You are on page 1of 44

Feature

Rome’s Dacian Wars: Domitian, Trajan, and
Strategy on the Danube, Part I*
I
Everett L. Wheeler

Abstract
Two recent major monographs, one on the Dacian wars of Domi-
tian and Trajan (Stefan) and another on ancient migrations from the
Ukraine into the eastern Balkans (Batty, Rome and the Nomads) invite
discussion and evaluation. A survey of the problematic literary and ar-
chaeological sources (not least Trajan's Column) for the history of this
area in the first and second centuries A.D. prefaces an evaluation of
new archaeological evidence on Dacian defenses and innovative top-
ographical identifications. The development of a Geto-Dacian state in
Transylvania within the context of multiple ethnicities on the Lower and
Middle Danube is discussed and use of new archaeological discover-
ies to clarify narratives of the wars of 84–89, 101–102, and 105–106
is evaluated. Interpretations of scenes on Trajan's Column and the
metopes of the Adamklissi monument remain controversial.

T he Roman conquest of Dacia (the ancient forerunner of modern Romania) has
not ceased to fascinate, as demonstrates the weighty tome here discussed—on
my bathroom scale well over six pounds of arguments, photographs, maps, and

*Part II of Everett Wheeler’s “Rome’s Dacian Wars: Domitian, Trajan, and Strategy on the
Danube” will appear in the Journal of Military History 75, no. 1 ( January 2011).

Everett L. Wheeler, scholar in residence at Duke University received his A.B. from Indiana Univer-
sity/Bloomington and a Ph.D. from Duke. He specializes in the history of military theory, ancient
history, and Armenian-Caucasian studies. His extensive publications in ancient military history in-
clude Stratagem and the Vocabulary of Military Trickery (1988), translation (with Peter Krentz) of Poly-
aenus, Stratagems of War, 2 vols. (1994), and (ed.) The Armies of Classical Greece (2007). Besides regular
participation in the International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies and the Lyon Congress on
the Roman Army, he serves on the editorial board of Revue des Études Militaires Anciennes.
The Journal of Military History 74 (October 2010): 1185–1227.
Copyright © 2010 by The Society for Military History, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored, or trans-
mitted in any form or by any means without the prior permission in writing from the Editor, Journal of Military History, George C.
Marshall Library, Virginia Military Institute, P.O. Drawer 1600, Lexington, VA 24450. Authorization to photocopy items for internal
and personal use is granted by the copyright holder for libraries and other users registered with the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC),
121 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 USA (www.copyright.com), provided the appropriate fee is paid to the CCC.

★    1185

EVERETT L. WHEELER

bibliography: Alexandre Simon Stefan, Les guerres daciques de Domitien et de
Trajan: Architecture militaire, topographie, images et histoire, Collection de l’École
Française de Rome 353 (Rome: École Française de Rome, 2005). A trio of general
theses undergirds this mountain of archaeological and topographical detail: first,
the people generally called Getae in Greek and Daci in Latin were not “barbar-
ians” like their German or Sarmatian neighbors, but a strongly Hellenized state of
some sophistication; second, the Emperor Domitian (r. 81–96 A.D.), the victim of
hostile senatorial historiography and the propaganda of Trajan (r. 98–117), merits
rehabilitation: in reality, Trajan only imitated and continued Domitian’s work in
both the military and artistic spheres; third, Stefan’s massive assemblage and re-
evaluation of archaeological data on the Dacian wars, combined with innovative
use of aerial photography, permits new topographical interpretations of Roman
campaigns and a reassertion of the historical accuracy of scenes on Trajan’s Col-
umn. Proper appreciation of the author’s contentions, however, merits a prolegom-
enon on the archaeological and historiographical difficulties of treating Rome’s
Dacian wars, particularly as Stefan’s work spans the history of the Geto-Dacians
from the late sixth century B.C. to the Roman annexation in 106 A.D., and a sub-
sequent recent work has much to say on the context of these conflicts.1

1. R. Batty, Rome and the Nomads: The Pontic-Danubian Realm in Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2007), attempts to trace the history of migrations from the Ukraine into Ro-
mania and Bulgaria (fifth century B.C.–fourth century A.D.). Although supplementing Stefan’s
tome, Batty’s disappointing work suffers inter alia, as this paper’s commentary will document,
from factual errors and out-of-date or omitted bibliography (e.g., ignorance of A. Suceveanu and
A. Barnea, La Dobroudja Romaine [Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedica, 1991]; and A. Alemany,
Sources on the Alans: A Critical Compilation [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2000]). His curious pronounce-
ments about Roman policy on the Lower Danube derive exclusively from a very limited (cherry-
picked?) knowledge of the literature on Roman strategy (discussed in Part II of this article). For
other (and less tendentious) recent surveys of Roman archaeology on the Danube, although
not comprehensive and somewhat disappointing from a military historian’s perspective, see J.
Wilkes, “Recent Work along the Middle and Lower Danube,” Journal of Roman Archaeology 11
(1998): 231–97; and Wilkes, “The Roman Danube: An Archaeological Survey,” Journal of Ro-
man Studies 95 (2005): 124–225.
Footnotes to this discussion, modestly updating Stefan’s fifty-nine double-columned pag-
es (705–63) of bibliography through 2003, alert readers to important work available in North
American and Western European libraries without attempting to be comprehensive. Stefan at-
tests the prolific production of Romanian scholars, including many works generally inaccessible
outside Romania, and often adds his own twist to other excavators’ ideas, properly cited in his
footnotes. His fuller documentation will not be reproduced. Full bibliographical citations for all
ancient sources will not be given; English translations of most are available in the Loeb Classi-
cal Library series. The following abbreviations appear: AE=L’Année épigraphique (Paris: Presses
universitaires de France, 1888-); ILS=H. Dessau, Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, 3 vols. in 5 (Ber-
lin: Weidmann, 1892–1916). Apologies are owed to the Editor, whose patience in awaiting this
paper and toleration of its length are exemplary.

1186    ★ THE  JOURNAL  OF

The Dacian Wars of Domitian and Trajan

I
The skills of siegecraft, engineering, and logistics required to penetrate the
sophisticated and extensive Dacian defenses of the Carpathians probably exceeded
those of the more famous sieges of the Jewish War (66–70 A.D.) and certainly
involved much larger forces on both sides. Although the Dacian conflicts of Domi-
tian (84–89) and Trajan (101–102, 105–106) lack a Josephus’s detailed narrative,
the spades of Romanian archaeologists, active for over a century, have compensated
for sparse literary sources by unearthing much of the Dacian fortification system
and providing clues to the campaigns. Above all (quite literally), Roman victory
required capture of the Dacian capital, Sarmizegethusa Regia (modern Gradishtea
Muchelelui)—no small feat for operations at an elevation of nearly 1,000 meters
in the heart of the southern Carpathians’ Orashtie Mountains. The capital lies on
a narrow ridge, which peaks at Muncel (elevation 1,563.5 meters) and whose sheer
slopes plunge into the Alb and Godeannul Rivers on its northern and southern
sides respectively. Built on fourteen man-made terraces with additional habitation
extending along the ridge for 2 kilometers to the west and about 1 kilometer to
the north, Sarmizegethusa’s massive fortifications, exploiting every topographical
advantage, enclosed an urban area of over three acres.2 But only half of the capital’s
urban space has even been explored, much less dug. Extensive forestation, greater
today than in Antiquity, has impeded understanding this site besides many others
of these wars. Moreover, the potholes of treasure-hunters as early as the Napole-
onic era, seeking fabled “Dacian gold,” and the discontinuity of Romanian excava-
tions, often with different working assumptions, have complicated discerning the
site’s pristine state. Not least, the Romans, true masters of wiping cities off the face
of the earth, as modern investigators of Hellenistic Corinth and Carthage (both
destroyed in 146 B.C.) can verify, left little behind. These factors render Sarmizege-
thusa Regia an archaeological nightmare.
Dacian accomplishments and Romania’s Roman heritage play a significant
role in Romanian national pride—perhaps even more so than with the popular
notions of Roman Britain or Roman Germany, spawning antiquarianism and cos-
tumed wargamers acting out their fantasies. In 1980, when Romania hosted the
International Congress of Historical Sciences in Bucharest, the regime of Nicolae
Ceaucescu simultaneously celebrated 2,050 years of a Romanian national state,
taking 70 B.C. as a firm date (the real date in the first or second quarter of the first
century B.C. is hazy) for Burebista’s creation of a Dacian empire, extending from
Ukrainian Olbia on the Black Sea south to the Bulgarian Haemus Mountains
(modern Stara Planina), and as far west as modern Slovakia.3 More recently (28

2. Stefan’s work dwarfs I. Oltean’s (Dacia: Landscape, Colonisation and Romanisation [Lon-
don: Routledge, 2007]) minimalist view of Sarmizegethusa Regia: 87, 89.
3. On the Ceaucescu regime’s control of even dissertation topics in ancient history, see V.
Lica, The Coming of Rome into the Dacian World, trans. C. Patac and M. Neagu, rev. A. R. Birley
(Konstanz: UVK Universsitätsverlag, 2000), 35 n.50; Romanian origins—whether Geto-Dacian

MILITARY  HISTORY ★    1187

EVERETT L. WHEELER

September–1 October 2006), an international conference at Cluj commemorated
Trajan’s creation of provincia Dacia (106 A.D.).4
The current mania for commemorative academic conferences, however, is not
exclusively Romanian. The 2,000th anniversary of the reign of Trajan (98–117), the
first “Spanish” emperor, prompted a conference in Spain and, as Trajan was in Ger-
many when Nerva (his predecessor) died, a German conference of 1998 has been
followed by a semi-popular book of useful essays and nice pictures.5 Nor should a
recent biography of Trajan in English (now corrected and reprinted) be ignored,
although not a replacement for Paribeni’s substantial two-volume study.6 Trajan
and the Dacian wars are currently “hot.”
Apart from any nationalistic considerations (whether Romanian, German,
or Spanish), the Dacian wars present an interesting methodological and historio-

or Roman—have been a political “football” in Romania and a source of regional antagonism
with Hungary and Bulgaria, both of which still wince at Romanian possession of parts of Tran-
sylvania and the Dobrudja (the area between the Danube’s northward bend and the Black Sea),
respectively; for post-Ceaucescu evaluations of these issues, see M. Babeş, “‘Devictis Dacis.’ La
conquête trajane vue par l’archéologie,” in Civilisation grecque et cultures antiques péripheriques.
Hommage à P. Alexandrescu, ed. A. Avram and M. Babeş, (Bucharest: Editura enciclopedica,
2000), 324 with n. 6, 325 n. 10; I. Haynes and W. Hanson, “An Introduction to Roman Dacia,”
in Roman Dacia: The Making of a Provincial Society, ed. W. Hanson and I. Haynes, Journal of Ro-
man Archaeology, Suppl. 56 (Portsmouth, R.I., 2004): 27–29; K. Locklear, “The Late Iron Age
Background to Roman Dacia,” in Hanson and Haynes, eds., Roman Dacia, 33–35; a convenient
summary (by no means definitive) on Burebista may be found in I. Cristan, Burebista and His
Time, trans. S. Mihailescu (Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste Romania, 1978),
a work unknown in C. Bruun’s bizarre paper, “The Legend of Decebalus,” in Roman Rule and
Civic Life: Local and Regional Perspectives, ed. L. De Ligt et al. (Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 2004),
153–75. This reviewer, a participant in the 1980 congress, visited Sarmizegethusa Regia, at that
time undergoing conversion into a tourist attraction with dubious reconstructions (in Stalin-
ist concrete) of the monuments in the sacred area (Terraces X–XIII, featuring seven temples/
sanctuaries; cf. Stefan, 22–69 with n. 235) and damage to the scientific understanding of the site.
Ascent to the site required four-wheel drive vehicles.
4. See I. Piso, ed., Die römischen Provinzen: Begriff und Gründung (Cluj-Napoca: Editura
Mega, 2008).
5. J. Gonzáles, ed., Trajano Emperador de Roma (Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 2000); E.
Schallmeyer, ed., Traian in Germanien, Traian im Reich (Bad Homburg: Saalburgmuseum, 1999);
A. Nünnerich-Asmus, ed., Traian: Ein Kaiser der Superlative am Beginn einer Umbruchzeit?
(Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 2002); on Trajan’s somewhat peculiar position in Germany
in 98 (named Caesar, i.e., Nerva’s successor, in October 97 and thus subsequently possessing an
imperium proconsulare, but on present evidence not the provincial governor of either Germania
Superior, which he had been in 97, or Germania Inferior), see B. Pferdehirt, Militärdiplome und
Entlassungskunden in der Sammlung des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums (Mainz: Verlag
des Römisch-Germanischen Kommission, 2004), 1:26–27; cf. M. A. Speidel, “Bellicosissimus
Princeps,” in Nünnerich-Asmus, ed., Traian, 24.
6. J. Bennett, Trajan Optimus Princeps, 2d ed. (Bloomington: Indiana University Press,
2001); cf. my brief (and generous) review of the first edition: Journal of Military History 62

1188    ★ THE  JOURNAL  OF

Principato. P. 1898–1931).: Princeton University Press. Detailed information is at a premium. 1882). whose De vita Caesarum ends with Domitian. survive only for events up to 70 A. U. 585). Mommsen. Sources on the Alans. ed. “Bellicosissimus Princeps. Suppl. and that most curious assemblage of biographies and historical novellas written in the late-fourth or early-fifth century. 10 (1964): 1032–1113. probably a Sarmatian Alan in Constantinople. 136–37. Mass. (Messina: G. as Orosius (7. Cassius Dio’s Books 67–68 on Domitian and Trajan are available in the Loeb Classical Library: Dio’s Roman History. supplemented by scattered fragments in other Byzantine sources. but whether Jordanes knew Chrysostom’s Getica directly or through another source is unknown. 1925). Apparently few read it. 8 (Cambridge. Auctores Antiquissimi. Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Leiden: MILITARY  HISTORY ★    1189 . completed in the 220s and for the period of Domitian and Trajan preserved in excerpts from John Xiphilinus’s eleventh-century epitome. the (1998): 382–83. Jordanes: T. with some echoes of the il Duce of Paribeni’s time. The Gothic History of Jordanes.. Hadrian (r. The archaizing tendency of Late Roman authors like Jordanes in combining Dacians and Goths and calling a work on Goths a Getica is clear. Paribeni. 1926–27). trans. vol.” 23–40. (Berlin: Weidmann. written within a generation or two of Trajan’s wars and known from brief references by Photius in the ninth century and Zonaras in the twelfth century. Appian’s Dacica. Domitian. whose time in Dacia in the 90s (after being exiled from Rome by Domitian) inspired his Getica. Iordanis Romana et Getica. Optimus Princeps. 1915). N. 4 vols. 5 (Berlin: Weidmann.: Harvard University Press. has no surviving fragments. Hanslik. 490–c. Op- timus Princeps? Anspruch und Wirklichkeit der imperialen Programmatik Kaisers Traians (Munich: Tuduv.4) reported that Tacitus (a contemporary of Domitian and Trajan) recounted Domitian’s Dacian war in great detail. 7. note also: R. Fell. The Dacian Wars of Domitian and Trajan graphical problem for military historians concerned with operations and strategy.D—most regrettably. Cary. Jordanes claimed to be epitomiz- ing the twelve-volume De origine actibusque Getarum of the Ostrogoth bureaucrat and scholar Cassiodorus (c. 2 vols. the last of the Flavians.” Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft.7 From the third century on. Monumenta Germanicae Historica. ed. frag- ments of Dio Chrysostom’s Getica: F. Jacoby.J. C. E. but the Greek text is best read in Cassii Dionis Cocceiani Historiarum Romanarum Quae Supersunt. Narrative surveys of Trajan’s reign survive exclusively in the summaries of epitomators of the fourth century and later. 117–138)—a remarkable phenomenon for a ruler hailed as “the best emperor” (optimus princeps). whose family had earlier assimilated with the Goths. trans. the victim of hostile sources and Trajan’s propaganda. M. “Marcus Ulpius Traianus. covering the Flavian dynasty and thus including Domitian’s campaigns (84–89). Jordanes’ Alan ancestry: Alemany. and (more briefly) Speidel. C. the Historia Augusta. Literary accounts of events and motives are reduced to two sources: the Roman History of the senator Cassius Dio. falls in the chasm of imperial biographies between Suetonius.10. R. and the Getica of Jordanes (fl. Boissevain. but he also cited a lost Gothic history by Ablabius of unknown date. which begins with Trajan’s successor. Tacitus’s Histories. Mierow (Princeton. 1992). Jordanes’ Getica contains material from the Stoic-Cynic orator and sophist Dio Chrysostom. 550).

“Cassiodorus and the Getica of Jordanes.” in Shifting Frontiers in Late Antiquity. Kulscár (Aszód/Nyíregyháza: Jósa András Museum. Gillett. 2000). 227–33. B. Vt. Curta. and he uncritically accepts material in (e. see the convenient but largely inconclusive summary (as of 1991) in P. Collection Latomus 254 (Brussels. Trajan published his own commentaries on his campaigns. On the Sîntana de Muresh-Cernjachov culture.. Dueck. for correctives.8 Detailed contemporary accounts did exist. a Dacica.: Variorum.D. 105–25. lacks authority. may have assimilated with Gothic intruders. ed. International Connections. both native survivors of the Roman conquest and the so-called Free Dacians. 51–101. where earlier sources are indiscriminately mixed with contemporary ethno- graphical descriptions. “Die Cernjachov-Marosszentanna/Sîntana de Mures-Kultur in der Karpatenregion. see G. 10. Istvánovits and V. Sivan (Brookfield. 256. Some Dacian descendants. Gudea. although his own views lack appreciation of archaic ethnic terms in late authors for various tribes of their own day. 56). 1991). evidence on the Bastarnae collected in Batty.EVERETT L. J. 854 seems more relevant to the Costoboci than the Free Dacians. is skeptical of Romanian scholars’ identification of various ethnicities (Costoboci. Coming of Rome.” in In- ternational Connections of the Barbarians in the Carpathian Basin in the 1st–5th Centuries A. ed. continued into the Middle Ages. Ethnic confusion can befuddle even modern authors: Stefan (359 n. Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages. Shchukin. Mago- medev. “Jor- danes and Ablabius. Acta Musei Porolissensis 21 (1997): 785–800 and 879–888. 1996). 250). 270). Ionita. as his view seems derived from English translations and not the original Latin. Oltean’s misunderstanding of Lica: (Dacia. Rome and the Nomads. and Goths on the Roman-Carpathian Frontier: Second-Fourth Centuries. Batty (Rome and the Nomads. Croke. Oltean (Dacia. “Forgotten Bastarnae. L. 707.” in Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History. 236–56. B. 264. 2006). Bastarnae) with spe- cific material cultures. “Dacians. 57–64. cf. On the Free Dacians. N. Ellis. for doubts about Ablabius as a source. WHEELER German Goths occupied some territory earlier belonging to the Thracian Geto- Dacians (especially after Aurelian’s abandonment of Dacia. 8. ed. Batty (Rome and the Nomads. vol. Carpi. from E. Osváth Gedeon Museum Foundation. Cassiodorus: B. nor does he understand the archaizing tendencies of Late Roman authors. 1923– ). Strabo of Amaseia: A Greek Man of Letters in Augustan Rome (London: Routledge. 1190    ★ THE  JOURNAL  OF . V. Matthews. The Goths in the Fourth Century (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.” Classical Philology 82 (1987): 117–34. Deroux. Sarmatians. see A. 479–500. E. R.2) corrects a gaffe (the more egregious for a book on an ancient geographer) that the Getae were Germans: D.” in Römer und Barbaren an den Grenzen des römischen Dakiens. although a Geto-Dacian culture.) Pliny’s Natural History. 2001).g. C. Lica. “‘Devictis Dacis. 365–68. 2000). note also the recent archaeological survey of F. Bichir. Batty. 97.’” and literature at note 38 below. see also M. c. 47) erroneously equates the German Bastarnae of southern Moldavia with Iranian Sarmatians.” in Istvánovits and Kulscár. although his citation of ILS nr.. 221–24. 485) erroneously believes that Trajan’s wars depopulated Dacia. see Babeş . ed. Rome and the Nomads. 500–1200 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. who strangely omits discussion of the Sîntana de Muresh-Cernjachov culture. eds. on the value of literary sources like Jordanes. Heather and J. “Die freien Daker im Norden Dakien. Mathisen and H. Locklear’s skepticism (“Late Iron Age Back- ground. In the tradition of Caesar’s Gallic War.” and I. inhabiting territory not annexed as part of Trajan’s province. distinct from the Sîntana de Muresh-Cernjachov culture associated with the fourth century Goths. “Die freien Daker an der nordöstlichen Grenze der römischen Provinz Dakiens. typical of “new” archaeologists. Brill. respectively.” 34). nr.

Balbus’s references to mountain warfare in Dacia speak for Trajan. commemorated his Dacian war with an epic poem.: University Press of America. 32: Traianus in I Dacicorum: “Inde Berzobim. Campbell. 1985). although many of Strobel’s assertions require qualifica- tion: see F. A few Byzantine fragments of the Getica of Trajan’s physician.13=E. Titus Statilius Crito. Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. and papyrology strongly supplement the sketchy literary sources. see also N. no. “The Size and Organization of the Roman Army and the Case of Dacia under Trajan. epigraphy. xxxix–xl. 204–11. Like Crito and Balbus in Trajan’s entourage. Der Kampf MILITARY  HISTORY ★    1191 . were first recorded by the humanist Petrarch. bridges. esp. ed. known as a good poet. D. Dedicatee. a civilian surveyor called into service with Trajan. Schellenberg et al. numismatics.” in A Roman Mis- cellany: Essays in Honour of Anthony R. Md. of which a few lines. Lepper’s review of Strobel’s method: Classical Review 35 (1985): 333–35. but did not penetrate the Dacians’ Carpathian fortifications. Journal of Roman Studies Monograph 9 (London. Starr. Many Dacian forts and Roman camps are known.2. Smallwood. (Gdansk: Foundation for the Development of Gdansk University. Strobel. “Apollodorus of Damascus and the Poliorcetica. lines 17–30. Tra- jan Optimus Princeps.9 Indeed Domitian. cf. cf. Roman and Byzantine Studies 33 (1992): 127–58. 2000). Date. Domitianus 2. 11. Cupcea and F. and K.” Dacia 23 (1979): 155–22. for an attempt to find more fragments. I. H. Balbus: B. Despite Campbell’s waffling between whether the emperor is Domitian or Trajan. Blyth. 1989). see P. Eadie and J. Trajan’s Dacica: Priscian. “Apollodorus’ Poliorketika: Author. VI 1207. see I. the famous architect Apollodorus of Damascus and possibly Dio Chrysostom (cf. 500). Bennett.10 Archaeology.91. Punica 3. inscribed in monumental letters on a block found in the Lateran area of Rome. For attempts to connect Apollodorus of Damascus’s Poliorcetica [Siegecraft] to Trajan’s Dacian wars. Gostar. “Getica lui Statilius Crito. Die Donaukriege Domitians (Bonn: Rudolf Habelt. “Criton. and siege-works but regrettably without specific geographical locations.”]. 105–106). Whitehead. The Writings of the Roman Land Surveyors. Ober (Lanham. Birley on his Seventieth Birthday. provide valuable but limited details. then from Aizis we advanced.” Dacia 50 (2006): 105–14. Strobel. Russu. 118. for which dates of construction or destruction can be discerned or approximated. Dates for the beginning and end of hostilities besides terms of peace are clear. Suetonius. 200. 205–6 (Latin text with English translation).11 9. See K. Institutiones grammaticae 6. nr. 1966).1. a participant in the campaigns. ed. although interpreters of Trajan’s Column (including Stefan) see that monument as a massive illustration of the Dacica’s contents. Die Fragmente. now updated at K. Strobel. 2008).” Studii Clasice 14 (1972): 111–28 (cited in Stefan’s footnotes. cf. 387–405.” Greek. but missing from his bib- liography). Marcu. Stefan 419 with n.616–21. Even Balbus. further commentary in Stefan 472. 1984). Patsch. Sil- ius Italicus. M. offers intriguing hints of his duties in building roads. Quintilian. J.” Dacia 50 (2006): 175–94. as are which units of the Roman army and their commanders participated in these campaigns. 10. “Die Eroberung Dakiens—Ein Resümee zum Forschungsstand der Dakerkriege Domitians und Traians. “L’armée romaine dans les guerres daces de Trajan (101–102. Trajan and Hadrian (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. inde Aizi processimus” [“From Berzobis. as the Dacian campaigns under Domitian (none led by Domitian himself ) reached. basic remains K. Crito: Jacoby.” in The Craft of the Ancient Historian: Essays in Honor of Chester G. Documents Il- lustrating the Principates of Nerva. 67) were not soldiers but civilian comites (“companions”). Untersuchungen zu den Dakerkriegen Trajans (Bonn: Rudolf Habelt. G. Institutio oratoria 10. J. Physician to Trajan: Historian and Pharmacist. The Dacian Wars of Domitian and Trajan which a single sentence survives in the grammatical work of Priscian (fl. Scarborough.

12. Lusius Quietus’s Moorish cavalry. A. ed. Wilkes. M.” Papers of the British School at Rome 13 (1935): 1–40. Hassall (London: British School at Rome. but the um den Donauraum unter Domitian und Trajan. which his victory arch at Beneventum (dated 113–114) completes by depict- ing his Dacian triumph. Decebalus (the Dacian king). 1192    ★ THE  JOURNAL  OF . WHEELER Trajan's Column. Brewer (London/Cardiff: Society of Antiquaries of London. dedicated in 113.9 meters on a pedestal of 6. 101–19. “Trajan’s Army on Trajan’s Column. 5/2. with its cartoon of over 2. R. which also includes Richmond’s study of the Adamklissi monu- ment (Tropaeum Traiani): “Adamklissi. On the Column.2 (Vienna: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. tells the story of his Dacian wars. Sarmatian cataphracts of the Rhoxolani) are readily identifiable.EVERETT L. See I. Italy But the visible yet impenetrably silent glue holding together the framework of Trajan’s Dacian wars is that towering shaft (28. there is a splendid display of Roman military practices. the Column tells a story.” Papers of the British School at Rome 35 (1967): 29–39. Richmond.500 figures twisting around it for 200 meters. courtesy Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. a brief survey of Danubian legions and their bases is at J. Rome. 5. 1982). and various Roman units or hostile ethnic forces (for example. scene LXV. Yes. ed.12 Some scenes correspond to the fragments of Cassius Dio’s account. Trajan. Beiträge zur Völkerkunde von Südosteuropa. “Roman Legions and their Fortresses in the Danube Lands (First to Third Centuries). 1937).” in Roman Fortresses and their Legions. 2000). reprinted in Trajan’s Army on Trajan’s Column. National Museums & Galleries of Wales.2 meters) in the middle of Rome. Trajan’s Column.

has been since 1967 on display at the National Museum of History in Bucharest. 2–3 (Berlin: G. spears in the figures’ hands) have long vanished—thus the value of records of the Column in earlier. however. for a supplement. Reimer. where the bands of the spiral (roughly 1–1. K. Serbia. Happily. cf. who persisted. Bul- garia. Cichorius’s belief in the Column as a valid historical account of Trajan’s wars and his identifications of Romanian sites in the Column’s scenes (at a time when excavations of Dacian sites were still in their infancy) soon elicited harsh reviews and alternative topographical views. Nevertheless.: Alan Sutton Publishing. Lepper and S.” Journal of Roman Studies 7 (1917): 74–97. G. the work of the now defunct École Roumaine de Rome in 1939–43. and his photographs are considered the best ever produced. 1–4. Moldavia. from which three complete sets of plaster casts were later produced. 1988). “Dacia and the Dacian Wars.H. In 1861–62 he had molds made of the Column’s entire historical scroll. A fourth set. These now reside in Paris (Musée des Antiquités Nationales à Saint-Germain-en-Laye). Lehmann-Hartleben. T. have obliterated or blurred details and necessitated a cleaning and attempts at restoration (1981–88). Stefan 3–4. (Berlin/Leipzig: W. A. see A.5 meters high) can be profitably studied at eye-level. 1 not published). C. Napoleon III’s well-known interest in Julius Caesar led him to Rome. a student of the revered Theodor Mommsen. and several Roman armies operated simultaneously. 14. de Gruyter & Co.14 Historical interpretation of the Column began at the dawn of the twentieth century with Conrad Cichorius. but also parts of Hungary. Nor is study of the Column’s reliefs uncomplicated. damaging this monument like many others. who. N. pinpointing a scene with a specific site on the ground. Die Reliefs der Traianssäule. in seeing the Column as an illustration of Tra- jan’s Dacica. “Topography and the Dacian Wars. Diaconescu.13 Hence frustration and scholarly debate flourish. All painted details and likewise metal supplements (for example. such as those of G. 15. his “Trajan’s First Dacian War. working from the 414 casts at Rome made from Napoleon III’s molds. MILITARY  HISTORY ★    1193 . better states of preservation. The Dacian Wars of Domitian and Trajan crux for operational analysis comes with topographical identifications. as this writer can attest from visits in 1980 and 1996. Cichorius.. Rome (Museo della Civiltà Romana). vols. Davies (1920). Ein römisches Kunstwerk zu Beginn der Spätantike.” Journal of Roman Archaeology 21 (2008): 590. Die Trajanssäule. 1896–1900. Cichorius’s divi- sion of the casts into 155 “scenes” (traditionally given in Roman numerals) remains the standard method of citing the Column. U. 2 vols. particularly as the theater of the Dacian wars included not only modern Romania..15 13. Six years later the axe fell: the art historian Kurt Lehmann-Hartleben’s assessment of the Column as a work of art demolished Cichorius’s case for the Col- umn’s precise historical narrative and his topographical identifications. and possibly extreme southwestern Ukraine. Trajan’s Column (Gloucester. a more detailed account of the Column’s history is in R. Wolfboro. 276) does not include all Dacian sites relevant to the 106 cam- paign. A. T. cf. Modern environmental hazards. produced a multi-volume photographic archive of the casts with commentary.K. Frere. 1926). Davies. Comparison with the problems presented by the Bayeux Tapestry for William the Conqueror’s campaign of 1066 is apropos. Stefan’s map (674 fig. vol.” Journal of Roman Studies 10 (1920): 1–28. and London (Victoria and Albert Museum).

Gieben. a credulist’s position on the Column’s representation of the army is in L. although they concede that he might have been the architect of the Column. 1971). ed. N. J. Trajan’s Column and the Dacian Wars. even the legionary and Praetorian signa (standards) are wrong. Ga- linier. N. C. 1988). Lepper and Frere. C.: Cornell University Press. and M. 2004). 2005). “The Architecture and Construction Scenes on Trajan’s Column. “Three New Books on Trajan’s Column. Ein- audi. 1989). Accordingly. La Colonna Traiana (Turin: G. Die Trajanssäule). Henig (Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology. 2000).” in Roman Military Equipment: The Sources of Evidence. ed.” in The Representations and Perception of Roman Imperial Power. 271..” Latomus 62 (2002): 666–95. M.Y. Das römische Heer auf der Trajanssaüle. 31–44. was the genius (“the Maestro”) behind the Column’s reliefs. a frequent target of their criticism became the idea that Apollodorus of Damascus. as generally agreed— whoever “the Maestro” was—the Column’s scenes (in whole or part) derive from paintings of the wars’ events displayed in Trajan’s triumph. 2000–2003). Le Bohec and C. M. individual legions cannot be identified.” in Architecture and Architectural Sculpture in the Roman Empire. See J. N. 21–23. Trajan’s Column. Batsford. 1990). 420–21. S. Coarelli. trans. 149– 50. 2003). for a more sympathetic view of the accuracy of the Column and what was really possible. C. the equipment of both legionaries and auxiliaries is misrep- resented. C. Coulston. 147–56.” in Les légions de Rome sous le Haut-Empire. van Driel-Murray (Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Even the Roman army seen on the Column has become a victim of the artist’s (or artists’) supposed inaccuracies and generalizations. although with little appreciation of what was possible in limited space. 18–19.17 Inter alia. Settis et al. the architect behind construction of Trajan’s famous stone bridge over the Danube at Drobeta (modern Turnu Severin) and the supposed designer of Trajan’s Forum. was 1194    ★ THE  JOURNAL  OF . e. Y. C. Rockwell (Rome: Colombo. 17. 39–50.18 For the history of the 16. Depiction of Rome’s Enemies in Trajanic Monumental Art. 1993). Trajan’s Column. Rossi. cf.EVERETT L. (Amsterdam: J. G. 2:417–39. Apollodorus: Lepper and Frere. Arbeit und Kampf (Mannheim: Bibliopolis. “A Contribution on the Standards of the Roman Army. Hungary. J. “La representation iconographicque du légionnaire romain. L. Bishop and J. C. “The Flavio-Trajanic Miles: The Appearance of Citizen Infantry on Trajan’s Column. C. Alexandrescu. trans. Propaganda und Realität: Waffen und Ausrüstung.” in Limes XIX: Proceedings of the XIXth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies Held in Pécs. Coulston has led the charge against the Column: “The Value of Trajan’s Column as a Source for Military Equipment. Roman Military Equipment (London: B. September 2003. The Column of Traian. Toynbee (Ithaca. Coulston. Charles. elaborating on an idea of Lehmann- Hartleben. when Frank Lepper and Sheppard Frere republished Cichorius’s plates (long out of print) and subjected all aspects of Trajan’s Dacian wars to keen critical analysis. De Blois et al.16 Perhaps the apogee of the anti-Column movement came in 1988. 3 vols. Richter. the bridge. ed. Indeed. 267). Wolff. Visy (Pécs: University of Pécs.. see D. 18. N. ed. WHEELER Henceforth advocates of the Column as an historical source have been on the defensive. T. Marsch. note also the reproduction of the plates in F.g. M. M. If their reproduction of Cichorius’s folio plates in an octavo volume was a major disappointment (minis- cule and often unclear)—an Italian volume’s reproduction of the plates the same year is far superior—their tome represented a useful status quaestionis. C. “Overcoming the Barbarian. ed. depicted on the Column’s scenes XCVIII–XCIX (=Stefan fig. C. Z.” Journal of Roman Archaeology 3 (1990): 290–309. (Paris: De Boccard.

19. Speidel with his nephew. the doctorat d’état. and Dacian forts on the north bank of the Danube (a Dacian limes of sorts) in the area west of the Iron Gates Gorge. No one except a reviewer (or perhaps a graduate student) would ever read this book cover to cover. Embarrassing must be Stefan’s confusion (754 in the “Bibliography” and passim in footnotes. e. The work bears the characteristics of such: thickness (704 pages of text in double columns!) and exhaustive discussions (in the sense of both depleting what can be said and trying a reader’s patience). but actually at least three books in one. 532 n. most recently. The highly tech- completed in 105 for the start of Trajan’s second war.. he examines most Roman camps in Romania associated with the wars of Domitian and Trajan. II Stefan’s massive monograph. This non-native reader of French detected only occasional misprints in the text—too infrequent to catalogue or distract—and two over-inked pages (485. Mattern (Rome and the Enemy: Imperial Strategy in the Principate [Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press. Lepper and Frere marched on well-trodden paths. Stefan’s first “book” offers a detailed archaeological analysis of all known Dacian fortifica- tions in the Carpathians. Indeed the volume contains some of the best photographs of scenes from Trajan’s Column available. In addition. its bibliog- raphy alone renders the volume an indispensable reference tool. Despite nearly a century of faultfinding. “Trajan’s Bridge over the Danube. although he does not respond to Lepper and Frere’s claim (Trajan’s Column. it cannot be denied that the Col- umn’s spiral tells a story.” International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 38 (2009): 331–42. often reserved for the ultimate in French dissertations. with particular attention to the controversial Roman camp at Sarmizegethusa Regia in 102 and its successor in 106. and no serious future work on the Dacian wars of Domitian or Trajan will be able to ignore Stefan’s gold mine of information. sketches)—all in the superb quality traditional in this series.. the real author of “Bellicosissimus Princeps.” in Nünnerich-Asmus. for the bridge’s remains and bibliography. 113). Michael A. But what story? The book discussed here seeks in part to revalidate some aspects of the Column’s historical worth. who corrects (641 n. 34) the archaeological misconceptions of S. Regrettably.g. ed. 1999]. where a branch of the Carpathians extends into northern Serbia and divides the Middle from the Lower Danube. the fruit of over thirty years of archaeological and topographical studies of ancient Romania. 149 n. Stefan presents the most extensive record of Romanian archaeology on these wars to date. in the French tradition of academic publications this bulky monument of scholarship (over 800 pages) is in paperback!19 This is not a typical monograph. see Stefan 641–42. M. The Dacian Wars of Domitian and Trajan war’s military operations. 149–50) that the Column misrepresents the superstructure of the bridge. The text is excellently complemented by 286 illustrations (pho- tographs. Speidel. appears in the distinguished series of the École Française de Rome. MILITARY  HISTORY ★    1195 . Nevertheless. see. 190) of Michael P. P. If a complete archaeological record of the Dacian wars lies far in the future even for the area of Sarmizegethusa Regia. the Dacian forts (discovered so far) in southern Moldavia (guarding passes into the Dacian heartland from the east). 488) are the only produc- tion errors. maps. Traian. Serban. however. 23–40.

towers. although one can admire Stefan’s diligence in re-examining the entire record of excavation reports and earlier sketches of the sites (often ignored by later excavators) to deter- mine the pristine states of sites and the excavators’ original findings. 12) Sboryanovo. with Parts IV–V (pp. 3) Deva. 5) Piatra Craivii. 10) Aegyssus. 21) Dionysopolis. 29) Singidunum (Belgrade). Stefan has also pioneered use of aerial and satellite photography in Romanian archaeology. 37) Adamklissi. 9) Noviodunum. 8) Troesmis. 11) Pope- shti. 34) Nicopolis ad Istrum. 18) Histria. 23) Mesembria. where the 1196    ★ THE  JOURNAL  OF . detailed discussion of the wars of Domitian and Trajan. essentially half the book. 33) Novae. 28) Szeged. 31) Lederata. 20) Callatis. 35) Serdica (Sofia). 36) Durostorum. 397–704). WHEELER Map 1: Dacia KEY Passes: A) Iron Gates. 14) Divici. 16) Aizis Greek Cities: 17) Tyras. 19) Tomis. 32) Oescus. however. C) Red Tower Geto-Dacian Sites: 1) Sarmizegethusa Regia. 27) Lugo. 7) Piroboridava. 6) Porolissum. 2) Buridava. 13) Borovo. 39) Drobeta nical discussion of construction techniques for walls. 30) Viminacium. not only to find sites but also to discern the lines of fortification walls not visible at ground-level. is not well integrated. 15) Berzobis. and buildings may be impenetrable for the uninitiated in this type of archaeological argument. 24) Apollonia. 4) Apulum. 25) Axiopolis Roman Sites: 26) Aquincum (Budapest). This highly technical archaeological discussion (Parts I–II equal 339 pages). B) Vulcan.EVERETT L. 38) Colonia Sarmizegethusa. 22) Odessus.

107 on the site of a Roman camp 101–105. 41.” 111 n. Die römischen Provinzen. the only portion so far subjected to extensive excavation. Strobel (“Die Eroberung Dakiens.8 (290) also incorrectly transposes the locations of the forts Blidaru and Costesti. But then again. Rome and the Nomads. see I. a major fortress guarding the northwestern approach to Gradishtea Muchelelui. The Dacian Wars of Domitian and Trajan reader is expected to recall too much from what he/she read. MILITARY  HISTORY ★    1197 . towers at every 25 to 30 meters.”57–63. but ignores that Strabo’s Cogaeonum is a mountain.21 Further.’” 330–31. as the crow flies). “‘Devictis Dacis. 319–22.. this is not a typical monograph. but the Dacian capital and a major fortified city with curtain walls and. Gradishtea Muchelelui’s role as a major Dacian religious center—most probably on the holy mountain Cogaeonum. Stefan now argues that Gradishtea Muchelelui was not an “open” site or mere citadel of refuge. 29) rejects without argument the identifi- cation of Cogaeonum with Gradishtea Muchelelui. on the camp see note 27 below. “Late Iron Age Background. but the site lacks evidence of pre-Roman occupation. Some once preferred the site of Varhély (43 kilometers west-southwest of Gradishtea Muchelelui. it has been much debated whether Gradishtea Muchele- lui was in fact the Dacian capital in Trajan’s time.5) on Burebista—seems clear: the sacred area of Terraces X–XIII features seven major sanctuaries and comprises 15 to 20 percent of the three-acre site. Stefan’s compen- dium of archaeologi- cal data provides the building blocks for various theses.3. ed. 21. mentioned in one of Strabo’s reports (7. on a ridge of equal elevation opposite Gradishtea Muchelelui. 400 pages earlier. and the three at Fetele Alba. whose fig. Locklear. for lists and discussions of Dacian sanctuaries.20 The Colonia lies in a plain just east of the famous Iron Gate Pass. not a specific site. as he conjectures. “Les débuts de la province de Dace. More complete study of the archaeological evidence also permits a better understanding of the city’s water system attested on the Column as well as other architectural 20.” in Piso. On the problem of a precise date for foundation of the Colonia. where a Colonia Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegethusa was founded c. Piso. for exam- ple. Gradishtea Muchelelui’s sanctu- aries exceed in size and number the four at Costesti. 529. the confusion of Colonia with Regia is perpetuated in Batty. say. see Babeş. In the case of Sarmizegeth- usa Regia. Such a concentra- tion of sanctuaries surely indicates the sacred character of the area.

131–32: maximum effective range for both arrow- shooters and stone-throwers was 400 yards (c. and outside the walls. often 3 meters thick in the murus Dacicus technique (front and back stone abutments with earth/rubble filling and both transverse and lateral timbers as stabilizers and linkage). some earlier views posited no springs or water system inside the city. were totally enclosed fortifications. see Y.23 Dacians built huge towers (surface area up to 221. Dacian military architecture—far from being “barbarian”—reflected (with some local modifica- tions) the recommendations of Philo Mechanicus (fl. gener- ally atop hills or mountains with difficult lines of approach. Stefan 436. nicely faced stone blocks (some marked with Greek letters).22 Here Stefan initiates his motif of confirming the accuracy of individual details on the Column concerning siegecraft and Dacian architecture with archaeo- logical evidence. Three tables (274–76) feature the measurements of all known Dacian towers on the walls. 23. 1974). cf.EVERETT L. on the water system: 76–81. Garlan. Dacian use of monumental roofed streets (scene CXIV=Stefan fig.12 square meters) to cover curtain walls and isolated. but Lepper and Frere (Trajan’s Column.24 Dacian artillery is known from both Cassius Dio and Trajan’s Column. so that a collapsing wall did not bring a tower down with it). Stoiculescu. structures independent of the walls. Recherches sur de poliorcétique grecque (Paris: École française d’Athènes. Moreover. Greek Aims in Fortification (Oxford: Clarendon Press. and likewise Philo’s view on the architectural integrity of towers (that is. Book 5) with French translation and commentary.7. within the walls. Oltean (Dacia. 33) is con- firmed by finds at Sarmizegethusa Regia: Stefan 74–76.g. 69–107. cf. even the so-called tower-palaces generally on the highest point(s) of the interior of a Dacian fort. W. Greek and Roman Artillery: Historical Develop- ment (Oxford: Clarendon Press. 252: Decebalus’s surrender in 102) unquestionably show Sarmizegethusa Regia. even on sides bordering cliffs or inaccessible slopes. Stefan (271. Dacian walls. ordnance captured earlier in Domitian’s war is another possibility. he asserts (against current opinions) that all major Dacian forts. WHEELER features. D. 116) posits these “tower-houses” as status symbols of the Dacian elite. 134) assumes a minimal artillery range of 250 meters. cf. For a critical edition of the Greek text of Philo on siegecraft (=his Syntaxis mechanike. C. were artillery plat- forms. well- cut. 25. Stefan convincingly argues that these monstrous towers. that is. but cf.9. for Stefan (601–2) the Column’s scenes LXXV–LXXVI (fig..C. caption to fig. English translation: A. Marsden. Of course Stefan’s view depends on the construction of such towers not antedating Dacian possession of artillery. 1969). 279–404. which on present evidence would not be before Decebalus re- ceived military engineers (mechanopoioi) from Domitian in the peace terms of 89 (Dio 67. “Trajan’s Column: Documentary Value from a Forestry Viewpoint. Lawrence. 98–99. he demonstrates that the sophistication of Dacian building techniques conformed to Hellenistic Greek practices. 68.25 22. independent towers (up to c. 225 square meters) outside the enceinte. 1198    ★ THE  JOURNAL  OF .4. employed large.) for construction of walls immune to battering rams.” Dacia 29 (1985): 81–98: the Column’s accuracy in representing flora found in modern Romania. 225 B. 271) cite (captiously?) depiction of polygonal rather than the ashlar walls known from the site as proof that “the Maestro” had never seen the Dacian capital. E. 1979). W. often within a few hundred yards of a fort’s principal gate. 91. In fact. E. 366 meters).5). 24. 78–80.

An earthen rampart traceable for over 300 meters guards the initial ascent. given the sophistication of Dacian architecture. The northwestern approach to Sarmizegethusa Regia from the Muresh River val- ley (north of the central Carpathians) demonstrates the extent of the Dacian defensive system. 134: illustration of artillery coverage at Costesti). which impede the approach to another fort. On 516–17. a major religious center and perhaps Burebista’s capital before the construction of Sarmizegethusa Regia. The Dacian Wars of Domitian and Trajan MAP 2: Sarmizegethusa Theater SR = Sarmizegethusa Regia (not to scale) SC = Sarmizegethusa Colonia The limited topographical access to the Dacian forts (often only one way up the hill) exposed attackers to a withering crossfire from the independent towers in conjunction with fire from the curtain-wall towers and the elevated interior tow- ers (for example. earlier possession of artillery could be conjectured. Costesti’s double ring of walls encloses about nine hectares. only 1. 13 kilometers away) from the Strei River valley. But 300 meters to the southeast across a valley begins the tip of the mountain ascending to Sarmizegethusa.500 meters from Costesti (as the crow flies) but 150 meters higher in elevation. 271 fig. Piatra Rosie (“Red Rock”). Stefan’s emphasis on the significance of artillery in Dacian defenses is new. behind it are at least eighteen isolated towers. Located on a promontory (elevation c. An army marching south toward the Dacian capital must first take Costesti. As the crow flies. 7 kilometers south of Blidaru. one is only about 14 kilometers from the Dacian capital. c. His exploita- tion of the archaeological data drives home what a grueling and onerous conflict of siegecraft and mountain warfare the conquest of Dacia was. guarded the western and southwestern approaches to Sarmizegethusa (c. A third major fort. 600 meters) overlooking a narrow defile and approachable only from its southern side. Blidaru. MILITARY  HISTORY ★    1199 . however.

g.27 Despite Dio’s explicit testimony. Lepper and Frere (Trajan’s Column.” in Le Bohec and Wolff. the Colonia. Sauer’s critique of Stefan on this point (review of Stefan. American Journal of Archaeology 112 [2008]: 196) seems captious.–first century A.. cf. and 105–106. Costesti. 27. writing within a generation of two of Trajan’s Dacian wars. Stefan 113–56 (Costesti).” Stefan’s astute bird’s-eye perspective has discerned two “circles” of Dacian forts protecting access to the Dacian heartland of the Carpathian interior and extending throughout this entire mountain range. 28. many of these hilltop forts have Hallstatt (Iron Age) origins. The partial deconstruction of many Dacian forts in 102 (e.4). Nevertheless. “Les légions dans la province de Dacie. WHEELER present evidence. E.” 322. Les légions de Rome. Dio refers to the Dacian capital. 12. 304–9) discuss the problem of the name Sarmizege- thusa for both sites. 1200    ★ THE  JOURNAL  OF .C.8. New major Da- cian fortified sites continue to be discovered: one in 2004 near Poiana Brasnov and Rîsnov.26 Worthy of report is also Stefan’s remarkable analysis (323–55) of the Roman camps at Sarmizegethusa Regia. details in Strobel. This new and more comprehensive understanding of the Dacian defense system in turn leads to new topographical arguments for the routes of Roman armies in 88–89. “Die Eroberung Dakiens. According to Cassius Dio (68. Piso. Besides this “Costesti corridor. which included dismantling Dacian defenses. another at Cetatea Zînelor near Covasna with fortifications dating first century B.” 108 with n. Roman forts outside the Carpathians: Stefan 642–43.” but omits the Colo- nia. the only alternative. this northwestern approach to Sarmizegethusa Regia was the most heavily fortified. “the royal residence. 272 with caption. besides several south and east of the Carpathians. A burned layer beneath the site of the later forum of the Colonia may attest a Roman camp destroyed by the Dacians at the start of the second war in 105: see I. and “Les débuts de la province de Dace. and not least from the lack of archaeological evidence for a Roman camp there in 102. Strobel. Blidaru) and hasty reconstructions in 105 are clear in the archaeological record: Stefan 654–57. including one at the later Colonia Sarmizegethusa. Trajan left a stratopedon (ambiguous whether: “army camp” or “legion”) at Sarmizegethusa after Decebulus’s capitulation in 102 to ensure Dacian compliance with the terms of peace. as passes dictated the avenues of access (discussed below).” 320–21.D. cf. Roman garrisons also were scattered at other sites key in the war of 101–102 south and west of the capital. eds. comprising twenty-two to thirty hectares with twenty-two towers. 41. but never calls it (in extant excerpts) Sarmizegethusa. 218–29 (Piatra Rosie).7).EVERETT L. and identified as the Cumidava of Ptolemy (Geography 3.D. a Roman camp at Sarmizegethusa Regia. was a Roman creation without evidence of pre-Roman Dacian occupation. and even the continued presence of the Dacian king Decebalus at his capital after 102 have been much debated—in part from disbelief that Decebalus could function as a king and perpetrate violations of the 102 agreement with a Roman camp at his very doorstep. Stefan generally assumes rather than proves that the Dacian fortification system was initially Burebista’s work with some later improvements. lists Zarmizegethousa to Basileion. Nevertheless. its gar- rison..9. further. 101–102. Stefan 280–81 with n.. that is. 156–200 (Blidaru). “Die Eroberung Dakiens.8). 1:209. as Sauer cannot cite a specific historical context (other than 105) for use of such fortifications near Blidaru for Dacian resistance.28 Some 26. Column scene CXXXII=Stefan fig..” 111–12.8. “Les débuts de la province de Dace. Ptolemy (Geography 3. Piso. dated to at least 14–16 A.

726 n.” in Visy. Whatever its precise perimeter. The Dacian Wars of Domitian and Trajan would even have Decebalus’s kingdom after 102 reduced to the area north of the Muresh River with a new Dacian capital established at Piatra Craivii (the Apoulon of Ptolemy.29 Certain is that the southern end of the curtain wall at Sarmizegethusa Regia. 5) and Strobel (“Die Eroberung Dakiens. reasserting his earlier views: e. including obliteration of the palace complex on Terrace I. 127.” 111) also reject a 102 Roman camp.. but no evidence ties Decebalus to Piatra Craivii or attests a transfer of his residence north of the Muresh.” Dacia 50 (2006): 118–20. 31. 24.083 meters).” 112 with n. can be traced on the ground and enclosed an area of six to seven hectares. a rocky protrusion (elevation 1. A New Point of View. see Stefan 247–55. Certainly 3-meter thick walls are un-Roman. Daci şi Romani. Besides. fortified in the second half of the first century B.” 297 n. ed. As often for pre-Roman fortified Dacian sites. Trajano Emperador de Roma. Decebalus’s palace.. c. Limes XIX. 2007). ed.8. the camp of 102–105 no longer seems in doubt. suffered destruction by fire. Decebalus and Piatra Craivii: C. 727 n.C. “Les débuts de la province de Dace. thought to have occupied the highest elevation within the city (Terraces I–III) was left untouched. Stefan’s aerial photograph (to this reviewer’s eye) does not prove the case. Piso (“Les débuts de la province de Dace. “Die Eroberung Dakiens. “Dacia’s Borders under Trajan’s Rule—Re- marks. incorporating Dacian archi- tectural fragments.g. An objection raised by I. 2. contra Opreanu. “Bellum Dacicum Traiani. “The Consequences of the First Dacian-Rumanian War (101–102). Diacones- cu. Strobel.. is an argument from stratigraphy. who (to no surprise) endorses Stefan’s position in his review: “Dacia and the Dacian Wars. Piso. Stefan’s view of the 102–105 camp develops an earlier thesis espoused by A. The Romans did incorporate part of the original city wall in the northwest side of the camp of 106.8 [?]. That Roman forge buried under the level of the 106 camp must surely belong to the camp of 102–105. It included part of the former southern interior of the city. and Cataniciu. Oltean (Dacia. however. Aculturatie în Dacia (Cluj-Napoca: Academia Romana. 20 kilometers north of modern Alba Iulia) and the whole theater of the second war (105–106) transferred to extreme northern Dacia. Geography 3.” in González. was dismantled. 56) favors a 102 camp. Bogdan Cataniciu. enclosing Terraces IV–VI. Stefan asserts that the rampart (vallum) of a Roman camp of 102–105. which had been installed over the site of a Dacian mint at a lower level.30 Decisive in support. but also extended 100 to 200 meters south of the former defensive wall. on the site. but use of Dacian architectural fragments in building the camp walls—a practice even more extensive in construction of the Roman camp walls of 106 after the city’s destruction—as well as other evi- dence (see below) speak against this objection. that destruction is assumed to be Trajanic. The camp of 106 was built on higher ground after Romans raised the surface of the entire southern half of the former city and leveled off the area.” MILITARY  HISTORY ★    1201 . 30. 35. 31. 396–97. he would have the Romans copying Dacian construction of walls 3 meters thick—not normal Roman practice. Excavation of part of the wall of the Roman camp of 106 along Terrace V revealed Roman renovations: the camp wall of 106 rested on two layers of filling (nearly 1 meter thick): beneath one layer the remains of a Roman forge came to light.” 304 with n. Piatra Craivii. (era of Burebista) and later topped by a small (67 by 36 meters) medieval citadel (thirteenth-fifteenth centuries).31 29. Opreanu.

Stefan 348–54.34 How long after 106 or 107 troops remained at a city now 592. 332 fig. see Piso. Documents Illustrating the Principates of Nerva. 118) as Hadrian’s first Dacian governor (Smallwood. N.8 hectares) on Terraces I–V overlapped only partially the camp of 102–105 and incorporated the area of the former palace. 34. WHEELER No such problems beset the camp of 106. n. Acta Musei Napocensis 34. Gudea (Zalau: County Musuem of History and Art. who erroneously thinks the whole legion went to Dacia. Jh.. 50.C. which put it the 105–106 war: e.” 211–13. no. 68 B. six towers.D.33 Fragments used for fill between wall faces in 106 must surely represent older discarded material. when its chief duty was destruction of the Dacian capital.1 (1997): 18–22. 33. 88 with n. cf. his “Dacia under Trajan. K Strobel. The Governors of Roman Syria from Augustus to Septimius Severus (Bonn: Rudolf Habelt. Some Observations on Roman Tactics and Strategy. The Roman Imperial Army (New York: Hippocrene Books. Trajan and Hadrian. which in Stefan’s reconstruction of events would have been wiped out or taken prisoner by the Dacians in 105. 168). a trace of barracks. although the camp has not been studied or dug in detail. 161–62. The size of both camps indicates a Roman presence not even close to the strength of a full legion (c. Opreanu. ed. and (of course) a bath (outside the camp to the south and exploiting earlier Dacian water works) are known. 4.” in Beiträge zur Kenntnis des römischen Heeres in den dakischen Provinzen. “Zu Fragen der frühen Geschichte der römischen Provinz Arabia und zu einigen Problemen der Legionsdislokation im Osten des Imperium Romnum zu Beginn des 2. On the size of legionary and auxiliary camps. Gudea. 214): E.” 397–401. 1999). Iulius Quadratus Bassus (consul 105). see Stefan 71. for a different view.EVERETT L. Proceedings of the XVIIth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies.” 304 with n.C.” 35). for its outline in the current forest is clearly discernible from aerial photographs (20 fig. followed by Speidel (“Bellicosissimus Princeps. but rather approximates the size of camps allotted to auxiliary units of 1. a cistern. “The Consequences. Less clear is a detachment of IV Flavia Felix at the 102–105 camp. see Y.g.. 1994). 5. and 14–37 A. 1202    ★ THE  JOURNAL  OF . Two gates. followed by Piso. 56) would include the legion IV Flavia Felix in the 102 camp. 32. ed. “Legio I Adiutrix in Dacia.000 or 500 men.000 men). Dabrova. Opreanu. on the mint. N.. Oltean (Dacia. The fragmentary text attesting a vexillatio of the VI Ferrata (AE 1983 nr. 571–72. Military Action and its Place of Garrison during Trajan’s Reign. “Les débuts de la province de Dace. 825) suggests restoring VI Ferrata (a legion based in Syria) in a lacuna detailing the transfer of detachments of eastern legions to the 101–102 Dacian war. “Les légions dans la province de Dacie. This much smaller camp (2. Le Bohec..” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 71 (1988): 252–53. who later died fighting the Sarmatians (c.” in Roman Frontier Studies. 889. This new text of VI Ferrata from the 102–105 camp disproves previous reconstructions of this legion’s history. Stefan (349–51) persists in including I Adiutrix in the 102 garrison despite C.32 Evidence from the fill used for the camp walls of 106 attest the presence of vexillationes (detach- ments) of the legions II Adiutrix and VI Ferrata for the garrison of 102–105. 1998). The respective garrisons of these camps remain controversial. producing Dacian imitations of Roman denarii dated 126 B. although a vexillatio of this legion manned the site in 106 and later.. Chr. noted in the career inscription of C.

it is a mistake. lay Fetela Alba. A. to reject Decenaeus as a myth: sic P. A Roman garrison at Sarmizegethusa may have lingered longer than the time needed to destroy the city to ensure enforcement of the new prohibition of the native Dacian cults. conseiller intime de Burébista. “Les débuts de la province de Dace.” in L’Armée ro- maine et la religion sous le Haut-Empire. Dr. 318) on a survival of Dacian religion are in error.500 meters for someone descending one slope and ascend- ing the other). cf. but c.” in Hanson and Haynes. Gostar. Pupeza. Part I. 1976). 2004). The Dacian Wars of Domitian and Trajan destroyed and its population forced to migrate is unknown. “‘Devictis Dacis. 307–8.” see Locklear.36 The rise of the Dacian empire under Burebista in the first century B. MILITARY  HISTORY ★    1203 . 4. in which the holy man Decenaeus had played a role. “The Supposed Exter- mination of the Dacians: The Literary Tradition. 2009): 225–67.” Greek.37 Romans in 106 wiped out not only a Dacian kingdom but also native Dacian religion.” perhaps had among its duties surveillance of the former sacred Dacian district: Piso.” 306. Roman and Byzantine Studies 19 [1978]: 199–209). 38. see also G.. although his identification of this unit with German infantry seen on Trajan’s Column is dubious: exploratores are generally mounted units. “Late Iron Age Background. on the unit. Directly across the Alb River valley from the capital and at the same elevation (1. Romans destroyed and burned the camp of 106 when it was abandoned. ed. 37. permanently stationed at Orashtioara de Sus. Goths and Romans 332–489 (Oxford: Clarendon Press. For one view of Decenaeus. It shared the capital’s fate of total destruction in 106 after damage in 102. Heather. see N. Oltean. 111.” in Piso. A unit of Germaniciani exploratores. 200. Die römischen Provinzen.” in his Studia Thracologica (Bucharest: Editura Republicii Socialiste România. who also (45) claims Fetele Alba was unfortified. contra. See his La religion dans l’armée romaine de Dacie (Bucharest: Éditions de l’Académie Roumaine. as the crow flies. “Ein numerus Germanicianorum exploratorum im oberen Dacia. 1991). Roman Dacia. see Stefan 283. Romans did wage religious warfare on oc- casion. on this Roman camp. 281–96.” 316–17. Wolff (Paris: De Boccard.C. Le Bohec and C.’” 331–36. Y. “Décénée. Stefan 213–17.” Jahrbuch des römisch- germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 44 (1997): 104–5. La destruction du chef-lieu du Royaume dace. Al- though the accounts of Decenaeus include many Greek topoi associated with “lawgivers” and creators of civilization (cf. It should not be forgotten. and the religious and cultural contexts of Roman battles are generally not appreciated: see my “Shock and Awe: Battles of the Gods in Roman Imperial Warfare. Lepper and Frere (Trajan’s Column. 36. however. Piso. “Les dieux tués. see R.800 meters away. “Legends of the Greek Lawgivers. D. Vulpe.” 50–51. Szegedy-Maszak.” Germania 50 (1972): 241–47. For a “classic” example of a “new” archaeologist’s attempt to turn an event like the de- struction of Sarmizegethusa Regia and Fetele Alba into a “process. “Les débuts de la province de Dace.35 As usual. 75–85. Florea and P. ignoring valid information in Strabo. not far from the entrance to the “Costesti corridor. that Sarmizegethusa Regia was the chief cult site of Dacian religion and located on its holy mountain.38 35. Dacia. Mihai Popescu (Paris) advises me that absolutely no trace of the native Dacian religion survived in Roman Dacia. eds. ed. a “Part II” is in preparation.. Ruscu. N. Babeş. 36. 62–68. “Der dakische Limes: Materialen zu seiner Geschichte. another cult site with three sanctuaries. Gudea. had involved religious fer- vor.

see also K. W. Indeed yet another study of Trajan’s Forum and Column has recently appeared: M. (Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press. Trajan’s Forum and Market superseded Domitian’s Forum Magnum. could recast in the public eye as a humiliating defeat now avenged. Galinier. 2007). “The Column of Trajan: The Topographical and Cultural Contexts. Domitian: Tragic Tyrant (London: Routledge. W. and a conference at Toulouse: J. 1992). Suetonius. although he was not disliked by the army. Boyle and J. The Emperor Domitian (London: Routledge. that is. Dominik. M.1 (1990 [2000]): 4–18. Curiously. The Forum of Trajan in Rome: A Study of the Monuments. The Senate decreed a damnatio memoriae after his assassination in 96. Hence Domitian vanished from the public record: his name was erased from all public documents and monuments. Forgetting Domitian would not have been easy for the Eternal City’s inhabi- tiants. J.. Gsell. 2003). B. and contributors to A. eds.1 (1984): 40–110. sitting today on the balustrade of 39. 1894).” American Journal of Ancient History 15. Trajan readily added Dacicus to his titulature. “The Rider and the Horse: Politics and Power in Roman Poetry from Horace to Statius. Southern. Wa- ters. Brill. S. Stefan’s painstaking work in assembling his material from studies of architectural and sculptural fragments and archaeologists’ endless debates on the topography of the city of Rome cannot be fully expounded here. as the extent of Domitian’s building projects in Rome rivaled those of Augustus. Ahl.’” American Journal of Philology 90 (1969): 385–405.EVERETT L. H. 1997).. especially after his annexation of Dacia in 106. Jones.39 Nevertheless. Sablayrolles. R. and even Cassius Dio are familiar with Domitian’s “bad press” from writers of the senatorial class. Essai sur le règne de l’empereur Domitien (Paris: Bibliothèque des Écoles fran- çaises d’Athenes et de Rome. 3 vols. Saller. 40. an honor that Domitian had declined. escaped destruction. Pailler and R. Flavian Rome (Leiden: E.32. E.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II. after the campaigns of Domitian and Trajan respectively. a trend begun with Stéphane Gsell (1894) and reflected in recent biographies. WHEELER III Stefan’s second “book” (436–84. Much here will interest art historians more than their military counterparts. Packer’s massive study. still under construction at the time of his assassination. for perpetuating the literary tradition’s negative views. A single thematic chapter might have been preferable to chronological placement. Tra- jan. Les années Domitien (Toulouse: Presses universitaires du Mirail. reviewed by Packer. eds. 1204    ★ THE  JOURNAL  OF . 5) castigates F. La colonne trajane et les forum impériaux (Rome: École française de Rome. whose pay he had raised. P. 1997). transferred to depots of marble. although Packer is occasionally cited. “‘Traianus Domitiani Continuator. J. Many large fragments of sculptures from colossal victory monuments. Moreover. 1994). what Domitian had proclaimed as a Roman victory in Dacia in 89. Stefan does not engage more fully with J. “Domitian and his Successors. Pliny the Younger’s Panegyric to Trajan in 100.40 Readers of Tacitus. 667–93) treats the art and iconography cel- ebrating the victories of Domitian and Trajan. Stefan (699 n.” Journal of Roman Archaeology 21 (2008): 471–78.-M. art plays an important role in Stefan’s continuation of attempts to rehabilitate Domitian’s reputation. The two gigantic trophies.

Goldsworthy. The Dacian Wars of Domitian and Trajan the Capitol at Rome and representing Germania and Dacia. MILITARY  HISTORY ★    1205 .42 Trajan’s Forum. Stefan (535 with n.” 416–19. Wheeler.” 589–94. An earlier personification of Dacia. 214).6.” Comptes Rendus de l‘Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres. 45. L. 249. Domitian did commemorate his Danubian wars on coins.5) and is not criticized in the two reviews (so far) of Stefan in major Anglophone archaeological journals: Sauer (above.22. On the portrayal of Trajan on his Column as the perfect general conforming to the principles of Onasander’s Strategikos. 43. may have included as many as eighty-two colossal statues of Dacians. 195–96. Proceedings of the XVIIIth International Congress of Roman Fron- tiers Studies Held in Amman.C. For historical reliefs Domitian had to surpass the celebrations of the Jewish War seen on his older brother Titus’s Arch. excelling in number. Jordan (September 2000). 164. Erroneously associated with Marius’s victories over the Cimbri and Teutones two cen- turies earlier by A. which involved the return of lost legionary standards. 209). which Trajan exploited. Domitian revived the concepts both of the emperor on horseback (his colossal equestrian statue known only from coins and poetic references) and of the emperor as a leader at the front in major wars—a model followed by Trajan and Marcus Aurelius. “Overcoming the Barbarian. (Oxford: Archae- opress. 2003). note 27). “Tactique hellénistique et tactique romaine: le commandement.46 41. when Octavian (Augustus) staged a combat of Dacians vs.. 178–83. like Mattern. German Suebi as part of his victory celebration for the defeat of Marc Antony: Cassius Dio 51. The Roman populace had first seen Dacians in 29 B.44 As Stefan demonstrates (contrary to some views).. “Dacia and the Dacian Wars. which for the first time depicted Dacian arms. Rome and the Enemy. For Augustus’s Parthian accord as a contrivance of propaganda and one of the great non-events of Roman history. 44.C. 46. is in reality Domitianic. 42. falls victim to Augustus’s propaganda: the standards lost in Mark Antony’s Parthian war (36 B.” re-used on the Arch of Constantine and assumed to be Trajanic. The Complete Roman Army (London: Thames & Hudson.C.” 392. see G. ed. 2002). 421) on the Trajanic origin of depictions of Dacians and their weapons should now be modified. Stefan’s thesis of Trajan’s borrowing from Domitianic projects finds support in Aurelius Victor (De Caesaribus 13. Picard. Coulston. as Stefan argues (472–77 with fig. and expense (use of the rarest high-quality marble) Augustus’s forty of Orientals commemo- rating his so-called Parthian accord of 20 B. in fact. Philip Freeman et al. size. Coulston’s remarks (“Overcoming the Barbarian.45 Further. had appeared among the figures of “conquered peoples” (gentes captae) in the late Neronian Se- basteion at Carian Aphrodisias in Asia Minor: see Stefan 461–62. are (as attested by an inscription) Domitianic. “Roman Treaties with Parthia: Völkerrecht or Power Politics?” in Limes XVIII. labeled in Greek ethnos Dakon (“nation of Dacians”).43 Stefan (690) may well be correct that of all barbarians only Parthians and Dacians (not Germans) occupied a special place in the Roman public memory.) had already been returned in 33 B. 60. 1:287–92. 484. 1992. likewise Trajan had to excel (hence the Column) Domitian’s displays.C. Domitian’s artistic celebrations of his Dacian war may also be credited with establishing in Roman iconography the female type of a personified Dacia and the conventional portrayal of Dacians.41 Similarly. cf. Stefan 456 n. the “Dacian frieze. see E. Diaconescu.

Cassius Dio 57.47 Atop the hill of Adamklissi (extreme southeastern Romania). Caligula 3. ed. “Wege zum Töten.18. Beobachtungen an den Grabinschriften im Kampf getöteter römischer Soldaten.” 669) of any Domitianic as- sociation with the site. Das Siegesdenkmal von Adamklissi: Tropaeum Traiani (Bonn/Bucharest: Verlag der Akademie der Rumänischen Volksrepublik. 1965). now housed in a museum at the site. Annals 1. 255–63.EVERETT L.” in “Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori. 1995)..61–62.49 Debate 47. 48. see D. Poulter. “The Lower Moesian Limes and the Dacian Wars of Trajan. “Gefallen für Rom.g. 197–206.D. the Dacian and Rhoxolan counterattack across the Danube in the winter of 101–102. Rüpke. on Roman identification of battle dead and construction of such casualty lists. 44. Limes XIX. “Military Burial and the Identification of the Roman Fallen Soldiers. particularly as the invaders are shown on the Column (scene XXXI) swimming a major river.. surely the Danube. Com- memoration of the slain on state-sponsored monuments was not a Roman custom. too (for Stefan). Trajan erected in 108–109 a cylindrical Tropaeum Traiani. ed. Peretz.2. Letters 10. not only supplementing Trajan’s Column’s scenes of the same operations. 277–78. Clementoni. M. A recent view that the Dacian-Rhoxolan attack occurred somewhere north of the Danube (e. but also providing a different view of Dacian and Roman armor and weapons. H. to which the titulature of either Domitian or Trajan could be restored.) offered the only precedent. Sordi (Milan: Vita e Pensiero. east-west routes spawned a town (Municipium Tropaeum Traiani) flourishing into the Late Roman period. whether they tell a story and in what sequence they should be read provoke discussion. Aalen 1983. 1990). 233–34.D. Germanicus’s recovery and proper burial (15 A.) of the dead from Quinctilius Varus’s Teutoburg Forest disaster (9 A.” in Studien zu den Militärgrenzen Roms III: Acten des 13. Suetonius.48 As the metopes. 49. and on the Tropaeum Traiani: 693 with figs. WHEELER Notable. B.5 meters north-northwest of the Tropaeum lies a Roman-style “mausoleum” with little dat- able material and 255 meters east of the “mausoleum” stands a monumental altar inscribed with an extremely fragmentary casualty list estimated at 3.74. as Stefan believes. 92–93) has little to support it. however. Bennett. Trajan Optimus Princeps.44 meters in diameter and at c. 37 meters tall. 1986). J.48 meters high).1. ed. ed. Florescu. von Stietencron and J. cf. Stefan’s republication of nine of them at fig. Reuter. which he believes depict the Romans’ surprise attack by night on the Dacians and Rhoxolani at scene XXX- VIII of the Column. Charles’s denial (“The Flavio-Trajanic Miles.000 to 4. 500).” La morte in combattimento nel’antichità. is Domitian’s concern for Roman war dead. which once decorated the frieze of this monument (destroyed by an earth- quake c. based in part on A. 1206    ★ THE  JOURNAL  OF . ILS 9107. are reproduced in F.000 dead. 233.1): see Stefan 560–68. Tacitus. Wege zum Ruhm: Krieg in der römischen Republik.” in Töten im Krieg. The Tropaeum Traiani would be merely an interesting detail were it not for the survival of fifty-four metopes (1. Yet two other enigmatic monuments share the site: on another hill 127. The metopes. “Germanico e i caduti di Teutoburgo. M. its attraction and location on major north-south. Rüpke (Munich: Verlag Karl Alber. and the Dacians captured a slave of Laberius Maxiimus. These remarkable examples of early second-century provincial art illustrate. Internationalen Lime- skongreßes. the governor of Moesia Inferior (Pliny. approximately the same height as his Column in Rome—a monument visible north of the Danube (10 kilometers away).” Klio 87 (2005): 123–38. cf. were not found in situ. Unz (Stuttgart: Landesdenkmalamt Baden-Württemberg. see G.” in Visy. C. on the Roman attitude.

Adamklissi marks the site of a major Roman defeat. J. After the war Trajan built at Adamklissi his own Tropaeum.- 260 ap. as Poulter cannot establish that Durostorum (Bulgarian Silistra) c. 191. thus indicat- ing building in stone (that is. Bozilov.50 During Trajan’s first war. Something happened at Adamklissi. generally following traditional views on the 101–102 campaign. Les légions de Rome. is too sweeping.: Sutton Publishing.51 cross- ing the lower Danube into the Dobrudja and sweeping south with the Danube on their right past Adamklissi and west into Roman Moesia Inferior. 263. Sic Stefan. 50.. 2000).” in Le Bohec and Wolff. Le Bohec. 1:83–85. where (besides civilian settlers) soldiers are shown working with chisels. when the Dacians initiated Domitian’s war in late 84 or early 85 by an attack across the Danube and killed the provincial governor of Moesia. Inscriptions grecques et latines de Novae (Mésie Inférieure) (Paris: De Boccard. 51. M. 442–44 with fig. on the enigimatic text ILS 4795. Domitian (pace Stefan) later erected a victory monument (Tropaeum Domitiani = the “mausoleum”) west of the altar (89 or 90?) to celebrate his Dacian war. Strobel (Die Donaukriege Domitians. Ferris. Trajan halted the Dacians and Rhoxolani 45 kilometers south of Novae and commemorated the victory by founding the city of Nicopolis ad Istrum (“Victory City at the Istrus River”). 60 kilometers from Adamklissi.-C. depicted already on Roman coins dated to January– March 85: see 400. although this Tropaeum was destroyed probably in 96 as part of the damnatio memoriae and Domitian’s name was erased from the altar.” Annual of the Society for the Study of Caucasia 6–7 (1994–96): 70–71 with n. concedes a Domitianic origin of the “mausoleum” and the altar. followed the same route as the attack of late 84. cf. Y. Wheeler. The Dacian Wars of Domitian and Trajan rages whether the “mausoleum” and the altar are originally Domitianic or the whole site is Trajanic. Enemies of Rome: Barbarians through Roman Eyes (Stroud. 76. just as he obliterated Domitian’s building projects at Rome. was ever a base of the I Minerva. “A New Book on Ancient Georgia: A Critical Discussion.-C. eds. of which the construction (pace Stefan) appears in scene XXXIX of Trajan’s Column. 402.. Untersuchungen zu den Dakerkriegen Trajans. “Les provinces danubiennes. E. This legion’s participation in Trajan’s Dacian wars is not at issue: see Strobel. 86–87. the base of the legion I Italica under the Flavians. MILITARY  HISTORY ★    1207 . 43) locates the attack east of Novae (Bulgarian Sv- ishtov). Absil. the semi-popular work of I. U. to occasion a rare state-sponsored war memorial. “Legio I Minervia (1er-IIe siècles). Wilkes. 1:227–38. J. the attack’s date of late 84 or early 85 derives from Dacian arms.K. Stefan 437–38. a city) rather than the earth-wood construction of an army camp. as Stefan argues. the Dacian counteroffensive (with their Rhoxolan allies) in the winter of 101–102. 70-71. Les légions de Rome.. J. see J. “Legio I Italica. on which Poulter’s case is partially based. M. 1997). C. eds.” in Le Bohec and Wolff. II: Approches régionales du Haut-Empire romain. would put the Dacian inroad of late 84 west of the Iron Gates Gorge. 1998). dedicated to Mars Ultor (“the Avenger”) to obscure the earlier Domitianic monuments. a rather isolated site hitherto of no sig- nificance. ed. Kolendo and V. signaling military action. Poulter’s case for the legion I Minerva’s connection with Adamklissi monuments is not convincing.” in Rome et l’intégration de l’Empire 44 av. on this important site.. eds. Lepelley (Paris: Presses uni- versitaires de France. In Stefan’s reconstruction. Oppius Sabinus. after Roman forces had gained access to the “Costesti corridor” to Sarmizegethusa Regia. the dedication of the 519–28.

Jordanes. but on present evidence Stefan’s views—by no means definitive and largely in accord with traditional interpretations—make sense of what is available 52. Jordanes. Stefan (400. “Rhine and Danube Legions under Domitian. Petculescu. subsequently (perhaps already later in 84) became governor of Moesia (in 86 divided into two provinces. T. Stefan (405) equates the severity of the situation to the Teutoburg Forest debacle. would derive from the scenes of the Column and the metopes a second Roman vic- tory of Trajan at Adamklissi—not the first attempt to tie Adamklissi directly to the events of 101–102. 54.” 593. Romanisation. for a survey of previous work on the problems of the Adamklissi monuments. for a view that there was no Dacian-Rhoxolan invasion of Moesia Inferior in 101–102. Syme.4. Getica 76 (the fullest account). Diaconescu. note 51).. Trajan’s Column. 406) attributes the same destruction layer at Viminacium to Dacian attacks in both 85 and 86. Diaconescu. R. however. see also above. Domitianus 6.” in Rome and the Black Sea Region. Available evidence permits various reconstructions of the chronology. highly critical of Stefan’s views of the campaigns associated with the Adamklissi monuments and an advocate of their exclusively Trajanic origin. cf. Geographical details and literary narratives are lacking. WHEELER Tropaeum Traiani to Mars Ultor suggests revenge for a defeat. and the capture of the governor of Moesia Inferior’s slave would seem to attest Dacian operations south of the Danube. Eutropius 7. Bekker-Nielsen (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. Tacitus. 53.23. The Dacians plundered Moesia in 85 and were still in Moesia in 86. Positing Adamklissi as the site of Oppius’s defeat goes back to Sir Ronald Syme (1928). excavations at Novae and Viminacium (Serbian Kostolac. Agricola 41. “The Roman Army as a Factor of Romanisation in the North-Eastern Part of Moesia Inferior. Oppius Sabinus. Getica 101. where he rejects an alternative view (above.5. Resistance. as Stefan believes. ed.2.52 A second Roman defeat followed (although not necessarily in Moesia and possibly in 87 rather than 86) with the loss of the Praetorian Prefect Cornelius Fuscus and a legionary or prae- torian standard.” Journal of Roman Studies 18 (1928): 47. Domination. L. consul with Domitian in early 84. base of the legion VII Claudia) show some destruction in this period possibly associated with Dacian at- tacks. cf. Stefan 400 with n. Suetonius. Lepper and Frere. but it seems unlikely that Trajan devoted 1208    ★ THE  JOURNAL  OF .54 The Adamklissi monuments remain enigmatic. placing the Dacian attacks in the sector between Viminacium and the Danube’s Iron Gates Gorge.16. Likewise conjectural is Stefan’s route of the attack through the Dobrudja in both 84–85 and 101–102. reasoning that the Dacians attacked the less well-defended sector of Moesia.1. as no legions were yet stationed on the Danube east of Novae. as a result of the Dacian war).EVERETT L. 31–35. Nicopolis ad Istrum. 2006). “Dacia and the Dacian Wars. 87. cf. although scattered units of auxilia and the Moesian fleet (established by Vespasian) surveyed the area between Novae and the Danube’s mouth. Scene XXXIX may indicate Trajan’s foundation of Nicopolis ad Istrum. Trajan’s Column. note 48. including coin hoards. 295–304.53 For the Dacian-Rhoxolan offensive of winter 101–102 (absent in Cassius Dio’s fragments and Jordanes) interpretative possibilities are reduced to scenes on Trajan’s Column and the metopes of the Tropaeum Traiani. although they offer no real solutions. Superior and Inferior. 6. most recently. as the site of Trajan’s victory finds confirmation in two literary sources. Victory at Nicopolis: Ammianus Marcellinus 31. Stefan 400 with additional evidence. see Lepper and Frere.

42. H. see now Z. “The Roman Army. Iranians. IV Stefan’s third “book” (359–441. These thorny questions can only have their surface pricked here.” in Piso.” Some impres- sion of these issues will precede discussion (V) of Stefan’s innovative reconstruc- tions of the topography of Domitian’s and Trajan’s campaigns. Magyars. Part II of this article will assess Dacians and Roman strategy on the Lower Danube. In the Greek Classical period Thracian tribes. If Stefan is correct. the most powerful Thracian tribe in the fifth and fourth centuries B. 25–28.3. After Macedonia’s annexation in 146 B. Rome tolerated Thrace as a client-kingdom as long as order was preserved. but dynastic disputes compelled annexation in 46 A. 1998).56 time and manpower to building and settling a city in the middle of the 101–102 campaign.C.12. Coming of Rome.52.11. note Alexander the Great’s campaign (335 B.” 31. cf. including the Greek cities of the coast. These other major players demand acknowledgement. Lica. 106. Petculescu. Suceveanu and Barnea. and “De nouveau autour de l’annexion romaine de la Dobroudja. a task subsequently incumbent on Roman commanders in Moesia (the area between the Haemus Moun- tains and the Danube) from the time of Augustus.C. The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace: Orpheus Unmasked (Oxford: Clarendon Press. On the Thracians. opinions differ on whether the Dobrudja. Stefan’s emphasis on Dacians marginalizes the conglomerate of other peoples (Greeks.. The Odrysae.10–11.. Macedonia buffered Greece and the Mediterranean world generally from inroads of Thracians as well as Illyrians north- west of Macedonia.55 Historically. 2. Archibald. the scene may be an anachronistic interpolation in the Column’s narrative.C. 41 n. The Dacian Wars of Domitian and Trajan .) to the Danube against the Triballi to secure Macedonia’s northern MILITARY  HISTORY ★    1209 .D.C. La Dobroudja Romaine. dominated the area between the Strymon River (Thrace’s border with Macedonia) and the Black Sea. Greek influence on Dacian architecture and urbanism is less problematic than the character of the Dacian “state. to the conclusion of Trajan’s second war in A. 146–47. Macedonia as buffer: Livy 33. An Odrysian dynasty retained varying degrees of authority over much of Thrace into the forties B. as well as westward through modern Bulgaria into Serbia. when a dynasty of the Sapaean tribe emerged.1. 56.C. it fell to the Roman governor of Macedonia to deter threats anywhere in the Balkans.D. Germans. south of the Hae- mus Mountains (modern Stara Planina). His extensive pre-history to the wars of Domitian and Trajan seeks to validate his theses concerning Hellenization of the Dacians (for example. 271–80. Strabo 7. of which the Getae were a branch. Celts) sharing the Carpathian basin—an ancient ethnic mix antedating medieval complications (for example. and from the northern coast of the Aegean Sea northward through the Carpathians and beyond the Siret River. 55. Sarmizegethus Regia as a Dacian version of Attalid Pergamum: 109–11) and the rule of Burebista and Decebalus over essentially Hellenistic kingdoms. Die römischen Provinzen.. 485–673) covers the entire history of the Dacians from the sixth century B. Slavs). ed. figured prominently in the power politics of Athens and Philip II of Macedon in the northern Aegean during the fourth century B. was annexed as part of Thrace in 46 and when the Dobrudja became part of the Moesian province: cf.C.

WHEELER Decline of Odrysian power in the fourth century B. 60 kilometers due west of Tomis on the north- ward bend of the Lower Danube). M. Lica. 325–27. Zahariade and N. ed. Reinhardt. Gudea. and in Bulgaria. A Greek market (emporium) even arose at some point far inland at Axiopolis (modern Cernavoda. and. and Mesembria (modern Nesebur). R. 1210    ★ THE  JOURNAL  OF . and the Crozbyzes of the Carpathians—the mountain Getae.8. Strabo 7.D. Hakkert.EVERETT L. Coming of Rome. Ptolemy. 14–38).C. ed. or 11 A.” 102 for the V Macedonica at Oescus as early as 9 B. the chief deity of Dacian religion. M. A. cf. 58. the Getae often allied with the Thracian Triballi.und Donauprovinzen im Blickwinkel ihrer Zielsetzung.4–6. Ptolemy.8. Speidel (Basel: F. “The Early History of Moesia. however.3. c. Two branches can be discerned: the Getae proper. Strabo 7. Birley (Exeter: University of Exeter Press. cf. an oddity not matched by Greek ventures into the border before his Persian expedition: Arrian. The Triballi stretched from Oescus (modern Gigen) on the Danube southward and west into the Serbian moun- tains. A. Gudea.13. The Provincial at Rome and Rome and the Balkans 80 BC–AD 14. 460) obscures the complex and poorly reported history of Roman military activity on the Middle and Lower Danube. In the Classical Greek and Helle- nistic eras. Oescus. extending on both the northern and southern banks of the Danube from the Iron Gates Gorge east to the Black Sea coast. cf. Greek colonies dotted the west coast of the Black Sea: (for example) in Romania.3. H. favored a Getic rise north of the Haemus. “Roman Legions and their Fortresses.” in Römische Inschriften—Neufunde.C. Callatis. Odessus (modern Varna). Chr. 57. 1997). Batty’s denial of Augustus’s annexation of Moesia (Rome and the Nomads. Batty. “The Early History of Moesia.58 Non-Thracians. 249–70. was the first legionary camp downstream from the Iron Gates Gorge and became the base of the legion V Macedonica perhaps as early as Tiberius (r. 74. 193–220. synonymous terms from Burebista’s time. The Fortifications of Lower Moesia (Amsterdam: Adolf M. 429. ed. “Die Nordgrenze der römischen Provinz Obermoesian. 72: a synopsis of the Roman fort’s history. 38. Materialen zu ihrer Geschichte (86–275 n.C. Histria.” in Piso. Geography 3. Syme. 520–22. 217–18 with n. 1995). Rome and the Nomads. with whom they shared the cult of Zalmoxis.3. 376–78: a superflu- ous commentary on ancient authors’ preferences for Getae or Daci. F. 41–54) does not preclude Moesia as a provincia in the sense of a military command: on the problems. Strabo 7. Anabasis Alexandri 1. R.). Die römischen Provinzen. but certainly dur- ing Claudius’s reign (38–54): N. of which the Trizes/Terizes tribe was prominent in the Dobrudja.. Syme. Batty. cf.11. the northern terminus of the shortest route between Macedonia and the Danube. Geography 3.D. “Die römische Erschliessung der Rhein. however. see R. “Die Anfänge der Provinz Moesia. cf.5: “Oescus of the Triballians” (Oiskos Triballon).” Jahrbuch des römisch-germanischen Zentralmu- seums Mainz 48 (2001): 11–12. could list fifteen Geto-Dacian tribes.” 200–201. Tomis (modern Constantia). Stefan 359–60. Ptolemy. Wilkes. Neulesungen und Neuinterpre- tationen: Festschrift für Hans Lieb.1–4.12–13. Rome and the Nomads (405.57 Toponyms ending in “-dava” distinguish Geto-Dacian sites. which Latin sources called Daci. Mirkovic. without sufficient evidence) would have Oescus as a permanent legionary base from 2/3 A. By the time of Roman occupation they were more a name than a people.10. From the seventh century B. 110. cf. Wolff.. 1999). the absence of a consular governor of a province of Moesia before Claudius (r. also inhabited or migrated into the Carpathian basin. Dionysopolis (modern Balcic). most recently. Stolba and M.” in Syme.

Braund (Exeter: University of Exeter Press. and the German Quadi and Marcomanni to the north. See Suceveanu and Barnea. Valeria Kulcsár (Budapest) informs me that the earliest Iazyges material in the Hungarian Plain is undatable. and later occasioned the poet Ovid. Between 20 and 49 A. the Iazyges migrated west into the Great Hungarian Plain and formed a not unproblematic Iranian buffer between Dacia to the east.C. The Agathyrsi. to com- plain of living in a Sarmatian land.. had a king with an Iranian name (Spargapeithes) in the early fifth century B.” Dacia 51 (2007): 241–45. “Darius in Scythia. Annals 12. “Die Einwanderung der Iazygen. Aorsi.29. Les légions de Rome. until the Goths arrived in the third century and the Huns in the fourth. Wheeler.D. 47. the sources often do not distinguish Scythians from Getae. as the Scythians were pushed from the steppe into the Crimea and the Dobrudja by the Sarmatians.62 Some segments of the Sarmatian Iazyges reached the Danube in the first cen- tury B. who resisted assimilation. A. when the Dobrudja (detached from Moesia Inferior) became Scythia in the Diocletianic reorganization of provinces. ed. Mikra Skythia). saw a second wave of Sarmatians. 62.D. exiled to Tomis in 8 A.2 (Spargapeithes). 104. cf. 37–38). 20 A.191–2..48. Batty’s uncritical acceptance of Ovid’s writings from Tomis as accurate ethnography (Rome and the Nomads.3. 7. 52. another Iranian people.17).60 Intermittent Scythian migrations and raids from the Ukraine through the fourth century B. “Ovid and the Barbar- ians beyond the Lower Danube (Tristia 2.” in Scythians and Greeks. Rhoxolani. Periplus 24.. and the Dobrudja by the sixth century B. but how much ear- lier is unclear. 60. P. Alani) dominated the steppe from the Don to the Dnieper. Roman Pannonia to the west. Scythian) names: Zalmodezikos and Rhemaxos.3.C. F. Bylkova. whose successive waves (Iazyges. 61. 142. Stefan 367. the majority of the Dobrudja’s population remained Geto-Dacian despite the influx of Scythians. The Dobrudja became “Little Scythia” (in Greek. for the latter date see E.D. 320–38) partially finds correction in J. “The Lower Dnieper Region as an Area of Greek/Barbarian Interaction. 2005). 78.” American Journal of Ancient History 12 (1987 [1995]): 121–22. who wandered about between 59. “The Roman Army.C.” 35. Iranian peoples from the Ukrainian steppe were already migrating into Transylvania. pace Suceveanu and Barnea (La Dobroudja Romaine. Arrian. when his kingdom dissolved in 50 (or 49. as Iazyges cavalry served in the forces of the Quadic king Vannius.C. G.5. La Dobroudja Romaine. 63.2. Coming of Rome.” in Le Bohec and Wolff. the Rhoxolani (“White Alans”). Dr.6. Hinds.63 The first century A. 63 with bibliography.C.C. bear Iranian (that is. Petculescu. burials show a mixture of Geto-Dacian and Scythian elements until the mid- fifth century B. they were already in Hungary. Georges. Herodotus 4. two Getic kings of the third century B.4. a term revived in the Late Empire.C. Strabo. Móscy.12. later intensified. cf. Geogr.D. Strabo 7. The Iazyges’ route to Hungary (south of the Carpathians via Wallachia and the Banat? or north of Dacia?) and whether Rome encouraged their MILITARY  HISTORY ★    1211 . In fact..” Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 25 (1977): 439–46. Anabasis Alexandri 1. Oltean (Dacia. apparently a Thracian people on the Muresh River. the plains of Wallachia. “Legio XV Apollinaris: From Carmuntum to Satala—and beyond..59 Of equal significance. 53) and Lica (Coming of Rome. 157) are too certain about the Iazyges’ move to the Hungarian Plain c. the site also has a Roman history.1.3). eds.61 For events of the fourth and third centuries B. Lica. 1:273–74. The Dacian Wars of Domitian and Trajan interior elsewhere. 5. V. Tacitus. D. 241 n.

see Istvánovits and Kulscár. Kollegen und Schülern (Rome: Giorgio Bretschneider. III. Getica 74: the Alutus (modern Olt) River as the border between Iazyges and Rhoxolani. 107 B. 1978).EVERETT L. 1986).79 and Annals 6. for fragments of a possible Hunnic bow from a Sarmatian burial dated first century B.. Sarmatians. “Overcoming the Barbarian. 440–41) for occasional intercourse through the southern section of Roman Dacia with their Rhoxolan cousins in Wallachia (if the Dacian governor permitted it) might speak for the southern route a century earlier. Both Iazyges and the Rhoxolani may have already been equipped with the Hunnic bow.79. 442..64 migration invite speculation: see the still useful study of J.” in Istvánovits and Kulscár. und dem 4.) [Paris: Errance. have them go north of Dacia. Jahrhundert nach Christus.C. 1950).: A Survey of Publications in VDI. History in Ovid (Oxford: Clarendon Press.). von Carnap-Bornheim (Neumünster: Wachholtz Verlag. Historiae I. Istvánovits and V.Chr. Alans. Jordanes. M. 157.D. Syme. involving a conflict in the Crimea against the forces of Mithridates VI Eupator of Pontus c. Rhoxolan participation in Domitian’s war is unattested. 233–34. does not depict them as cata- phracts.C. Stefan (507–8) denies the presence of Sarmatians in 1212    ★ THE  JOURNAL  OF . Kulscár. since the Rhoxolani could not have adopted use of cataphracts from European peoples they encountered subsequently: see R. seen on Trajan Column and already known to Rome from wars with the Parthians (also Iranians). and “Die Jahre 117 bis 119 n. 2003). 64.” in H. cf. Coulston’s point about their absence in Sarmatian graves: “Tacitus. cf. “The First Sarmatians in the Great Hungarian Plain: Some Ideas on the Jazygian Migration into the Carpathian Basin. on the upper Dniester River. “Sarmatians through the Eyes of Strangers: The Sarmatian Warrior. edd. 57–58. 426. C. Lebedynsky.19. Batty. Armes et guerriers barbares au temps des grandes invasions (IVe au VIe siècles après J. “New Discoveries of Sarmatian Complexes of the 1st Century A.D. however. who favors the southern route and Roman involvement. Stefan (506–7. in sharp contrast to Tacitus’s description (Histories 1. August 1981 dargebracht von Freun- den.. erroneously 72.19 at Batty.. Unlike the Iazyges. and. the Rhoxolani introduced on the Danubian frontier the fully armored cav- alry with long thrusting spears (cataphracts). attributed Scythian practices to them. An early description of the Rhoxolani (Strabo 7.D. but Syme may be correct that Strabo’s probable source. 427–28 for his dubious notion that Tacitus’s descriptions of Sarmatian tactics at Histories 1. raid of 69 A.. ed. N. eine Krisenphase der römischen Herrschaft an der mitteren und unternen Donau. Studies in the History of the Sarmatians (Budapest: Pázmány Péter Tudományegyetemi Görög Filológiai Intézet. ed. 697) and Strobel (Unter- suchungen zu den Dakerkriegen Trajans. International Connections. A. suggests that the Iazyges were ever cataphracts (sic.D. Istvánovits and V. WHEELER the Dnieper and the plains of Wallachia into the late second century. Coulston. 962–66). both discounting their presence in the Dobrudja.. A fresh evaluation of these issues is forthcoming in the acta of a 2007 conference at the Autonomous University of Barcelona: E.-C. Harmatta.17). Rome and the Nomads.79 and the Impact of Sarmatian Warfare on the Roman Empire. 165. “Sarmatians through the Eyes of Strang- ers.” Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 4 (1997): 37. erroneously. No evidence.” 412). Rome and the Nomads.3. On the problematic use of the Hunnic bow in the first century A. eds. 44. cf.35 are contrived from information gleaned about Sarmatians in the Dacian wars of Domitian and Trajan. Batty. C. the Stoic Poseidonius. 45–46. Treister. Alemany (in press)./first century A. Studien zur alten Geschichte: Siegfried Lauffer zum 70. Marcus Aurelius’s concession to the Iazyges in 179 (Cassius Dio 71. Geburtstag am 4.” in Scythians. Kulscár.” 153. I. Kalcyk et al. only a single piece of scale armor (characteristic of cataphracts) is known from the Great Hungarian Plain: E. 2001]): 10–12.” in Kontakt—Kooperation— Konflikt: Germanen und Sarmaten zwischen dem 1. 66) negate J. The unlikelihood of complete preservation of bows in graves and the infrequency of weapons as grave goods in Sarmatian burials (cf.

Vindogradov. Part II. 600. Graßl. defeated and captured by the Getae in 292 B. as the Getae gained wealth through tribute from the Greek cities besides the land’s natural products (herding.C. La Dobroudja Romaine. and later Asia Minor (hence Galatia in central Anatolia) brought these “westerners” into the Carpathian basin. whose ashes (pace Stefan 365 with n.. 48–49. Olbia at the Bug River’s mouth). and the same Celtic movements featuring inva- sions of Greece in 279 B. Geto-Dacians also mingled with Celtic peoples of the Middle Danube (for example. Miller. Getica 74 (above.C. 616 (Alpes Bastarnicae). noting the (predictable) emphasis of the “Cluj school” on the Transylvanian origins of the Dacians. note 63). Heinen (Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern. my sincere thanks to Dr. The northern Carpathians appear as the “Bastarnic Alps” on the fourth-century map. as does Dinogetia downstream from Noviodunum.C. near the Danube delta and the site of a later naval base of the Moesian fleet. text with notes 144. and Philip married a Getic princess. came with a fee. “Dacia and the Dacian Wars.66 Wallachia before the second century A. how- ever. Taurisci). Stefan overlooked (366) J. Philip II. Stefan’s emphasis on Geto-Dacian interaction with Greeks plays down Celtic influence on Dacian civilization. Beiträge zur Geschichte und Lokalisierung eines antiken Ethnonyms. 147). 300 B. Noviodunum and Dio- getia: Suceveanu and Barnea.” 592–93.. expanded their influence south to the Haemus Mountains and on the coast as far as Odessus. 65. Lysimachus) and intermarried with Macedonian dynasts. 66. and 70 (see Wheeler. the Getae thwarted Philip II’s attack on Odessus in 342 B. 64) are preserved in the now famous tomb of Philip II at Vergina. Die Armee im Südwesten des römischen Dacien (Timisoara: Ed.. agriculture.” in Vindogradov. Itineraria Romana (Stuttgart: Strecker und Schröder. Scordisci.C.” Orbis Terrarum 6 (2000): 127–38. Nemeth. the Peutinger Table.65 The shadowy history of Getic relations with the Greek cities of the Black Sea coast and Getic involvements in Classical Greek and Hellenistic wars cannot be pursued here. just as Noviodunum later became Dacian. Mirton. Boii. In the fourth century B. former allies or subjects of the Odyrsiae. bears a Celtic name. cf.C. the Germanic Bastarnae (in some ways precursors of the later Goths) moved southeast from north- ern central Europe into Moldavia. c. The Dacian Wars of Domitian and Trajan Essentially simultaneous with the influx of Scythians. although they were already a problem for the governor of Moesia c. 125 (parallel text in German and Romanian). 62 (ILS 986) and raided Moesia in 68. sealed with his daughter’s hand his release and an alliance with the Getic king Dromichaetes. Stefan 361–67. Protection. E. “Die Taurisker. G. “Eine neue Quelle zum Zo- phyrion-Zug. 1916). Diaconescu. Stefan (512) does observe Dacian use of the Celtic war trumpet (carnyx). similarly. Pontische Studien: Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte und Epigraphik des Schwarzmeerraumes. Taurisci: H. Peutinger Table: K.. Jordanes. the Getae. 2005). Lysimachus. As at other Greek colonies on the Black Sea (for example. 46. The Getae protected the Greek cities against Macedonian imperialism (for example. The Dacian fort on the Middle Danube at Zidovar (upstream from the Iron Gates Gorge) was originally a Scordiscan site. Valeria Kulscár for supplying a chapter from this work. timber).D. H. and Noviodunum (modern Issacea). ed. their participation in the campaign of 101–102 suggests their proximity. 69. Zidovar: Stefan 380 n. 1997): 323–35 on MILITARY  HISTORY ★    1213 . Greek settlers in the Dobrudja intermingled with the natives and Getae formed part of the urban population at Histria and other cities.

the capital of Dromichaetes mentioned by Diodorus Siculus (21. Stoyanov.. flour- ishing c. as in Stefan 374. Stefan 372–73. Stoyanov et al.D.C. south of the Car- pathians. and Poiana (ancient Piroboridava) in Moldavia.C. silver.2. and an extensive necropolis with a supposed royal tumulus (11. 100 A. the site was abandoned for another fortified center c. 350 to c. Sherk. Manufacturing at both sites suggests another parallel.. jewelry in bronze.and third-century B. see T. 67. no. 2006). an ambassador of Burebista to Pompey in 48 B. the site features Greek statuary (one inscribed in Greek by the sculptor). a major fortified and religious center. 250 B. Zopyrion.” 41.2). 250 B.). Stefan speculates that a Getic capital had existed at Borovo (site of a “treasure” found in the 1990s) before Sboryanovo’s foundation. Getic kings. Yet other fortified Getic royal residences of the Hellenistic period are known at Cotofenii din Dos in Oltenia (Little Wallachia. mosaics. as Sarmizege- thusa Regia c. 78. and a mint producing imitations of the coins of Histria and Alexander the Great.67 After an earthquake destroyed Sboryanovo/Helis c. was perhaps the largest European center for iron working the Getic (Scythian?) defeat in 331(?) of Alexander the Great’s governor of Thrace. Dromichaetes (II?). Stefan identifies the site with Helis.p. ably demonstrating the wealth and Hel- lenic tastes of fourth. and gold. Stefan finds a precursor c. diameter 70 meters) enclosing a burial chamber rimmed with cary- atides. would anticipate the Greek building techniques and urban amenities three centuries later at Sarmizege- thusa Regia. 8. Rome and the Nomads.C.” Thracia 15 (2003): 413–23. the plain north of the Danube. “Late Iron Age Background. 1214    ★ THE  JOURNAL  OF . not the Antigonid Antigonus II.C. 376 n. 68. mentioned in the decree of Dionysopolis honoring Acornion. The Getic Capital in Sboryanovo (Sofia: n.16 is correct. 1984). who claims Popeshti is comparable to Sarmizegethusa Regia. 40 kilometers south of the Danube on the north slope of the Haemus Mountains at Bulgarian Sboryanovo. Popeshti and Poiana: Locklear. Strategika 4. Coming of Rome. Stefan 367–72.C. the inscription dates between 7 June and 9 August: Lica. another Getic (?) king. Issues and Research Developments. west of the Olt River). Popeshti (25 kilometers southwest of Bucharest). where the Macedonian king Lysimachus was held captive (292 B. participated in the siege of Thracian Cypsela in 254 B. and Oltean. during the civil war with Julius Caesar. Other Greek aspects could be detailed. 74 with bibliography. Rome and the Greek East to the Death of Augustus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sboryanovo is unknown to Batty. as the ally of the Seleucid Antiochus II Theos. including manufacture of iron and bronze tools and weapons. and T. Acornion decree: Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae (here- after IGBulg) I2 13=(in English translation) R. for updates on the site. WHEELER Wealthy Getic kings who intermarried with Macedonian monarchs needed to display their prosperity. who also erroneously cites the source: Polyaenus. “The Getic Capital at Sbory- anovo: New Excavations. Dacia.. somewhere between the Danube and the Dniester. At ten hectares. 375.5 meters high. and that Borovo must be the Argedava. 100 kilometers west-southwest at Borovo (ancient name unknown) on the Iatrus River.C. For his Hellenistic Sarmizegethusa Regia. twice the size of the Odyrsian capital of Seuthopolis.68 The spectacular site of Sboryanovo. the possible residence of Burebista’s father.EVERETT L.

D. 511 (the high quality of Dacian weapons).” 63–65. Locklear’s self-contradiction.12) of Lysimachus’s detention at Helis and the Dionysopolis decree for Acornion. Yet for Stefan.69 Yet a valley of obscurity separates these two peaks of splendor three centuries apart.8). An absence of major cemeteries north of the Danube. 70.C. formal state organi- zation remains problematic. 96) raises the possibility of Geto-Dacian mercenaries importing Greek ideas upon returning home. 267. To what extent (if any) did Hellenism penetrate below the ruling class? Lica (Coming of Rome. but cites no examples. Diodorus shows the Getic king Dromichaetes’s awareness of Macedonian court practice and Lysimachus’s “friends. from only two pieces of evidence: Diodorus Siculus’s account (21.” but the passage 69. with major cities like Pergamum or Panticapaeum cannot be proved and.70 The number of major fortified sites corresponds to the multiple Geto-Dacian rulers popping in and out of the sources c. the alleged residence of Burebista’s father. The Dacian situation cor- responds to a broader absence of Late La Tène (first century B. 72. cf.72 Despite Dacian wealth and architectural sophistication.. “‘Devictis Dacis. is speculative.10. Dacian wealth and sophistication are not at issue: the monumental works speak for themselves. impedes understanding Geto-Dacian culture. Direct Dacian contacts. “Late Iron Age Back- ground. the capital of the Bosporan Kingdom (eastern Crimea). where he constructed a palace (basileion) atop a city formed from multiple man-made terraces on the model of Attalid Pergamum in Asia Minor or Panticapaeum (modern Kerch). 250–100 B. except for Greek architectural techniques. MILITARY  HISTORY ★    1215 .71 For Stefan (109–11). The Dacian Wars of Domitian and Trajan outside the Roman Empire. In liter- ary sources. however. 69: drawing conclusions about diverse Dacian burial customs after asserting that too few examples exist for assessment. confirmation of a strong influx of Greek ideas into Transylvania via Greek cities of the Dobrudja remains illusive—perhaps testimony to the thoroughness of Roman destruction at Sarmizegethusa Regia. cf. Stefan 275. specifically the title of philos (“friend”) of the king. Geography 3. As Stefan notes (375).C. consolidated power over numerous other Geto-Dacian kings and their neighbors. Sarmizegethusa Regia is c. Burebista in the first half of the first century B. initially established a capital at Costesti. above text with notes 22–23. Stefan wishes to infer Geto-Dacian imitation of the Macedonian and Hellenistic royal courts.’” 333. 236–42) identifies Argedava with Zargidava on the Siret River in Moldavia (Ptolemy. where he rejects the possibility that Burebista imported Greek technicians from Greek cities. Identification of Borovo with Argedava.C. Cf. however. a poorly known period. iron working: Stefan 102–3. Getic philhellenism manifest at Sboryanovo went north of the Danube with the shift of power to Transylvania. in which the center of Geto-Dacian power passed from south of the Danube north into Transylvania. use of “friends” (whether a court title or simply an indication of familiarity) can be ambiguous.. 83 n. 71. 350 kilometers from Sboryanovo. Lica (Coming of Rome. especially for the first century A.) burials throughout Central Europe: see Babeş. the first eight lines of the Acornion decree are too fragmentary to determine whose father at Argedava is mentioned. and planned a defensive ring of forts throughout the Carpathi- ans centered on the holy mountain of Cogaeonum.

51. Crito. R. WHEELER will not prove Geto-Dacian adaptation of such titles.. see recently I. see text with note 88 below. 19) about Burebista’s defeat of the Scordisci is groundless: see A. Provincial. “Décénée.C. 103–20. Danube] and on this side of it”—typical Hellenistic Greek. 138 with n. Strabo’s therapontes for Burebista’s attendants is ambiguous. 66. after driving the Celtic Boii. For Strabo. 96. Curta (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Coming of Rome. His supposed abuse of the Greek cities is misunderstood. Syme.3.” 63–64. 80–30 BC.g. 18. Pannonia and Upper Moesia. 1216    ★ THE  JOURNAL  OF . Batty’s skepticism (427 n. Stefan 373. above text with note 65 for Scordiscan Zidovar as a Dacian fort. Dacia. Les philoi roy- aux dans l’Asie hellénistique (Geneva: Librairie Droz.29) no one would speak of a Helvetian state. Madgearu. 47. 106. cf. in Jacoby. 1974). 23: only cities without traditional ties with the Getae (Olbia. gaining control of the Greek coastal cities from Olbia to Mesembria and Apollonia. Mesembria. Salt continued to have a role in the area’s later history: A. La Dobroudja Romaine. Crito. Decenaeus was a goes (“magician”. recounting Trajan’s Dacian wars. Savalli-Lestrade.3.” in East Central & Eastern Europe in the Early Middle Ages. Locklear (“Late Iron Age Background. ed. given more force through the religious awe of the holy Decenaeus. Nevertheless.EVERETT L. For rebuttal of an alleged hostility of Burebista to the Greek cities (sic Batty. cf.3). Decrees imply literacy and writing. on the salt trade. Strabo 7. Burebista is credited with subduing the Bastarnae. 507–8). nr.5) has Burebista issuing decrees (prostagmata). Frere (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Apollonia) suffered from Burebista. “Salt Trade and Warfare: The Rise of the Romanian- Slavic Military Organization in Early Medieval Transylvania.75 A tremendous influx 73. still emphasized the Dacians’ religious fervor. Lica. whether ministers (sic Stefan). Taurisci. just as the same text denotes Burebista as “first and greatest of all kings in Thrace and possessor of all land across the river [scil. Suceveanu and Barnea.74 Besides uniting the Getae and Dacians. who misunderstands Lica’s argument and incorrectly imputes to him a view similar to Stefan’s. Dacia. attributes the rise of Sarmizegethusa Regia to gaining control of resources (e. 2005). cf. see Stefan 382 with n. 200 fr. Mócsy. 67. but although the Helvetians defeated by Caesar (58 B. or courtiers.73 A document from Bureb- ista’s chancellery (if there was one) would make a more impressive case. 379.5. but Burebista’s accomplishment in found- ing Sarmizegethusa Regia on the Dacians’ holy mountain and uniting four Dacian principalities under a divine aegis should not be underestimated. Indeed Strabo (7. conseiller intime de Burébista. prominent at Buridava. Vulpe. on the Hellenistic court titles. The Gallic Druids also knew Greek (Caesar. “Macedonia and Dardania. In the Dionysopolis text (a documentary source more reliable for official terminology). S. slaves. supposed Getic destruction at Histria derives from a questionable reading of the stratigraphy. 1998). likewise. Die Fragmente. 74.” 70). 7. Further. and Scordisci west from the Middle Danube. ignoring Burebista and the religious influ- ence of Decenaeus. 82–83 with n.” in Birley. F. and extending Dacian power to the March River in Slovakia. Rome and the Nomads. iron). Gallic War 6. 11. 75. pejorative term). ed. Acornion is characterized as “in the best and greatest friendship” with Burebista—surely a court title is implied. Stefan (279) posits a royal monopoly on salt and gold. trans. the Dacians’ widespread use of silver but the absence of gold jewelry would support the view: Oltean. the decree of Acornion derives from a Greek city likely to frame situations in Greek institutional language..) maintained records in Greek (Gallic War 1. Oltean. IGBulg I2 13 lines 22–26.14.

alliances stretched his influence northeast beyond the Siret River to the Lower and Middle Dniester and westward into the Slovak Carpathians: in total. could signal organized units of the Dacian army. who posits recruitment of Dacian mercenaries. although with exaggerations. Die Hexadrachmenprägung der Gross-Boier (Vienna: Fassbaender. La Dobroudja Romaine. Getic coinage is attested at Sboryanovo/Helis. 256.000 people.” in Rome and her Northern Provinces: Papers Presented to Sheppard Frere. Wacher (Gloucester.: see Oltean. ed. 515. yet like literacy. and Dacian coinage north of the Danube (initially imitations of Greek tetradrachms. Sim. 120–23. 260. “Le recruitement des Daces dans l’armée romaine sous l’empereur MILITARY  HISTORY ★    1217 . 98.79 Further..13. who all three favor Dacia as the equivalent of an Hellenistic state. Cassius Dio (67. 1983).. Coming of Rome. Wilkes. Bogdan Cataniciu. 200. The Dacian Wars of Domitian and Trajan of Roman denarii throughout Dacia c. Stefan concedes the hypothetical character of such figures. 79. 23.1) even includes high praise of Decebalus’s skills in general- ship.1). “Dakische und sarmatische Waffen auf den Reliefs der Traiansaüle. 65 B. which consisted of both cavalry and infantry. might point to a western orientation rather than Stefan’s Hellenism. 115 with n. the “long-haired” 76. rejecting a view tying the coins to a Roman desire for Dacian slaves after Spartacus’s slave revolt. Strobel. 77. the Dacians were adept at both offensive and defensive siegecraft—not primitive barbarians ignorant of siegecraft. 1994). Dana and F. a view that the Dacians were nomads has no credibility: D. U.. the typical characterizations of Germans and other barbarians in Roman sources. although only Dacian infantry is depicted on the Column. Burebista’s empire represents no more than a huge but ephemeral tribal confederation. 96. a Dacian army of 200.000 seems to be Strabo’s number for the size of Burebista’s armed forces: 7. the Dacian elite distinguished a lower class. c.C. 113. “Romans. Coming of Rome. later Roman denarii) dates to at least the second century B. Göbl.3. Lica. Daci. Daci. “Late Iron Age Background. Stefan 516–25. however.” Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 11 (2000): 37–41. Hartley and J. For Stefan (508). Dacians and Sarmatians in the First and Early Second Centuries. 106.6. A state organization for Decebalus’s Dacia has better (although not unprob- lematic) prospects. Rome enlisted Dacians for cavalry alae and adopted some Dacian practices (e.000.” Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien 60 (=Sonderheft 192 [1964]): 7–34. Oltean. contra.” 65–66. 64. Bogdan Cataniciu. Arrian. in any case. note also O. seen on Trajan’s Column. 25. Dacia. 78. 264. E. 82–83 with n. on Getic and Dacian horsearchers: 363. Rome and the Nomads. yielding an army of c. 363 n. 75–c.76 For some. Lica.” 105–6.g. who gives a full description of Dacian armor and weapons: 508–16. “The Making and Testing of a Falx also Known as the Dacian Battle Scythe.: Alan Sutton Publishing. Slaves as a major export of the Carpathian basin is a motif of Batty. and J. 121 n. coinage does not define a state: the Celtic Boii also struck coins: R.g. B.78 Dacian use of battle flags (vexilla) and dragon standards (dracones).K. just as Rome heavily recruited Thracian infantry and cavalry in general: see D. Decebalus’s Dacia included all territory north of the Danube between the Pathissus (modern Tisza) River (bordering the Hun- garian Plain) and the Black Sea. Matei-Popescu.C. Similarly.000. “Die Eroberung Dakiens. See Locklear.000 square kilometers and over 1. 48. similarly. 124–25. Suceveanu and Barnea. Tactica 44.77 But could a tribal confederation have built Sarmizegethusa Regia? Debate on whether Burebi- sta’s Dacia had crossed the threshold from a confederation to a Hellenistic state is justified in the current state of the sources. Dacia. 197. Gamber.

and.C.3. handled the peace negotiations with Domitian in 89. Too little is known to posit a Dacian form of Hellenistic ruler-cult (the king as a divine manifestation).1. cf. called the “second” (in power) after Decebalus may have commanded at the first battle of Tapae (88 or 89).. 5.6.80 A Vezinas. More decisive. called Decebalus’s brother (frater). nr.1–6. 82.D. Cassius Dio 68. an episode illustrated on the Col- 1218    ★ THE  JOURNAL  OF . 71–72. is also on record.2–3. Stefan 517 (a Dacian devise) and Whitehead’s ingenious interpretation making it Roman: “Apollodorus’ Poliorketika. Stefan 525. see J. where the Moesian governor (60– 66/67) Tiberius Plautius Silvanus Aelianus restores captured or kidnapped “brother(s) of the Dacians” along with sons of the kings of the Bastarnae and the Rhoxolani.84 Trajan: une esquisse préliminaire. literacy. suggest an organized state. a fragment of Crito’s Getica refers to officials in charge of arable lands and those responsible for forts. Such administrative divisions of authority. 84. although kings and priests belonged to the “cap-wearers”. Martial 5. 81. again the term is ambiguous: court title or biological relationship?82 But nothing here proves a state rather than a tribal confederation.8. cf.10. 83.EVERETT L. Vulpe (“Dé- cénée. Caesar. especially if Dacian architects had read Philo Mechancius. Frag- menta Historicorum Graecorum (Paris: Firmin Didot. but like Strabo’s therapontes. 497–98) and perverse attempt to represent Moesian and Thracian troops as unreliable. Crito. IV. united the posts of king and priest. cf.83 Dacian literacy in Latin is attested and knowledge of Greek can probably be assumed. on the dracones. Nothing suggests him a religious leader like Decenaeus.9. 68. Trajan received an embassy with a message written in Latin on a large mushroom: Cassius Dio 68. Cassius Dio 75. 197). cf. Müller. the term is ambiguous if a court title. conseiller intime de Burébista. ILS 986. although a later successor. where he feigned death and escaped capture. An hetairos (“companion”) of Decebalus. On Dacian siegecraft.73. Vulpe would compare the “cap-wearers” to a priestly caste like the Celtic Druids. Cosmosicus: Jordanes.” 65–66) for suggested corrections to Jordanes. 185. cf. Getica 73. 1885).2 (Vezinas). Cosmosicus. and a fixed capital with monumental architecture. above text at note 26. M. M. “The ‘Draco’ Standard. Cassius Dio 67.” Dacia 50 (2006): 195–206. in Jacoby.” Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 2 (1991): 101–14. 2009). who (pace Jordanes) seems to have ruled for a time after Burebista. Stefan 666. N. Batty’s feeble discussion (Rome and the Nomads.1. Documents Illustrating the Princi- pates of Gaius Claudius & Nero (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 228. Smallwood. most recently. 224) depicts the Dacian use of a battering ram against a Moesian city during the 101–102 counteroffensive. Before the second Battle of Tapae (101). scene XXXII (fig. 80. nr.4–5 (Clodius Albinus vs. 221). The Thracians in the Roman Imperial Army from the First to the Third Century A. 200 fr. on that most curious siege machine at scene CXIV (fig. C.81 Diegis. both of which could serve as ambassadors. Gallic War 7. coinage. Septimius Severus at Lugdunum/ Lyon. cf. 220). Coulston.). 5=C. Petrus Patricius fr. the text’s meaning is unclear.5–8 (Alesia. Zahariade. 272–73: the Dacian defen- sive fortification scheme in the Carpathians attests long-term planning and maintenance. 52 B. Bicilis. Die Fragmente. an alternate edition of the text in E.” 210–11. 1: Auxilia (Cluj/Na- poca: Mega Publishing House. WHEELER (comati/capillati) from the “cap-wearers” (pileati/tarabostesei). cf.5 (Bicilis). Getica 40. cf. 1967). in combination with social classes. note use of lilia (concealed sharpened stakes): scene XXV (fig.14.7. both groups appear on Trajan’s Column. Cassius Dio 67. Jordanes. but this conclusion is premised on Burebista as a grand strategist and creator of the system.

. Strabo (d. 162–63.D. Trajan’s Column.2. Getica 76.” 160. originally a Celtic area. 69) as a dux (“general. to show a single Dacian mon- arch proves nothing. Locklear. “Late Iron Age Background. a pottery sherd at Buridava. leader”) and not a rex (“king”): Stratagems 1. 65 B. not Decebalus. trans. indeed Diurpaneus/Dorpaneus.” 69–70. Lepper and Frere. missing in Jordanes’ account of Domitian’s war. 100.86 Moreover. three times consul (c. Decebalus first appears after Roman forces crossed the Danube in 86 or 87. Bogdan Cataniciu. after 23 A.4. 139–40. Dorpaneus: Jor- danes.C.” 44. which opened access to the Dacian heartland. 67. was the victor over the Praetorian Prefect Cornelius Fuscus.1 with Excerpta Valesiana 284 (see Loeb edition: Cary. note 76) represented Roman support (real or pretended) for different rulers. Bruun. 120–23.” 723–25. who then tried to negotiate with Domitian. mentions an unknown basileus (king). 672). 104–5. 142 for a Getic king Rholes in the Dobrudja (c.C. cf. 59–60. See Lica.D. an anecdote faintly echoed at Tacitus.6. refers to the Dacian leader Scorylo (fl.10. “Late Iron Age Background. when a less militarily adept king Duras at Sarmizegethusa Regia abdicated rule to Decebalus. the influx of Roman denarii c. 227. The lip of a large amphora found at Sarmizegethusa Regia is stamped four times: Decebalus per Scorilo (AE 1977 nr. “The Legend of Decebalus. Decebalus’s sole rule of Dacia at the start of the war with Domitian in late 84 is far from clear. 29 B. “Die Eroberung Dak- iens. It may be significant that Frontinus. and writing his Stratagems 84–88 during Domitian’s Dacian war.) suggest at least four or five different Dacian principalities. 98. 87. 92.6. 16?). this view fails to convince. Diurpaneus: Orosius 7. 1). for commentary. 75–c. shares the stage with at least two other Dacian rulers: a Diurpaneus or Dor- paneus led the Dacian offensive into Moesia in late 84/early 85 and commanded Dacian operations until about 87. advising a Dacian king. Emending the problematic text of Plau- tius Silvanus (ILS 986: above.87 umn (scene IX).10. where Dacian coins did not cir- culate. presumably following Tacitus’s Histories. accordingly. Peace came only in 89 following a Dacian defeat at Tapae. Duras: Cassius Dio 67. 133.5. cf. Histories 3. “Dacia’s Borders. a Duras.C. also MILITARY  HISTORY ★    1219 . Dacia.46.) claims (7.3. excluding the Banat (between the Carpathians and confluence of the Tisza and Danube). see note 88 below. despite valiant efforts to create a single line of kings based in Transylvania. note 82). 328–29 with n. Oltean.” 106 n. a text generally assumed to refer to the Dacian king: Locklear. Dio’s Roman History. 86..–A. Locklear posits from his archaeological survey of pre-Roman Dacia a competi- tion between Dacian princes eventually won by the group of Sarmizegethusa Regia. a Roman ally in Licinius Crassus’s campaign on the Lower Danube 29–27 B. Decebalus. and Daci.C. As noted earlier. 100). 85. 4. The Dacian Wars of Domitian and Trajan Nevertheless. cf. Coming of Rome. Above text at note 68. inscribed in Greek. approved by Strobel.4. As this influx of Roman silver coins into Dacia corresponds to the period of Burebista’s rise to power and the coin finds are not exclusively concentrated at supposed power-centers. numerous Hellenistic Geto-Dacian fortified residences are known and the local circulation of different local Dacian coinages (dated second century B. approved by Stefan (393).11) that Burebista’s union of four kingdoms had dissolved in his own day into sometimes five parts with no stability.85 The names of numerous Dacian rulers floating in and out of the sources for the period between Burebista and Domitian’s war cannot be moored to specific territorial domains. (above. Stefan 388–92. 697. 73. part of the senatorial clique that put Trajan in power in 97.

Mattern (Rome and the Enemy. and supposed capital of the Dacian tribe. 123–24: Oltenia and the upper Olt River were not jointly ruled with Wallachia. and rec- ognition as a client of Rome. 40). Bogdan Cataniciu (“Dacia’s Borders. 88. Getica 78) and not at Sarmizegethusa. 40. not German Buri. A fragmentary Greek inscription on a pottery sherd mentions a (probably post-Burebista) king (basileus). Daci. and military standard lost in Fuscus’s defeat at another Dacian fort (Cas- sius Dio 68.EVERETT L. 1). 188. “Dacia’s Borders. “Die Eroberung Dakiens. 121. however. the whole of Dacia south and east of the Carpathians.88 But. some Dacian forts on the Danube’s north bank (e.10. In fact only conjecture ties Diurpaneus/Dorpaneus to Buridava. preserved in the tenth-century encyclopedia called the Suda (Q 413): see Russu. a fortified residence from the first century B. As Trajan recovered in 102 the arms.e. on Buridava. 721. 62–63. 15.” 724. Coming of Rome. as Stefan notes. artillery. is far-fetched.g. G. ruling Oltenia. Suidae Lexi- con (Leipzig: B. Germania 43. would make Diur- paneus/Dorpaneus a major monarch. Teubner. Yet Domitian’s favorable terms to Decebalus in 89. includ- ing a year in Roman Moesia. “Dacia’s Borders.9. contra. noted by Bogdan Cataniciu.3. including subsidies. II. who (425– 29) finds a parallels in the diplomatic procedures of 89 with Nero’s Armenian settlement with Parthia in 63. exploita- tion of local salt mines rendered the site a major trading center with high-quality imports. Strobel. 159. Divici west of the Iron Gates Gorge) may have still been in Dacian hands in 101: Stefan 436. Strobel (Die Donaukriege Domitians.90 appears in a supposed fragment of Crito’s Getica. who cannot be tied to Diurpaneus/Dorpaneus. Die Armee im Südwesten des römischen Dacien. 126–27. see Stefan 255 with figs. and parts of southern Mol- davia. 548. “Dacia’s Borders. see Strobel. on the importance of the 89 peace to Decebalus’s position. but see Bogdan Cataniciu’s objections. WHEELER Corruption of names in manuscripts may explain Diurpaneus and Dorpaneus. would be the Dacian king based at Buridava (modern Ocnita).” 126 fr. 125 n. i.1. Stefan 425–36. living north of the Quadi and Marcomanni: Tacitus. Stefan 404–5. cf. see Lica. Russu’s commentary.. 54–63) would make Buridava the objective of Fuscus’s disastrous campaign. 185. “Getica lui Statilius Crito. on one recon- struction. 1220    ★ THE  JOURNAL  OF . and Daci.” 724 n. cf. 15=A. note 84) are Dacian Buri of Buridava. the Buridavensii. Wallachia. 192–93.” 724. 130–31) that control of the territory between the Carpathians and the Danube passed to Rome in 89 lack archaeological or literary support.. On the peace terms. Conjectures (Lica.” 724. Strobel (Die Donaukriege Domitians. 173) uncritically accepts the negative view of Trajan’s propaganda.C. on Decebalus’s late entry into the war. 90. 1928–38). Adler. This site on the west bank of the Alutus (modern Olt) River guards a major southern approach into the Carpathians via the Red Tower Pass. Stefan 404–5. Die Donaukriege Domitians. but equation of all these names with Decebalus is hardly satisfactory. Nemeth. this reconstruction would have a minor Dacian king waging war on his own resources against the might of Rome for two years. Stefan rel- egates the problem to a footnote (399 n. 45) attractively suggests that the Buri of the “mushroom embassy” (above. technical support.” 106–7. summarized at Stefan 651 n. Diurpaneus/Dorpaneus.89 Definitive solutions are elusive on present evidence. may have consolidated his position in Sarmizegethusa and extended his authority over other Dacian kingdoms with Rome’s approval. they were apparently not in Decebalus’s possession: Bogdan Cataniciu. Jordanes. 89. Coming of Rome.

Strobel. 262–66 for descriptions of the forts. See scenes IV–XXIII. 475. nr. Stefan thinks at least one Dacian fort on the north Danube bank still functioned in 101: see above. As Viminacium appears the chief Roman base for Dacian operations. Tettius’s crossing may have been contested. as four Dacian forts west of the Iron Gates Gorge are known: see Stefan 416–17. which (as his Column shows) were portrayed (post eventum) as a single war.92 Scenes IV–V. Alföldy. Trajan’s march is illustrated. Although (on the Column) Trajan crossed unopposed. governor of Moesia Superior from 87). space precludes detailed comparison with previous views on all points. inscription: AE 1973 nr. Cornelius Nigrinus Curiatus Maternuis: Neues und Altes zum Werdegang eines römischen Generals.” 11) and Opreanu (“The Consequences. Die Donaukriege Domitians. 413. see above.91 Similarly. in Tettius’s campaign he conjectures (415) the army of Moesia Inferior under its governor Cornelius Nigrinus (suffect consul 83) performing a similar task in 88. completed by 101 and highlighted by an inscription found in 1969. these other armies aimed at protecting the flank of Trajan’s main force by blocking southern and southeastern exits from the Carpathians. see most recently G. but Dia- conescu also has Cornelius Fuscus take this route in 86 or 87 (contra. 92.” 113) notes. on his Column (for what that is worth) and the sole fragment of Trajan’s Dacica partially indicates the initial campaign’s route. Smallwood. the battle at scene XXIV may be at Tapae. supple- mented by known legionary camps on the Danube.” Revue des MILITARY  HISTORY ★    1221 . just as Stefan has the Dacian offensives south of the Danube in late 84 and 101–102 follow identical paths. other armies with different opera- tional objectives possibly crossed farther downstream at Dierna (modern Orshova). The following commentary on Stefan’s views will emphasize novelties. 1) has two Roman armies crossing the Danube west of Viminacium and none at Lederata. “M. Even Trajan’s canal at the Iron Gates Gorge to by-pass the notorious rapids. on Nigrinus. Diaconescu (“Dacia under Trajan. Drobeta (site of the later stone bridge). For Stefan (550). cf. of course. Roman forces crossing the Danube on parallel pontoon bridges. cf. Trajan and Hadrian. Both campaigns (88 and 101) led to a battle at Tapae. the likely bases of operations. Trajan with the main army crossed at Lederata (modern Ram. suggest multiple armies at different locations.93 Trajan’s Dacica refers to Berzobis and Aizis 91. scene LXXVIII shows a single goddess of Victory but two trophies. but the argument seems circular. note 88) and Opreanu’s map (391 fig. 540–41 (Trajan). inscriptions also distinguish expeditio Dacica prima from secunda expeditio. a site absent from later Roman itineraries. continued Domitian’s postwar efforts to improve communications between the Middle and Lower Dan- ube. and Oescus—a multi-pronged offensive unlike Tettius’s expedition in 88. for Stefan (495) the canal was probably Domitian’s project initially. Trajan’s campaign of 101 followed the same route as the decisive Roman offensive of 88–89 under Tettius Julianus (suffect consul 83. Much of the Iron Gates Gorge fell victim to hy- droelectric projects in the 1960s and 1970s. The Dacian Wars of Domitian and Trajan V Stefan’s theme of Trajan’s imitation of Domitian continues in operational anal- ysis of Domitian’s war (84–89) and Trajan’s two campaigns (101–102. 105–106). as Opreanu (“Bellum Dacicum. Stefan 489–95 (Domitian). based exclusively on Trajan’s campaigns. a potential rival to Trajan for the imperial purple in 97. note 90. 93. 10 kilometers to the northeast).” 390) also posit identical routes for Tettius and Trajan. Documents Illustrating the Principates of Nerva.

a toponym otherwise unattested. a col- lection of earlier views on the two pontoon bridges and Roman strategy is in Lepper and Frere. in a plain just east of this pass. Trajan’s Column. Strobel. Stefan would situate Tapae in the Muresh valley not far west of where two rivers empty into the Muresh from the south: first the Strei (ancient Sargentia?). The Iron Gate Pass. 43 kilometers northeast of the Colonia. The later Roman road system need not indicate Dacian dispositions. Stefan 409 n. Untersuchungen zu den Dakerkriegen Trajans. as Stefan argues. 187. Lepper and Frere. an important center of Roman Dacia. 92–93. a narrow 15-kilometer corridor (elevation 699 meters). Patsch. quoted above. 52–53 and 41–43 (more details on the Carpathian passes). Untersuchungen zu den Dakerkrie- gen Trajans. 1222    ★ THE  JOURNAL  OF . Nevertheless. Rather. whereas modern geography has the Muresh empty into the Tisza. found in the seventeenth century. note 9. because Colonia Sarmizegethusa (See Map 2. became more formidable with the Dacians’ construction of an immense earthen rampart (recently discovered but not yet excavated). although he ignored on the Carpathians’ southern face the defile at Teregova. IV Flavia Felix: Strobel. WHEELER (known from later Roman itineraries). Trajan’s Dacica. where the Jiu River emerges from the Carpathians. A major Roman camp with room for four or five legions at Schela Cladovci (just upstream from Drobeta). 29 n. Berzobis (modern Berzovia) was later the base of the legion IV Flavia Felix. 7. the distinction of Colonia from Regia removes the rationale behind the traditional location of Tapae. 88–90. Der Kampf um den Donauraum unter Domitian und Trajan. roughly midway between Dierna on the Danube and Tibiscum (modern Caransebesh/Juba). a significant natu- ral obstacle. and farther east the Vulcan Pass. indicating a march north from Lederata along the Apus (modern Karash) River. a date (Domitianic? Trajanic? or even later?) is impossible: Stefan 279. Sarmizegethusa Regia lay c. From Herodotus on. was (errone- ously) thought to be the site of the Dacian capital. page 1199). 75. Boutae. 78. has since disappeared. 94. the ancients perceived the Muresh (with the Tisza River as a tributary) as a continuous stream from northeastern Dacia to its conflu- ence with the Danube. then farther east the Orashtioara (formed from the union of the Alb and Godean- Études Militaires Anciennes 1 (2004): 23–44. Getica 74. the gorge of the Alutus River. Jordanes. an ancient topographical perspective should be preferred: the western entry into the Carpathi- ans was the Muresh River valley north of the Orashtie Mountains and the Dacian capital. Boutae and Tapae. and identification of Tapae with the Iron Gate Pass would require a direct assault on a narrow well fortified position. 412 fig. 51–54.94 But where is Tapae? Jordanes described a Dacia surrounded by a ring of mountains with only two entries. formerly at Singidunum (modern Belgrade).95 Previous reconstructions of the campaigns of Domitian and Trajan assumed that Tapae must be somewhere near the Iron Gate Pass (near modern Bucova). Realization of the distinction of Colonia from Regia has not (hitherto) changed scholars’ placement of Tapae. 95. Trajan’s Column.EVERETT L. is generally identified as the Red Tower Pass north of Buridava. A later Roman road passed through the Iron Gate Pass to the Colonia.

Stefan 642–43. where the city’s expansion has obscured Dacian defensive works except for the lofty fortress Dealul Cetatii (unexcavated). as Romans occupied by 102 the whole of southwestern Dacia with camps (for example) at Ber- zobis.” in Gudea..O.97 A change of Trajan’s base of operations should not. the papyrus preserving the daily strength report (pridianum) of the cohort I Hispanorum veterana at Stobi (now dated to late 105: AE 1981 nr. Only an impres- sion of detailed topographical and archaeological arguments can be offered. and Moesia Inferior. Fink. Stefan 241 (Deva). “Dacia under Trajan. Elements of the Roman army in Pannonia (modern Hungary west of the Danube’s southward bend) possibly crossed the Hungarian Plain to the Muresh theater. These remarks about the Pannonian army and the Iazyges pertain only to Trajan’s wars. Stefan’s Tapae would be essentially the same distance as the Iron Gate Pass but due east rather than east-southeast. inhabitants of the Plain and apparently Roman allies in Trajan’s war. 63 (partial English translation and extensive commentary). barring new evidence for an exact location.96 From Aizis. 1971): 217–27 nr. although conservative inference must not be pushed too far. occupation forces came from the armies of Pannonia. the Danubian border of modern Romania (whence Roman armies departed.” 14–15. Muresh River: Herodotus 4. controlling access to the eastern Muresh valley and the inner ring of Dacian forts guarding Sarmizegethusa Regia on the Strei and Orashtioara Rivers. Trajan in fact might have shortened his lines of supply through riverine transport from the Danube up the Tisza to the Muresh instead of overland routes from (for example) Viminacium or Drobeta. Pannonia: Diaconescu. Tapae lies in the vicinity of modern Deva. Stefan assesses how much of Dacia the Romans occupied after the peace of 102: 636– 37. 301 lines 25–29=R. and even Moldavia. On traditional views. 97. whereas Stefan’s emphasis on the Muresh valley shifts atten- tion to the west with the main Roman operations against Sarmizegethusa moving south and southeast. MILITARY  HISTORY ★    1223 . Römer und Barbaren.13. Iazyges: C.13. he went to war with the Iazyges in 92. riverine transport in the area in an Augustan campaign: Strabo 7. Opreanu. all action proceeds from the south. 552. 639–40. 419 for possible rebuilding at the fort of Blidaru after 89—proof that Tettius Julianus probed the “Costesti corridor”. perhaps also had a role in operations in northwestern Dacia. The Dacian Wars of Domitian and Trajan nul Rivers.3. the Iazyges. both flanking the mountain of Sarmizegethusa Regia). Tibiscum. although hypothetical. Stefan’s placement of Tapae. Strabo 7. 407–11. 746) records detachments at Buridava and Piroboridava (modern Poiana) on the Siret River in Moldavia: see Smallwood. Trajan and Hadrian. as the Hungarian Plain was not necessarily friendly territory in 89. 269–90.3.48. Wallachia. Accordingly. After the victory at Tapae. when Domitian lost a campaign against the Marco- manni and Quadi. 98. Roman Military Records on Papyrus (Cleveland. Moesia Superior. however. 642–43. be inferred. offers an innovative perspective on the campaigns of 88 and 101 with logistic and strategic implications. nr. the site of the later Colonia. ed. Trajan had the option (pace Stefan 558) to move directly on 96. “Dakien und Iazygen während der Regierung Trajans.98 Stefan’s reconstruction of the campaign of 102 is also innovative. and units scattered south and east of the Carpathians in Oltenia. as seen on the Column). cf. Documents Illustrating the Principates of Nerva. Ohio: Press of Case Western Reserve Uni- versity.

From Comarnicel a march of c. at an elevation higher than the capital. as the crow flies). cf. Muncel also offered approaches to the Dacian forts at Fetele Alba and Vârful lui Hulpe. Scenes XXVI–XXX illustrate these operations and mark the end of the 101 campaign. Scenes LIII–LIV. Stefan’s efforts to explain away this apparent error (546 with n. on the forts and camps: 230–33 (Banita).5 kilometers north of Banita) and Vârful lui Petru (c. 213–17 (Fetele Alba. “Shock and Awe: Battles of the Gods in Roman Imperial Warfare. Stefan 575–92. Roman capture of Banita cut off Sarmizege- thusa’s communications with the south. 313–17 (Muncel: not yet fully studied).99 Pace Stefan. 10 kilometers southeast from Sarmizegethusa. 1224    ★ THE  JOURNAL  OF . as the narrow crests prohibited collective movement of the whole body with any speed. identities unknown). Part I. After a probably long. With order restored south of the Danube by early 102. The suovetaurilia is a rite of begin- nings. 291–98 (Vâr- ful lui Petru). as legally the territory of southwestern Dacia taken in 101 would have been now part of Roman Moesia Superior. It cannot have been a surprise and unopposed. Remains of Roman temporary camps at Jugir (elevation 1. as the Dacian-Rhoxolan counteroffensive into Moesia Inferior (winter of 101–102) begins with scene XXXI (Dacians and Rhoxolani swimming the Danube).EVERETT L. Stefan (571) interprets the suovetaurilia scene as a sign of the Romans about to cross a border. With the capture of Muncel and simultaneous Roman progression up the “Costesti corridor. where three Roman temporary camps are in evidence. The degree of Dacian resistance to this turning movement along the crests of the mountains from Banita to Muncel can only be conjectured. just as the camp at Comarnicel blocked all points east through the mountains. both northwest of the Dacian capital on separate ridges. taking the Iron Gate Pass from the rear and linking his own forces with another segment of his army camped at Tibiscum west of the Pass. and Trajan’s address to the army mark the beginning of the 102 operations. which commanded the upper corridor of the Strei and a southern approach to Sarmizegethusa. reuniting at Comarnicel (elevation 1. Trajan could now devote the rest of the campaign season to encirclement of Sarmizegethusa and a siege of the capital.100 99. a site presumably fortified with defenses (not yet found) comparable to Costesti and Blidaru. 100.498 meters. 10) are based on false assumptions. which is also technically correct. 20 kilometers northeast of Banita. 7. He did the latter. 298–313 (Comarnicel). WHEELER Sarmizegethusa Regia or to press south down the Strei River valley to cut off the Dacian capital from the west. as the crow flies) indicate the two corps’ routes. 289–91 ( Jugir).893 meters.5 meters). 15 kilometers atop the crests brought the force to the peak of Muncel (elevation 1. Notably.563.” Decebalus was surrounded in his capital. difficult siege at Banita. topography dictated a split in the Roman strike force (perhaps no more than two legions. 73.” moving down the Strei River against the fort at Banita (elevation 1. no suovetaurilia is shown on the Column when Trajan crosses the Danube to initiate operations in 101. depicting the suovetaurilia (pig-sheep-bull sacrifice).000 meters). and only 5 kilometers away. a purification rite customary before a campaign. as the custom of sacrificing before crossing a river ceased to be prac- ticed in the Imperial era: see Wheeler.” 240 with n. a strike force from the camp at the site of the later Colonia began what he calls the “alpine campaign. The captors of Banita were at this point on the same mountain as Sarmizegethusa.

probably responsible for the entire eastern theater of the war in Oltenia. MILITARY  HISTORY ★    1225 . Piatra Rosie: above text with note 26. A Roman camp is known at Cioclovina. as the surprise Dacian- Rhoxolan counteroffensive in Moesia Inferior demonstrates. To be fair.” in Roman Frontier Studies 1995: Proceedings of the XVIth International Congress of Roman Frontier Stud- ies. Stefan marginalizes Laberius Maximus and the army of Moesia Inferior perhaps unjustifiably. although plausible. cf.9. is based exclusively on archaeological evidence and topographical probability. and Moldavia. In haste to get the siege of Banita underway. Untersuchungen zu den Dakerkriegen Trajans. His general map of the 102 campaign against Sarmizegethusa (620–21 fig. 257a–b) shows more army groups in action than receive discussion in the text. responsible for the attack up the “Costesti corridor” (see below). 1997). Trajan’s Column. cf. Vârful lui Hulpe) or yet undiscovered. Stefan emphasizes only the Muresh River army group. 102. Stro- bel. Nevertheless. of the numerous Roman armies active throughout Dacia in 101– 102. Roman capture of the major fort of Piatre Rosie. Details on the Cioclovina area in Locklear. however. Traditionally. 517–25. since the Dacian-Rhoxolan counteroffensive begins with scene XXXI. (Oxford: Oxbow Books. and the Banita expeditionary force. The Dacian Wars of Domitian and Trajan Stefan’s new reconstruction of the 102 campaign.” 55–56. W. is left in obscurity. 115 with bibliography. Wallachia. Stefan is partially constrained by available evidence.4). 101.101 Perhaps a different corps from the Banita task force dealt with this area. Decebalus’s sister is often identified among the captured Dacian women (one is given prominence) presented to Trajan at scene XXX— therefore an event of late 101. 76–77. Likewise. Groenman-van Waateringe et al. that Maximus’s seizure of a strong position and capture of Decebalus’s sister strongly influenced Decebalus’s decision to come to terms in 102. Not all of them obviously were guarded by the end of 101. Many sites remain uninvestigated (for example. Stefan 572 and n.5 kilometers across a valley with similar earthen ramparts and two hill-forts also in the area—and Cioclovina is closer to the supposed base of the Banita task force at the site of the later Colonia. an earlier version of Stefan’s view of the 102 campaign at “Les Guerres daciques de Trajan: les opérations du front alpin. “Late Iron Age Background. Cassius Dio reports (68. he omits Roman operations against other approaches to Sarmizegethusa in the Strei River valley and the southwestern sector of the Orashtie Mountains. Stefan 229–30. above text at note 36). 49. Stefan’s alpine campaign of the Banita task force usurps the role of Maximus’s army. 217–18 (Vârful lui Hulpe: not studied or excavated). not far west of Cioclovina. Previous reconstructions of the first war posited a different pincer movement: Trajan’s army group attacking through the Iron Gate Pass.102 In any case. while Laberius Maximus marched from Oescus up the Alutus River to take the Red Tower Pass and approached Sarmizegethusa from the east. cf. relegated to a rather passive assignment: blocking all exit routes south and east of the Carpathians in Oltenia and Wallachia. Lepper and Frere. a greater role is assigned to the army of Moesia Inferior under its governor Laberius Maximus (suffect consul 89). who defend Cassius Dio’s apparent placement of the event in 102 and think “the Maestro” has erred. ed. where a Dacian rampart runs for 1.

100–102. 2007): 191–211.5 kilometers west of the capital). for which he adamantly denies any role of Quietus’s Moorish cavalry: the Roman camps associated with the Banita group are clearly legionary and the mountain-top route is unsuitable for cavalry. 78–79.3) that while Trajan approached Sarmizegethusa by capturing peak after peak. “Les armes du cavalier africain: de la réalité à la symbolique. Lusius Quietus (suffect consul 117) was killing and capturing numerous Dacians elsewhere. Readers of Trajan’s Dacica might understand these jumps in the narrative. After the capture of Costesti and Blidaru. from which Stefan offers his own reconstruction (592–624). 242–43) represents the alpine campaign. Next comes the famous depiction of Lusius Quietus’s Moorish cavalry chasing Dacians into a forest (LXIV). as does a mounted Trajan (LVIII). where two inscriptions of later governors of Roman Dacia have been 103. and building camps. permit asserting the accuracy of Roman siege techniques on the Column in support of Stefan’s thesis that Apol- lodorus of Dasmascus was “the Maestro. Trajan’s Column. The following sequence shows Romans constructing a camp (LXV. WHEELER The Column. so distinguished themselves in the Dacian wars that Trajan elevated Lusius to a major command in his Parthian war (114–117). tracing events in the ultimate advance to the walls of Sarmizegethusa (the surrender scene at LXXV). Much depends on “the Maestro’s” narrative technique. however. 1997). murdered in Hadrian’s first year of rule: a summary of his later career is in A. 87. my review of this work is in press: Antiquité tardive 17 (2009).” Details of the siege depend on the Column and archaeology. De la technique à l’imaginaire. where he gained infamy as a butcher of Jews in the Jewish revolt in Mesopotamia (116–117). The Moorish chieftain Lusius Quietus and his native cavalry. topographical identification of scenes on the Column is the bane of studying Trajan’s Dacian wars. also poses problems. As noted. He was one of the four consulars.” where Trajan was. on the continu- ity of Moorish cavalry practices throughout Antiquity. R.EVERETT L. confusing to the Column’s modern viewers. see C. For Stefan. Stefan would have at least three successive scenes each indicating a differ- ent topographical location. Scenes LXIV–LXV with Trajan’s absence imply operations on a different front and may correspond to Cassius Dio’s report (68. all with close connec- tions to Trajan. the only real source for the chronology of events in 102.” in Les Armes dans l’Antiquité. then a scene of Roman construction of siegeworks. Roman cavalry enters the mountains (LVII). see page 1192) with mountain peaks inside the camp’s perimeter. Hamdoune. Stefan 572–75. a different view of both the 102 campaign and interpretation of the Column’s scenes is at Lepper and Frere. 249) on siegeworks implies a shift of the action back to the “Costesti corridor. 582–89. The following archaeological details are notable. Sauzeau and T. while Trajan receives a Dacian embassy (LXVI). scene LXV (figs. After the suovetaurilia and Trajan’s address to the army (scenes LII–LIV) mark the start of the campaign. Hadrian: The Restless Emperor (London: Routledge. burning forts. before being named a consular and governing Judaea (117). Two Roman siege ramps at Costesti are partially preserved. ed. P. Birley. the Mauri. 75. the Column depicts Roman soldiers clearing forests. Scenes LXVI–LXXV.103 Yet scene LXIV shows the Moorish cavalry in mountainous terrain and scene LXVI (fig. but Roman infantry follows only at LXII–LXIII.8. 1226    ★ THE  JOURNAL  OF . Van Campernolle (Montpellier: Presses universitaires de Méditerranée. the base camp for the attack on Sarmizegethusa Regia was probably at Sub Cununi (8.

108 Setting the Dacian wars of Domitian and Trajan within the context of Roman strategy will be the task of Part II of this discussion.105 Stefan infers from the Column’s various scenes depicting construction and/or use of siege-engines that Trajan’s Dacica included an excursus on siegecraft. 32. 249) supposedly shows construction of a siege ramp and a move- able tower (turris ambulatoria). “Apollodorus of Damascus and the Poliorcetica”. Details in Lepper and Frere. Stefan’s ingenious interpretations of the devices in these scenes invite debate. “Apollodorus of Damascus and the Poliorcetica. Stefan 601–10. Nothing can be said about a Roman assault from the east. Trajan’s Column. 107. his suicide is seen at scene CXLV and the public display of his severed head at CXLVII. 703. there is no basis for identifying Ranisstorum with Piatra Craivii (cf. details and discussion at Stefan 663–65. “Archaeo- logical Observations concerning the Roman Conquest of the Area of the Dacian Kingdom’s Capital. several hundred meters beyond the excavated areas of the capital. later claimed to have captured Decebalus and illustrated the deed (Stefan fig. Speidel. 108.107 The second capture of Sarmizegethusa largely fol- lowed the course of the first war. 101. Trajan Optimus Princeps. 105. 210–11 (corrections to Blyth). Untersuchungen zu den Dakerkriegen Trajans. 246. AE 1969–70 nr. 612. Trajan’s Column. 232) an elaborate siege-tower. no one who has visited Sarmizegethusa Regia or the Orashtie Mountains would ever minimize the capture of Dacian forts atop those peaks as small-scale siege operations. followed by White- head. Decebalus’s attempt to reverse the first war’s outcome were quickly squashed. MILITARY  HISTORY ★    1227 . Lepper and Frere. barricade: 99 with figs. topography dictates this site as the only suitable staging area. Decebalus’s flight from Sarmizegethusa: Cassius Dio 68.104 In any case. “Apollodorus’ Poliorketika. Florea. White- head “Apollodorus’ Poliorketika. The Dacian Wars of Domitian and Trajan found. to which Stefan adds little new. Sub Cununi: 618.” 209. 176–79. 35. Tiberius Claudius Maximus. note 16. topped by two galleries. although commentators on Apollodorus of Damascus’s Poliorcetica share Stefan’s belief in the accuracy of the Column’s details on siegecraft. P. note 29).3. 205–19. above. is seen.” 149–50. 275) on his tombstone at Philippi (Greece): see M. need not be addressed. as in Bennett. 106.106 Operational details of the second war (105–106). Costesti siege ramps: 595–97 with fig.” Acta Musei Napocensis 26–30 (1989–93): 33–38. including mopping up operations.14. Sic Blyth. Such views are diametri- cally opposed to allegations of the Column’s misrepresentation of military equipment: see above. occurred north of the Muresh River and the northeastern parts of Dacia. an officer of the ala II Pan- noniorum. although Decebalus fled the capital and commit- ted suicide at Ranisstorum (location uncertain) in September 106. Blyth. “The Captor of Decebalus: A New Inscription from Philippi. 242–43.” Journal of Roman Studies 60 (1970): 142–53. coming down the ridge from the peak at Muncel: the area remains unexplored. whereas in the background of the surrender scene (LXXV=fig. Strobel. traversing the breadth of the entire ridge. 583. although more action. The whole affair was over by July 106.” esp. although satellite photos detected a remarkable barricade or ravine. Thus scene LXVI (fig. a summary of older views on the archaeological evidence at G. 104.

. download.Copyright of Journal of Military History is the property of Society for Military History and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However. users may print. or email articles for individual use.