong did what they could and the week suffer what they must.

"Nonetheless the destruction of the capital was a sign that the romans feared dacians more then any previous enemies... (and they had reason too, because even after the war the Free Dacians and Carps continued to wage minor war, only to reconquer the land of their forefathers a few centuries later with the help of Goths)."


Yes they feared them enough to consider them a threat to the eastern provinces, hence the stated reason for the war... strength and wealth are interrelated. The Dacians could only field armies because of all that gold. So its not just that the Romans wanted the wealth, but they were concerned about what the Dacians could do with it.

You have to admit that the Romans had more to gain than lose by conquering Dacia, and for their part the Dacians were making peace difficult.

To be fair my family is from Calabria, ancient Bruttia and the Bruttians were heavily massacred by Rome. But the region was better off afterwards, I probably wouldn't exist if not for that.

one word: spirituality. Didnt want to say religion... Thing is that greek/roman religious morality drives man to a scholarly/scientific point, while the religious morality of "barbarians" drives man to evolution of self(be it through warfare -those under


Well I kind of prefer science over spirituality, and reason over faith... so I am more Greco-Roman on this topic.

"Wotan/Gebeleizis-, be it through hermitage and ascetism -those under Mithra, Zamolxis, etc). Either way, barbarian religion never stressed that there should be great economy or anything... they couldnt care less whether they had 10 gold crates and 100, they wanted to go down in history, to live on through descendants, to be strong and powerful in order to deserve entry in Walholl (germanic) or above the skies (dacian/celtic)."


But being the strongest and bravest can only get you so far, there is more to life than fighting and story telling.

"They didnt lack civil institutions, they had fewer obviously as they didnt need bureaucracy, however they had water mills (and from what i know many barbarian peoples had), sewers surely started in the eastern sea-side greek colonies but probably developed in other places as well."


Its not that they couldn't benefit from bureaucracy but that they didn't have it from my point of view.

"But it's true, the quantity (and for sewers quality as well) was not of the magnitude of the greeks and romans..."


Isn't that a bad thing?

"However, the quality of the schools was laudable considering that the dacians knew of herodot, could recite homer, and so on. Plus, some (as i've said) studied in Athens,"


But over all what was the number of literate dacians before Rome compared to after?

"Corinth, Rome, etc... And i wish to add that Decebal was one of the greatest generals of his time having outsmarted and intimidated romans time and again(one example would be when dacians put shields on trees to make romans think that there's lots more dacians, romans fell for it)."


I'm not denying that barbarian generals could be brilliant tacticians after all Caesars greatest rival was Vercingetorix.

"The reason Trajan won was that he had more numbers... sole reason... As Mark Anthony said(i think): "Even a lion can be killed by a hundred of hungry dogs."


Well the legions bit a lot harder than dogs in my opinion.

"all i could offer you or others is in Romanian... some information can be found here'


I wouldn't be able to read it, sadly English is the only language I am fluent in.

But I will add Dacia to my list of places to delve into more deeply.
"O Tempora! O Mores!!" Cicero
User avatar
Gaius Iulius Tabernarius
II. Legionary
II. Legionary
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 9:09 pm
Location: MA, USA

Next

Return to Collegium Militarium

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron