This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Everett L. Wheeler
Abstract Two recent major monographs, one on the Dacian wars of Domitian 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 archaeological 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 topographical 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 discoveries 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.
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 University/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 include Stratagem and the Vocabulary of Military Trickery (1988), translation (with Peter Krentz) of Polyaenus, 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 transmitted 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.
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 “barbarians” 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 reevaluation 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 Column. Proper appreciation of the author’s contentions, however, merits a prolegomenon 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 subsequent 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 Romania 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 pronouncements about Roman policy on the Lower Danube derive exclusively from a very limited (cherrypicked?) 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 Roman Studies 95 (2005): 124–225. Footnotes to this discussion, modestly updating Stefan’s fifty-nine double-columned pages (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 attests 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 Classical 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 (Berlin: Weidmann, 1892–1916). Apologies are owed to the Editor, whose patience in awaiting this paper and toleration of its length are exemplary.
THE JOURNAL OF
The Dacian Wars of Domitian and Trajan
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 Domitian (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 Napoleonic era, seeking fabled “Dacian gold,” and the discontinuity of Romanian excavations, 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 Sarmizegethusa 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 costumed 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 [London: 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
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 Germany 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 historioor 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 Transylvania 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 Roman 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 Stalinist 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
THE JOURNAL OF
trans. Principato. Monumenta Germanicae Historica. Jordanes’ Alan ancestry: Alemany. R. Iordanis Romana et Getica. Literary accounts of events and motives are reduced to two sources: the Roman History of the senator Cassius Dio. Sources on the Alans. trans. as Orosius (7. ed. 1992). C. 8 (Cambridge. Mommsen.4) reported that Tacitus (a contemporary of Domitian and Trajan) recounted Domitian’s Dacian war in great detail. fragments of Dio Chrysostom’s Getica: F.The Dacian Wars of Domitian and Trajan graphical problem for military historians concerned with operations and strategy. supplemented by scattered fragments in other Byzantine sources. Jordanes’ Getica contains material from the Stoic-Cynic orator and sophist Dio Chrysostom. 1925). Cassius Dio’s Books 67–68 on Domitian and Trajan are available in the Loeb Classical Library: Dio’s Roman History. Narrative surveys of Trajan’s reign survive exclusively in the summaries of epitomators of the fourth century and later. Appian’s Dacica. 490–c.: Harvard University Press. Suppl. Optimus Princeps. 136–37. Tacitus’s Histories. “Bellicosissimus Princeps.10. Paribeni. the Historia Augusta. N. Hanslik. Optimus Princeps? Anspruch und Wirklichkeit der imperialen Programmatik Kaisers Traians (Munich: Tuduv.D—most regrettably. whose De vita Caesarum ends with Domitian. note also: R. Domitian. 550). completed in the 220s and for the period of Domitian and Trajan preserved in excerpts from John Xiphilinus’s eleventh-century epitome. whose time in Dacia in the 90s (after being exiled from Rome by Domitian) inspired his Getica. but he also cited a lost Gothic history by Ablabius of unknown date. but whether Jordanes knew Chrysostom’s Getica directly or through another source is unknown. 4 vols. C. 1926–27). Boissevain. Hadrian (r. Fell. vol. Jordanes: T.. covering the Flavian dynasty and thus including Domitian’s campaigns (84–89). with some echoes of the il Duce of Paribeni’s time. (Messina: G. falls in the chasm of imperial biographies between Suetonius. which begins with Trajan’s successor. and that most curious assemblage of biographies and historical novellas written in the late-fourth or early-fifth century. Mierow (Princeton. Cary. E. Jacoby. 1898–1931). 585). 117–138)—a remarkable phenomenon for a ruler hailed as “the best emperor” (optimus princeps). The Gothic History of Jordanes. probably a Sarmatian Alan in Constantinople. 2 vols. 7. M. (Berlin: Weidmann. ed. has no surviving fragments. but the Greek text is best read in Cassii Dionis Cocceiani Historiarum Romanarum Quae Supersunt. Detailed information is at a premium. U. 10 (1964): 1032–1113. Auctores Antiquissimi. P. the victim of hostile sources and Trajan’s propaganda. Jordanes claimed to be epitomizing the twelve-volume De origine actibusque Getarum of the Ostrogoth bureaucrat and scholar Cassiodorus (c. the (1998): 382–83. 5 (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.: Princeton University Press. whose family had earlier assimilated with the Goths. “Marcus Ulpius Traianus.J. Mass.” Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Leiden: MILITARY HISTORY ★ 1189 . survive only for events up to 70 A. and the Getica of Jordanes (fl. The archaizing tendency of Late Roman authors like Jordanes in combining Dacians and Goths and calling a work on Goths a Getica is clear.7 From the third century on. Apparently few read it.” 23–40. 1882). the last of the Flavians. and (more briefly) Speidel. 1915).
note also the recent archaeological survey of F. 365–68. 485) erroneously believes that Trajan’s wars depopulated Dacia. for correctives.” in International Connections of the Barbarians in the Carpathian Basin in the 1st–5th Centuries A. On the Sîntana de Muresh-Cernjachov culture. Oltean (Dacia. Rome and the Nomads. although his citation of ILS nr. ed. and he uncritically accepts material in (e. is skeptical of Romanian scholars’ identification of various ethnicities (Costoboci. Locklear’s skepticism (“Late Iron Age Background. 2006). who strangely omits discussion of the Sîntana de Muresh-Cernjachov culture. C. 51–101. evidence on the Bastarnae collected in Batty. WHEELER German Goths occupied some territory earlier belonging to the Thracian GetoDacians (especially after Aurelian’s abandonment of Dacia. Batty (Rome and the Nomads. Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages. Rome and the Nomads. Bichir. 8.) Pliny’s Natural History. “Jordanes and Ablabius. 47) erroneously equates the German Bastarnae of southern Moldavia with Iranian Sarmatians. “‘Devictis Dacis. R. nor does he understand the archaizing tendencies of Late Roman authors. Mathisen and H. where earlier sources are indiscriminately mixed with contemporary ethnographical descriptions. continued into the Middle Ages. typical of “new” archaeologists.’” and literature at note 38 below. Brill.” in Istvánovits and Kulscár. see Babeş . Vt. Dueck. vol. 236–56. 56). In the tradition of Caesar’s Gallic War. Magomedev. Deroux. 250). 1923– ). although a Geto-Dacian culture. B. Oltean’s misunderstanding of Lica: (Dacia. Collection Latomus 254 (Brussels. Strabo of Amaseia: A Greek Man of Letters in Augustan Rome (London: Routledge. E.” in Shifting Frontiers in Late Antiquity. Bastarnae) with specific material cultures. International Connections. Shchukin. inhabiting territory not annexed as part of Trajan’s province. Matthews. Sarmatians. ed. N.: Variorum. see the convenient but largely inconclusive summary (as of 1991) in P. 270). 2000). V.. Some Dacian descendants.EVERETT L. Lica. “Cassiodorus and the Getica of Jordanes.” Classical Philology 82 (1987): 117–34. 854 seems more relevant to the Costoboci than the Free Dacians. Curta. may have assimilated with Gothic intruders. Cassiodorus: B. “Dacians. “Die freien Daker an der nordöstlichen Grenze der römischen Provinz Dakiens. Trajan published his own commentaries on his campaigns. Carpi. nr. a Dacica.8 Detailed contemporary accounts did exist. although his own views lack appreciation of archaic ethnic terms in late authors for various tribes of their own day. 2001). 10. The Goths in the Fourth Century (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. 264. Batty. see also M. ed.. on the value of literary sources like Jordanes. 256. distinct from the Sîntana de Muresh-Cernjachov culture associated with the fourth century Goths. Acta Musei Porolissensis 21 (1997): 785–800 and 879–888. Gillett. Istvánovits and V. Gudea. ed. 97. “Die Cernjachov-Marosszentanna/Sîntana de Mures-Kultur in der Karpatenregion.” 34). J. as his view seems derived from English translations and not the original Latin. Batty (Rome and the Nomads. 221–24. 1991).g.” in Römer und Barbaren an den Grenzen des römischen Dakiens. 500–1200 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Croke. Sivan (Brookfield. from E. and Goths on the Roman-Carpathian Frontier: Second-Fourth Centuries. “Die freien Daker im Norden Dakien. Coming of Rome.” and I. see A. L. Osváth Gedeon Museum Foundation. Heather and J. On the Free Dacians.2) corrects a gaffe (the more egregious for a book on an ancient geographer) that the Getae were Germans: D. see G. both native survivors of the Roman conquest and the so-called Free Dacians. lacks authority. c. Kulscár (Aszód/Nyíregyháza: Jósa András Museum. Ethnic confusion can befuddle even modern authors: Stefan (359 n. for doubts about Ablabius as a source. Ionita. respectively. Ellis. 1996). eds. 479–500. “Forgotten Bastarnae. 1190 ★ THE JOURNAL OF . 105–25. B. 707.D. cf. 57–64. 2000).” in Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History. 227–33.
G. Balbus: B. basic remains K. but missing from his bibliography). nr. Stefan 419 with n. the famous architect Apollodorus of Damascus and possibly Dio Chrysostom (cf.13=E.The Dacian Wars of Domitian and Trajan which a single sentence survives in the grammatical work of Priscian (fl. 105–106). of which a few lines. H. Suetonius. “Apollodorus of Damascus and the Poliorcetica. further commentary in Stefan 472. Punica 3.” Studii Clasice 14 (1972): 111–28 (cited in Stefan’s footnotes. as the Dacian campaigns under Domitian (none led by Domitian himself ) reached. “Die Eroberung Dakiens—Ein Resümee zum Forschungsstand der Dakerkriege Domitians und Traians. cf. Crito: Jacoby. although interpreters of Trajan’s Column (including Stefan) see that monument as a massive illustration of the Dacica’s contents. Dates for the beginning and end of hostilities besides terms of peace are clear. Whitehead. “The Size and Organization of the Roman Army and the Case of Dacia under Trajan.11 9. Die Fragmente. 1984). Strobel. Documents Illustrating the Principates of Nerva. ed. for an attempt to find more fragments. I. Der Kampf MILITARY HISTORY ★ 1191 . and papyrology strongly supplement the sketchy literary sources. esp. Strobel. see I. For attempts to connect Apollodorus of Damascus’s Poliorcetica [Siegecraft] to Trajan’s Dacian wars. Trajan’s Dacica: Priscian. Die Donaukriege Domitians (Bonn: Rudolf Habelt. Institutio oratoria 10. Patsch.” in A Roman Miscellany: Essays in Honour of Anthony R. then from Aizis we advanced.” Dacia 50 (2006): 175–94. Date. and K. were first recorded by the humanist Petrarch. 1989). commemorated his Dacian war with an epic poem. Campbell. Smallwood. D. Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. Md.1.616–21. no. offers intriguing hints of his duties in building roads. as are which units of the Roman army and their commanders participated in these campaigns. Trajan and Hadrian (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.2.”]. Eadie and J. Scarborough. for which dates of construction or destruction can be discerned or approximated. Even Balbus.” Dacia 50 (2006): 105–14. see P. Dedicatee. Titus Statilius Crito.” Dacia 23 (1979): 155–22. J. numismatics. 387–405. J. Strobel. 67) were not soldiers but civilian comites (“companions”). Many Dacian forts and Roman camps are known. and siege-works but regrettably without specific geographical locations. Balbus’s references to mountain warfare in Dacia speak for Trajan. 1966). Like Crito and Balbus in Trajan’s entourage. (Gdansk: Foundation for the Development of Gdansk University. see also N. 10. Lepper’s review of Strobel’s method: Classical Review 35 (1985): 333–35. known as a good poet. 500). Despite Campbell’s waffling between whether the emperor is Domitian or Trajan. Ober (Lanham.91. Starr. 2000). Institutiones grammaticae 6. Schellenberg et al. lines 17–30.: University Press of America. cf. Journal of Roman Studies Monograph 9 (London. “Getica lui Statilius Crito. now updated at K. “Criton. 118. Marcu. Blyth. inscribed in monumental letters on a block found in the Lateran area of Rome. a civilian surveyor called into service with Trajan. bridges. “L’armée romaine dans les guerres daces de Trajan (101–102. 2008). epigraphy. Birley on his Seventieth Birthday. M. cf. a participant in the campaigns. Silius Italicus. Quintilian. ed. Cupcea and F. Russu. 1985).” Greek. 32: Traianus in I Dacicorum: “Inde Berzobim. Roman and Byzantine Studies 33 (1992): 127–58.10 Archaeology. 205–6 (Latin text with English translation). “Apollodorus’ Poliorketika: Author. The Writings of the Roman Land Surveyors. but did not penetrate the Dacians’ Carpathian fortifications. Gostar. xxxix–xl. 204–11.9 Indeed Domitian.” in The Craft of the Ancient Historian: Essays in Honor of Chester G. 11. Domitianus 2. inde Aizi processimus” [“From Berzobis. VI 1207. Physician to Trajan: Historian and Pharmacist. See K. Trajan Optimus Princeps. Untersuchungen zu den Dakerkriegen Trajans (Bonn: Rudolf Habelt. A few Byzantine fragments of the Getica of Trajan’s physician. provide valuable but limited details. 200. Bennett. although many of Strobel’s assertions require qualification: see F.
Rome. “Trajan’s Army on Trajan’s Column. 1937).” Papers of the British School at Rome 13 (1935): 1–40. and various Roman units or hostile ethnic forces (for example. See I. 12. 2000). a brief survey of Danubian legions and their bases is at J. which also includes Richmond’s study of the Adamklissi monument (Tropaeum Traiani): “Adamklissi. which his victory arch at Beneventum (dated 113–114) completes by depicting his Dacian triumph. WHEELER Trajan's Column. On the Column. Decebalus (the Dacian king). Brewer (London/Cardiff: Society of Antiquaries of London. Trajan.EVERETT L. but the um den Donauraum unter Domitian und Trajan. 101–19. reprinted in Trajan’s Army on Trajan’s Column. 5/2. Sarmatian cataphracts of the Rhoxolani) are readily identifiable. Trajan’s Column. Beiträge zur Völkerkunde von Südosteuropa. 5. R.” in Roman Fortresses and their Legions.2 meters) in the middle of Rome. dedicated in 113. the Column tells a story.2 (Vienna: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Richmond. ed. tells the story of his Dacian wars. Hassall (London: British School at Rome.9 meters on a pedestal of 6. Lusius Quietus’s Moorish cavalry. there is a splendid display of Roman military practices. Italy But the visible yet impenetrably silent glue holding together the framework of Trajan’s Dacian wars is that towering shaft (28. ed. Yes. A. 1192 ★ THE JOURNAL OF . Wilkes. M. 1982).12 Some scenes correspond to the fragments of Cassius Dio’s account.500 figures twisting around it for 200 meters.” Papers of the British School at Rome 35 (1967): 29–39. National Museums & Galleries of Wales. courtesy Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. scene LXV. “Roman Legions and their Fortresses in the Danube Lands (First to Third Centuries). with its cartoon of over 2.
Lepper and S. has been since 1967 on display at the National Museum of History in Bucharest. Bulgaria. and possibly extreme southwestern Ukraine. Rome (Museo della Civiltà Romana). 2–3 (Berlin: G. Die Trajanssäule.. and his photographs are considered the best ever produced. Davies.. K. MILITARY HISTORY ★ 1193 . 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 Column’s precise historical narrative and his topographical identifications. Reimer. his “Trajan’s First Dacian War.15 13. Wolfboro. where the bands of the spiral (roughly 1–1. Stefan’s map (674 fig. damaging this monument like many others. produced a multi-volume photographic archive of the casts with commentary. Modern environmental hazards. Nevertheless. U. 2 vols. but also parts of Hungary. Cichorius. All painted details and likewise metal supplements (for example. better states of preservation. N. T. a more detailed account of the Column’s history is in R.K. Napoleon III’s well-known interest in Julius Caesar led him to Rome. de Gruyter & Co. A fourth set. as this writer can attest from visits in 1980 and 1996. 15. Cichorius’s division of the casts into 155 “scenes” (traditionally given in Roman numerals) remains the standard method of citing the Column. a student of the revered Theodor Mommsen. 1926). “Dacia and the Dacian Wars. 1896–1900. (Berlin/Leipzig: W.” Journal of Roman Studies 10 (1920): 1–28. Moldavia. working from the 414 casts at Rome made from Napoleon III’s molds. Trajan’s Column (Gloucester. Diaconescu. 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. 1988).The Dacian Wars of Domitian and Trajan crux for operational analysis comes with topographical identifications.14 Historical interpretation of the Column began at the dawn of the twentieth century with Conrad Cichorius. vols. In 1861–62 he had molds made of the Column’s entire historical scroll. Die Reliefs der Traianssäule. vol. particularly as the theater of the Dacian wars included not only modern Romania. These now reside in Paris (Musée des Antiquités Nationales à Saint-Germain-en-Laye). Nor is study of the Column’s reliefs uncomplicated.H. “Topography and the Dacian Wars. who. spears in the figures’ hands) have long vanished—thus the value of records of the Column in earlier. Lehmann-Hartleben. 1 not published). the work of the now defunct École Roumaine de Rome in 1939–43. C. 14. and several Roman armies operated simultaneously. cf.13 Hence frustration and scholarly debate flourish. who persisted. however. Stefan 3–4. from which three complete sets of plaster casts were later produced. 276) does not include all Dacian sites relevant to the 106 campaign. and London (Victoria and Albert Museum).” Journal of Roman Archaeology 21 (2008): 590.: Alan Sutton Publishing. Comparison with the problems presented by the Bayeux Tapestry for William the Conqueror’s campaign of 1066 is apropos. pinpointing a scene with a specific site on the ground. cf. have obliterated or blurred details and necessitated a cleaning and attempts at restoration (1981–88).5 meters high) can be profitably studied at eye-level. in seeing the Column as an illustration of Trajan’s Dacica. A. see A. A. such as those of G. T. Davies (1920). Serbia. 1–4. Frere. Happily. for a supplement. G.” Journal of Roman Studies 7 (1917): 74–97. Ein römisches Kunstwerk zu Beginn der Spätantike.
Batsford. 18. Coulston has led the charge against the Column: “The Value of Trajan’s Column as a Source for Military Equipment. Einaudi. C. 2000).” Journal of Roman Archaeology 3 (1990): 290–309. Indeed. 21–23. Depiction of Rome’s Enemies in Trajanic Monumental Art. M. 2000–2003). Arbeit und Kampf (Mannheim: Bibliopolis. 271. note also the reproduction of the plates in F. even the legionary and Praetorian signa (standards) are wrong. 31–44. trans. trans. although with little appreciation of what was possible in limited space. “The Architecture and Construction Scenes on Trajan’s Column. C. If their reproduction of Cichorius’s folio plates in an octavo volume was a major disappointment (miniscule and often unclear)—an Italian volume’s reproduction of the plates the same year is far superior—their tome represented a useful status quaestionis. ed. ed. van Driel-Murray (Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. 18–19. Bishop and J. 3 vols. “Three New Books on Trajan’s Column. 149– 50.18 For the history of the 16. 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. depicted on the Column’s scenes XCVIII–XCIX (=Stefan fig. M. (Paris: De Boccard. Le Bohec and C. The Column of Traian. and M. (Amsterdam: J. Rossi. N. 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. Rockwell (Rome: Colombo. 2005). Trajan’s Column.. 2:417–39. ed. Toynbee (Ithaca. September 2003. Gieben. was the genius (“the Maestro”) behind the Column’s reliefs. 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.g. C.Y. N. C. Y. C. cf. Galinier. e. see D. Das römische Heer auf der Trajanssaüle. Richter. Even the Roman army seen on the Column has become a victim of the artist’s (or artists’) supposed inaccuracies and generalizations. ed. 2004). N. Settis et al. M. was 1194 ★ THE JOURNAL OF . individual legions cannot be identified. C. Coarelli.” in Les légions de Rome sous le Haut-Empire. Wolff. Lepper and Frere. C. Coulston. 1993). the bridge. WHEELER Henceforth advocates of the Column as an historical source have been on the defensive. Apollodorus: Lepper and Frere. Die Trajanssäule). C. G. Z. 420–21.” in Limes XIX: Proceedings of the XIXth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies Held in Pécs.: Cornell University Press. “Overcoming the Barbarian. Roman Military Equipment (London: B.EVERETT L. a credulist’s position on the Column’s representation of the army is in L. “The Flavio-Trajanic Miles: The Appearance of Citizen Infantry on Trajan’s Column. L. “La representation iconographicque du légionnaire romain. a frequent target of their criticism became the idea that Apollodorus of Damascus. Propaganda und Realität: Waffen und Ausrüstung.” in The Representations and Perception of Roman Imperial Power. Accordingly. C. Marsch. T. J.. although they concede that he might have been the architect of the Column. Charles. Alexandrescu. Henig (Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology. N. 1988). 39–50. 17. De Blois et al. 267). Visy (Pécs: University of Pécs. See J. M. Coulston. 1990). the equipment of both legionaries and auxiliaries is misrepresented.” in Architecture and Architectural Sculpture in the Roman Empire. J. 147–56. “A Contribution on the Standards of the Roman Army. 1989). La Colonna Traiana (Turin: G.” Latomus 62 (2002): 666–95. S. elaborating on an idea of LehmannHartleben.16 Perhaps the apogee of the anti-Column movement came in 1988. for a more sympathetic view of the accuracy of the Column and what was really possible. 2003). ed. 1971).” in Roman Military Equipment: The Sources of Evidence. Trajan’s Column and the Dacian Wars. Trajan’s Column. Hungary.17 Inter alia.
Nevertheless. Traian. No one except a reviewer (or perhaps a graduate student) would ever read this book cover to cover. Despite nearly a century of faultfinding. But what story? The book discussed here seeks in part to revalidate some aspects of the Column’s historical worth. 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. “Trajan’s Bridge over the Danube. 149–50) that the Column misrepresents the superstructure of the bridge. Serban. its bibliography alone renders the volume an indispensable reference tool. e. the fruit of over thirty years of archaeological and topographical studies of ancient Romania. 23–40. but actually at least three books in one. 190) of Michael P. Speidel. 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). however. Embarrassing must be Stefan’s confusion (754 in the “Bibliography” and passim in footnotes. Indeed the volume contains some of the best photographs of scenes from Trajan’s Column available. P. Michael A. who corrects (641 n. 19. Regrettably.The Dacian Wars of Domitian and Trajan war’s military operations. it cannot be denied that the Column’s spiral tells a story.g. sketches)—all in the superb quality traditional in this series. Stefan’s massive monograph. see.” in Nünnerich-Asmus. MILITARY HISTORY II ★ 1195 . If a complete archaeological record of the Dacian wars lies far in the future even for the area of Sarmizegethusa Regia. he examines most Roman camps in Romania associated with the wars of Domitian and Trajan. 113). 149 n. 488) are the only production errors. Stefan presents the most extensive record of Romanian archaeology on these wars to date. appears in the distinguished series of the École Française de Rome. most recently. Lepper and Frere marched on well-trodden paths... and Dacian forts on the north bank of the Danube (a Dacian limes of sorts) in the area west of the Iron Gates Gorge. 1999]. In addition. 532 n. see Stefan 641–42. often reserved for the ultimate in French dissertations. the doctorat d’état. Mattern (Rome and the Enemy: Imperial Strategy in the Principate [Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.” International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 38 (2009): 331–42. M. where a branch of the Carpathians extends into northern Serbia and divides the Middle from the Lower Danube. 34) the archaeological misconceptions of S. The text is excellently complemented by 286 illustrations (photographs. Speidel with his nephew. 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. Stefan’s first “book” offers a detailed archaeological analysis of all known Dacian fortifications in the Carpathians. the real author of “Bellicosissimus Princeps. ed. the Dacian forts (discovered so far) in southern Moldavia (guarding passes into the Dacian heartland from the east). with particular attention to the controversial Roman camp at Sarmizegethusa Regia in 102 and its successor in 106. maps. for the bridge’s remains and bibliography. although he does not respond to Lepper and Frere’s claim (Trajan’s Column. and no serious future work on the Dacian wars of Domitian or Trajan will be able to ignore Stefan’s gold mine of information. The highly techcompleted in 105 for the start of Trajan’s second war.
EVERETT L. 8) Troesmis. 29) Singidunum (Belgrade). where the 1196 ★ THE JOURNAL OF . 397–704). detailed discussion of the wars of Domitian and Trajan. 33) Novae. C) Red Tower Geto-Dacian Sites: 1) Sarmizegethusa Regia. 20) Callatis. 18) Histria. 39) Drobeta nical discussion of construction techniques for walls. 10) Aegyssus. 32) Oescus. 21) Dionysopolis. 38) Colonia Sarmizegethusa. 37) Adamklissi. 9) Noviodunum. 3) Deva. WHEELER Map 1: Dacia KEY Passes: A) Iron Gates. 5) Piatra Craivii. 35) Serdica (Sofia). 15) Berzobis. 4) Apulum. 13) Borovo. however. 28) Szeged. 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 determine the pristine states of sites and the excavators’ original findings. Stefan has also pioneered use of aerial and satellite photography in Romanian archaeology. 34) Nicopolis ad Istrum. 14) Divici. 27) Lugo. 2) Buridava. 12) Sboryanovo. essentially half the book. 6) Porolissum. 19) Tomis. and buildings may be impenetrable for the uninitiated in this type of archaeological argument. is not well integrated. 25) Axiopolis Roman Sites: 26) Aquincum (Budapest). not only to find sites but also to discern the lines of fortification walls not visible at ground-level. with Parts IV–V (pp. 24) Apollonia. This highly technical archaeological discussion (Parts I–II equal 339 pages). 22) Odessus. 30) Viminacium. 7) Piroboridava. towers. 36) Durostorum. B) Vulcan. 31) Lederata. 11) Popeshti. 16) Aizis Greek Cities: 17) Tyras. 23) Mesembria.
it has been much debated whether Gradishtea Muchelelui was in fact the Dacian capital in Trajan’s time. 29) rejects without argument the identification of Cogaeonum with Gradishtea Muchelelui. on the camp see note 27 below. on a ridge of equal elevation opposite Gradishtea Muchelelui.” in Piso. this is not a typical monograph. 21. ed.21 Further. But then again. and the three at Fetele Alba.20 The Colonia lies in a plain just east of the famous Iron Gate Pass. for lists and discussions of Dacian sanctuaries. 41. Rome and the Nomads. see I. In the case of Sarmizegethusa Regia.3. MILITARY HISTORY ★ 1197 .’” 330–31. “Les débuts de la province de Dace. as the crow flies). for example. Such a concentration of sanctuaries surely indicates the sacred character of the area. 400 pages earlier.”57–63.. “‘Devictis Dacis. mentioned in one of Strabo’s reports (7. Stefan’s compendium of archaeological data provides the building blocks for various theses. On the problem of a precise date for foundation of the Colonia. where a Colonia Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegethusa was founded c. Stefan now argues that Gradishtea Muchelelui was not an “open” site or mere citadel of refuge. “Late Iron Age Background. Locklear. 107 on the site of a Roman camp 101–105. Gradishtea Muchelelui’s role as a major Dacian religious center—most probably on the holy mountain Cogaeonum. Gradishtea Muchelelui’s sanctuaries exceed in size and number the four at Costesti. but the Dacian capital and a major fortified city with curtain walls and. but the site lacks evidence of pre-Roman occupation. but ignores that Strabo’s Cogaeonum is a mountain. whose fig. the confusion of Colonia with Regia is perpetuated in Batty. Strobel (“Die Eroberung Dakiens. 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. Piso. say.8 (290) also incorrectly transposes the locations of the forts Blidaru and Costesti. not a specific site. a major fortress guarding the northwestern approach to Gradishtea Muchelelui. Die römischen Provinzen.The Dacian Wars of Domitian and Trajan reader is expected to recall too much from what he/she read. Some once preferred the site of Varhély (43 kilometers west-southwest of Gradishtea Muchelelui. see Babeş.” 111 n. as he conjectures. 529. the only portion so far subjected to extensive excavation. 319–22. towers at every 25 to 30 meters.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.
25 22.22 Here Stefan initiates his motif of confirming the accuracy of individual details on the Column concerning siegecraft and Dacian architecture with archaeological evidence. generally atop hills or mountains with difficult lines of approach. English translation: A.24 Dacian artillery is known from both Cassius Dio and Trajan’s Column. Stoiculescu. structures independent of the walls. 25. were totally enclosed fortifications. Dacian use of monumental roofed streets (scene CXIV=Stefan fig. 366 meters). Dacian military architecture—far from being “barbarian”—reflected (with some local modifications) the recommendations of Philo Mechanicus (fl. Stefan convincingly argues that these monstrous towers. Stefan 436. that is.5). nicely faced stone blocks (some marked with Greek letters). and outside the walls.9. so that a collapsing wall did not bring a tower down with it).C.12 square meters) to cover curtain walls and isolated. for Stefan (601–2) the Column’s scenes LXXV–LXXVI (fig. Three tables (274–76) feature the measurements of all known Dacian towers on the walls. cf. Greek and Roman Artillery: Historical Development (Oxford: Clarendon Press. he asserts (against current opinions) that all major Dacian forts.” Dacia 29 (1985): 81–98: the Column’s accuracy in representing flora found in modern Romania. even on sides bordering cliffs or inaccessible slopes. cf. E. E. often within a few hundred yards of a fort’s principal gate. 69–107. on the water system: 76–81. 134) assumes a minimal artillery range of 250 meters. independent towers (up to c. 131–32: maximum effective range for both arrowshooters and stone-throwers was 400 yards (c. Oltean (Dacia. W. Moreover. Marsden. 98–99. 33) is confirmed by finds at Sarmizegethusa Regia: Stefan 74–76. 1974). Dacian walls. Stefan (271. In fact. wellcut. For a critical edition of the Greek text of Philo on siegecraft (=his Syntaxis mechanike. even the so-called tower-palaces generally on the highest point(s) of the interior of a Dacian fort. ordnance captured earlier in Domitian’s war is another possibility.4. and likewise Philo’s view on the architectural integrity of towers (that is. he demonstrates that the sophistication of Dacian building techniques conformed to Hellenistic Greek practices. D. 1198 ★ THE JOURNAL OF . Of course Stefan’s view depends on the construction of such towers not antedating Dacian possession of artillery. W. see Y. 279–404. Greek Aims in Fortification (Oxford: Clarendon Press. 225 square meters) outside the enceinte. Lawrence. caption to fig. 68. employed large. Garlan. 116) posits these “tower-houses” as status symbols of the Dacian elite. 91. WHEELER features. “Trajan’s Column: Documentary Value from a Forestry Viewpoint.) for construction of walls immune to battering rams. 252: Decebalus’s surrender in 102) unquestionably show Sarmizegethusa Regia. cf.g. within the walls. C. 1969).23 Dacians built huge towers (surface area up to 221. Recherches sur de poliorcétique grecque (Paris: École française d’Athènes. which on present evidence would not be before Decebalus received military engineers (mechanopoioi) from Domitian in the peace terms of 89 (Dio 67. some earlier views posited no springs or water system inside the city.EVERETT L. 225 B. were artillery platforms. but cf. but Lepper and Frere (Trajan’s Column. 1979). 24. Book 5) with French translation and commentary..7. 78–80. 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). 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. 23.
a major religious center and perhaps Burebista’s capital before the construction of Sarmizegethusa Regia. On 516–17. MILITARY HISTORY ★ 1199 . only 1. Costesti’s double ring of walls encloses about nine hectares. however. 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. His exploitation of the archaeological data drives home what a grueling and onerous conflict of siegecraft and mountain warfare the conquest of Dacia was. A third major fort. An earthen rampart traceable for over 300 meters guards the initial ascent.The Dacian Wars of Domitian and Trajan MAP 2: Sarmizegethusa Theater (not to scale) SR = Sarmizegethusa Regia 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 towers (for example. earlier possession of artillery could be conjectured. 13 kilometers away) from the Strei River valley. Blidaru. 600 meters) overlooking a narrow defile and approachable only from its southern side. given the sophistication of Dacian architecture. As the crow flies. behind it are at least eighteen isolated towers. An army marching south toward the Dacian capital must first take Costesti. Located on a promontory (elevation c. one is only about 14 kilometers from the Dacian capital. 7 kilometers south of Blidaru. guarded the western and southwestern approaches to Sarmizegethusa (c. 271 fig. Stefan’s emphasis on the significance of artillery in Dacian defenses is new. The northwestern approach to Sarmizegethusa Regia from the Muresh River valley (north of the central Carpathians) demonstrates the extent of the Dacian defensive system. Piatra Rosie (“Red Rock”). 134: illustration of artillery coverage at Costesti). which impede the approach to another fort. c.
“Les légions dans la province de Dacie. besides several south and east of the Carpathians..” 320–21.g. Nevertheless. “Les débuts de la province de Dace.7). that is.. 272 with caption. its garrison. further. as passes dictated the avenues of access (discussed below). 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. Roman forts outside the Carpathians: Stefan 642–43. Besides this “Costesti corridor. 304–9) discuss the problem of the name Sarmizegethusa for both sites. 12. Costesti. comprising twenty-two to thirty hectares with twenty-two towers. Piso. writing within a generation of two of Trajan’s Dacian wars. According to Cassius Dio (68.” 108 with n.C. 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. and identified as the Cumidava of Ptolemy (Geography 3. Ptolemy (Geography 3. and “Les débuts de la province de Dace. Stefan 280–81 with n. “Die Eroberung Dakiens. eds. the Colonia. Les légions de Rome. 1:209. Lepper and Frere (Trajan’s Column. cf. Dio refers to the Dacian capital. 28. Piso. which included dismantling Dacian defenses. and 105–106.26 Worthy of report is also Stefan’s remarkable analysis (323–55) of the Roman camps at Sarmizegethusa Regia.” 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. 1200 ★ THE JOURNAL OF . this northwestern approach to Sarmizegethusa Regia was the most heavily fortified. 218–29 (Piatra Rosie).8).4). Strobel. 101–102. Stefan generally assumes rather than proves that the Dacian fortification system was initially Burebista’s work with some later improvements. 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. was a Roman creation without evidence of pre-Roman Dacian occupation..” 322. 27. the only alternative. dated to at least 14–16 A. cf.D. as Sauer cannot cite a specific historical context (other than 105) for use of such fortifications near Blidaru for Dacian resistance.8. E. and not least from the lack of archaeological evidence for a Roman camp there in 102. The partial deconstruction of many Dacian forts in 102 (e..9.EVERETT L. Nevertheless.” in Le Bohec and Wolff. Stefan 113–56 (Costesti). another at Cetatea Zînelor near Covasna with fortifications dating first century B. lists Zarmizegethousa to Basileion.8. including one at the later Colonia Sarmizegethusa. a Roman camp at Sarmizegethusa Regia. many of these hilltop forts have Hallstatt (Iron Age) origins. Blidaru) and hasty reconstructions in 105 are clear in the archaeological record: Stefan 654–57.D.” 111–12. Column scene CXXXII=Stefan fig. “the royal residence. Sauer’s critique of Stefan on this point (review of Stefan. New major Dacian fortified sites continue to be discovered: one in 2004 near Poiana Brasnov and Rîsnov.27 Despite Dio’s explicit testimony.–first century A.” but omits the Colonia. Roman garrisons also were scattered at other sites key in the war of 101–102 south and west of the capital.28 Some 26. but never calls it (in extant excerpts) Sarmizegethusa. WHEELER present evidence. 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. 41. “Die Eroberung Dakiens. details in Strobel. 156–200 (Blidaru). American Journal of Archaeology 112 : 196) seems captious.
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. 56) favors a 102 camp. “Bellum Dacicum Traiani.” in Visy. c. 726 n.. suffered destruction by fire. but also extended 100 to 200 meters south of the former defensive wall. A New Point of View. It included part of the former southern interior of the city. (era of Burebista) and later topped by a small (67 by 36 meters) medieval citadel (thirteenth-fifteenth centuries). “Die Eroberung Dakiens.30 Decisive in support. 31. including obliteration of the palace complex on Terrace I. on the site. was dismantled. That Roman forge buried under the level of the 106 camp must surely belong to the camp of 102–105.. Bogdan Cataniciu.” in González. Piso. ed. Piso (“Les débuts de la province de Dace. who (to no surprise) endorses Stefan’s position in his review: “Dacia and the Dacian Wars. “Dacia’s Borders under Trajan’s Rule—Remarks. a rocky protrusion (elevation 1. and Cataniciu. Strobel. incorporating Dacian architectural fragments. Stefan’s aerial photograph (to this reviewer’s eye) does not prove the case. however. the camp of 102–105 no longer seems in doubt.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. can be traced on the ground and enclosed an area of six to seven hectares.C. 727 n. he would have the Romans copying Dacian construction of walls 3 meters thick—not normal Roman practice. Trajano Emperador de Roma. contra Opreanu. Diaconescu. 127. 2. Stefan asserts that the rampart (vallum) of a Roman camp of 102–105. but no evidence ties Decebalus to Piatra Craivii or attests a transfer of his residence north of the Muresh. 30.” Dacia 50 (2006): 118–20. Piatra Craivii. is an argument from stratigraphy. 20 kilometers north of modern Alba Iulia) and the whole theater of the second war (105–106) transferred to extreme northern Dacia. Oltean (Dacia. “Les débuts de la province de Dace. 396–97.8 [?]. Whatever its precise perimeter. fortified in the second half of the first century B. Geography 3.” 112 with n. ed. 31. Decebalus and Piatra Craivii: C. As often for pre-Roman fortified Dacian sites. 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.g. 24. Opreanu.8. see Stefan 247–55. Daci şi Romani. that destruction is assumed to be Trajanic. 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 evidence (see below) speak against this objection. 2007).” 297 n.31 29. The Romans did incorporate part of the original city wall in the northwest side of the camp of 106. Limes XIX. thought to have occupied the highest elevation within the city (Terraces I–III) was left untouched. Aculturatie în Dacia (Cluj-Napoca: Academia Romana. An objection raised by I. Stefan’s view of the 102–105 camp develops an earlier thesis espoused by A. Certainly 3-meter thick walls are un-Roman. enclosing Terraces IV–VI. “The Consequences of the First Dacian-Rumanian War (101–102). Decebalus’s palace.083 meters).29 Certain is that the southern end of the curtain wall at Sarmizegethusa Regia. which had been installed over the site of a Dacian mint at a lower level. Besides. 5) and Strobel (“Die Eroberung Dakiens.” 304 with n.” 111) also reject a 102 Roman camp. 35.. reasserting his earlier views: e.” MILITARY HISTORY ★ 1201 .
ed. 161–62. 214): E. 34. see Piso.. Two gates. Less clear is a detachment of IV Flavia Felix at the 102–105 camp. The respective garrisons of these camps remain controversial. 33.32 Evidence from the fill used for the camp walls of 106 attest the presence of vexillationes (detachments) of the legions II Adiutrix and VI Ferrata for the garrison of 102–105. Opreanu. 56) would include the legion IV Flavia Felix in the 102 camp. This new text of VI Ferrata from the 102–105 camp disproves previous reconstructions of this legion’s history. no. a cistern. “Zu Fragen der frühen Geschichte der römischen Provinz Arabia und zu einigen Problemen der Legionsdislokation im Osten des Imperium Romnum zu Beginn des 2. 1999). who erroneously thinks the whole legion went to Dacia. K Strobel.g. followed by Piso. 32.” in Beiträge zur Kenntnis des römischen Heeres in den dakischen Provinzen. 4.000 or 500 men. noted in the career inscription of C.. Stefan (349–51) persists in including I Adiutrix in the 102 garrison despite C. Iulius Quadratus Bassus (consul 105). Chr. Documents Illustrating the Principates of Nerva. Opreanu. when its chief duty was destruction of the Dacian capital.8 hectares) on Terraces I–V overlapped only partially the camp of 102–105 and incorporated the area of the former palace.” 211–13. Military Action and its Place of Garrison during Trajan’s Reign. WHEELER No such problems beset the camp of 106.. Le Bohec. Oltean (Dacia.. which in Stefan’s reconstruction of events would have been wiped out or taken prisoner by the Dacians in 105. ed. Trajan and Hadrian.. Stefan 348–54. The fragmentary text attesting a vexillatio of the VI Ferrata (AE 1983 nr. see Stefan 71. Gudea (Zalau: County Musuem of History and Art. which put it the 105–106 war: e. for a different view. “The Consequences.1 (1997): 18–22. 889. Gudea.C. 1202 ★ THE JOURNAL OF .33 Fragments used for fill between wall faces in 106 must surely represent older discarded material. 1994). 88 with n. 50. Jh. 118) as Hadrian’s first Dacian governor (Smallwood. 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. although the camp has not been studied or dug in detail. Dabrova. 571–72. see Y. Some Observations on Roman Tactics and Strategy. The size of both camps indicates a Roman presence not even close to the strength of a full legion (c. followed by Speidel (“Bellicosissimus Princeps. although a vexillatio of this legion manned the site in 106 and later. N. On the size of legionary and auxiliary camps. The Governors of Roman Syria from Augustus to Septimius Severus (Bonn: Rudolf Habelt. for its outline in the current forest is clearly discernible from aerial photographs (20 fig. producing Dacian imitations of Roman denarii dated 126 B. but rather approximates the size of camps allotted to auxiliary units of 1. a trace of barracks. Acta Musei Napocensis 34. cf. on the mint.000 men). and (of course) a bath (outside the camp to the south and exploiting earlier Dacian water works) are known. N.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 71 (1988): 252–53. The Roman Imperial Army (New York: Hippocrene Books.C. “Les légions dans la province de Dacie. 1998). six towers. “Les débuts de la province de Dace.” in Roman Frontier Studies. 68 B. Proceedings of the XVIIth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies. his “Dacia under Trajan.” 397–401. This much smaller camp (2.D. who later died fighting the Sarmatians (c.” 304 with n.EVERETT L. 168).34 How long after 106 or 107 troops remained at a city now 592.” 35). n. and 14–37 A. 5. “Legio I Adiutrix in Dacia. 332 fig.
Szegedy-Maszak. 111. “Les débuts de la province de Dace. permanently stationed at Orashtioara de Sus.” in Hanson and Haynes.” 306. although his identification of this unit with German infantry seen on Trajan’s Column is dubious: exploratores are generally mounted units. contra.36 The rise of the Dacian empire under Burebista in the first century B. For one view of Decenaeus. Babeş. Dacia. A. 38. cf. 318) on a survival of Dacian religion are in error.. “Les débuts de la province de Dace. 36. 62–68. “Der dakische Limes: Materialen zu seiner Geschichte. “Ein numerus Germanicianorum exploratorum im oberen Dacia. Lepper and Frere (Trajan’s Column. see also G. It should not be forgotten. Mihai Popescu (Paris) advises me that absolutely no trace of the native Dacian religion survived in Roman Dacia. 75–85. 281–96. “Les dieux tués. Although the accounts of Decenaeus include many Greek topoi associated with “lawgivers” and creators of civilization (cf. Roman Dacia.” in his Studia Thracologica (Bucharest: Editura Republicii Socialiste România. Ruscu. Wolff (Paris: De Boccard. who also (45) claims Fetele Alba was unfortified. “Late Iron Age Background. 200. Piso. 36. not far from the entrance to the “Costesti corridor. it is a mistake.” in L’Armée romaine et la religion sous le Haut-Empire. ed. see Stefan 283. lay Fetela Alba. N. a “Part II” is in preparation. Roman and Byzantine Studies 19 : 199–209).” 316–17. For a “classic” example of a “new” archaeologist’s attempt to turn an event like the destruction of Sarmizegethusa Regia and Fetele Alba into a “process. It shared the capital’s fate of total destruction in 106 after damage in 102. that Sarmizegethusa Regia was the chief cult site of Dacian religion and located on its holy mountain.” Jahrbuch des römischgermanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 44 (1997): 104–5. Directly across the Alb River valley from the capital and at the same elevation (1.38 35. Gostar.” see Locklear. however. Vulpe. Le Bohec and C. Oltean. another cult site with three sanctuaries. on the unit. see N.37 Romans in 106 wiped out not only a Dacian kingdom but also native Dacian religion.” 50–51. Romans did wage religious warfare on occasion. See his La religion dans l’armée romaine de Dacie (Bucharest: Éditions de l’Académie Roumaine.The Dacian Wars of Domitian and Trajan destroyed and its population forced to migrate is unknown. Romans destroyed and burned the camp of 106 when it was abandoned. “The Supposed Extermination of the Dacians: The Literary Tradition.’” 331–36. to reject Decenaeus as a myth: sic P. Dr. 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. Pupeza. 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. Goths and Romans 332–489 (Oxford: Clarendon Press.35 As usual. 1991). had involved religious fervor.” Greek.C. Die römischen Provinzen. 1976).500 meters for someone descending one slope and ascending the other). ignoring valid information in Strabo. D. MILITARY HISTORY ★ 1203 . Stefan 213–17. A unit of Germaniciani exploratores. La destruction du chef-lieu du Royaume dace. ed. Y. but c.” Germania 50 (1972): 241–47. conseiller intime de Burébista. “‘Devictis Dacis.” perhaps had among its duties surveillance of the former sacred Dacian district: Piso. eds. Florea and P. 37. in which the holy man Decenaeus had played a role. Heather. Part I.800 meters away. on this Roman camp. 307–8.. “Décénée. “Legends of the Greek Lawgivers. see R. 4. as the crow flies. 2009): 225–67.” in Piso. Gudea. 2004).
The two gigantic trophies.. Curiously. Gsell. Trajan. see also K. III 1204 ★ THE JOURNAL OF . The Forum of Trajan in Rome: A Study of the Monuments. J. W. “Domitian and his Successors. 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 françaises d’Athenes et de Rome. 40.” Journal of Roman Archaeology 21 (2008): 471–78. although Packer is occasionally cited.40 Readers of Tacitus. P. S. Hence Domitian vanished from the public record: his name was erased from all public documents and monuments. Jones.1 (1990 ): 4–18. sitting today on the balustrade of 39. Stefan (699 n.32. Indeed yet another study of Trajan’s Forum and Column has recently appeared: M. Ahl. The Emperor Domitian (London: Routledge. 667–93) treats the art and iconography celebrating the victories of Domitian and Trajan. that is. 1997). Sablayrolles. 1992). Domitian: Tragic Tyrant (London: Routledge. Packer’s massive study. H. 1997). and a conference at Toulouse: J. and contributors to A. for perpetuating the literary tradition’s negative views. an honor that Domitian had declined.39 Nevertheless. W.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II. although he was not disliked by the army. M.. 2007). eds. Saller. a trend begun with Stéphane Gsell (1894) and reflected in recent biographies. transferred to depots of marble. “‘Traianus Domitiani Continuator. Much here will interest art historians more than their military counterparts.-M. Flavian Rome (Leiden: E. 5) castigates F.EVERETT L. A single thematic chapter might have been preferable to chronological placement. still under construction at the time of his assassination. escaped destruction. R. what Domitian had proclaimed as a Roman victory in Dacia in 89. Brill. Moreover. after the campaigns of Domitian and Trajan respectively. La colonne trajane et les forum impériaux (Rome: École française de Rome. Trajan’s Forum and Market superseded Domitian’s Forum Magnum. eds. Forgetting Domitian would not have been easy for the Eternal City’s inhabitiants. The Senate decreed a damnatio memoriae after his assassination in 96. “The Rider and the Horse: Politics and Power in Roman Poetry from Horace to Statius. whose pay he had raised. 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. 1994). reviewed by Packer. Pliny the Younger’s Panegyric to Trajan in 100. “The Column of Trajan: The Topographical and Cultural Contexts. 2003).1 (1984): 40–110. Suetonius. Galinier. WHEELER Stefan’s second “book” (436–84. as the extent of Domitian’s building projects in Rome rivaled those of Augustus.’” American Journal of Philology 90 (1969): 385–405. Pailler and R. Southern. Waters. E. Dominik. art plays an important role in Stefan’s continuation of attempts to rehabilitate Domitian’s reputation. 3 vols. (Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press. 1894). could recast in the public eye as a humiliating defeat now avenged. B. J. Trajan readily added Dacicus to his titulature. Many large fragments of sculptures from colossal victory monuments. Boyle and J. Les années Domitien (Toulouse: Presses universitaires du Mirail. especially after his annexation of Dacia in 106. Stefan does not engage more fully with J.” American Journal of Ancient History 15.
46 41. (Oxford: Archaeopress. Goldsworthy. Proceedings of the XVIIIth International Congress of Roman Frontiers Studies Held in Amman.” Comptes Rendus de l‘Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres.The Dacian Wars of Domitian and Trajan the Capitol at Rome and representing Germania and Dacia. Stefan 456 n. 45. 60.42 Trajan’s Forum. are (as attested by an inscription) Domitianic. “Overcoming the Barbarian.22. Jordan (September 2000). 1992. when Octavian (Augustus) staged a combat of Dacians vs.. An earlier personification of Dacia. “Tactique hellénistique et tactique romaine: le commandement. Wheeler.44 As Stefan demonstrates (contrary to some views). 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. which involved the return of lost legionary standards. For Augustus’s Parthian accord as a contrivance of propaganda and one of the great non-events of Roman history. The Roman populace had first seen Dacians in 29 B.C. like Mattern.C. 46. likewise Trajan had to excel (hence the Column) Domitian’s displays. Stefan’s thesis of Trajan’s borrowing from Domitianic projects finds support in Aurelius Victor (De Caesaribus 13. 178–83.” re-used on the Arch of Constantine and assumed to be Trajanic. Coulston. “Roman Treaties with Parthia: Völkerrecht or Power Politics?” in Limes XVIII. note 27). On the portrayal of Trajan on his Column as the perfect general conforming to the principles of Onasander’s Strategikos. Diaconescu. For historical reliefs Domitian had to surpass the celebrations of the Jewish War seen on his older brother Titus’s Arch.” 416–19. is in reality Domitianic. 42. and expense (use of the rarest high-quality marble) Augustus’s forty of Orientals commemorating his so-called Parthian accord of 20 B. falls victim to Augustus’s propaganda: the standards lost in Mark Antony’s Parthian war (36 B. Erroneously associated with Marius’s victories over the Cimbri and Teutones two centuries earlier by A. 2002). 2003). which Trajan exploited. “Dacia and the Dacian Wars. size. Stefan (535 with n.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. 484.41 Similarly. 44. MILITARY HISTORY ★ 1205 . L. Domitian did commemorate his Danubian wars on coins. labeled in Greek ethnos Dakon (“nation of Dacians”). 421) on the Trajanic origin of depictions of Dacians and their weapons should now be modified. see E. the “Dacian frieze. 1:287–92.. Picard. excelling in number. 164. 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. Rome and the Enemy. 43. 214). ed.6. as Stefan argues (472–77 with fig. which for the first time depicted Dacian arms. cf. German Suebi as part of his victory celebration for the defeat of Marc Antony: Cassius Dio 51.” 589–94. 249. Philip Freeman et al.” 392. had appeared among the figures of “conquered peoples” (gentes captae) in the late Neronian Sebasteion at Carian Aphrodisias in Asia Minor: see Stefan 461–62. see G. The Complete Roman Army (London: Thames & Hudson.C. in fact.45 Further. 195–96. 209). Coulston’s remarks (“Overcoming the Barbarian.C.5) and is not criticized in the two reviews (so far) of Stefan in major Anglophone archaeological journals: Sauer (above. may have included as many as eighty-two colossal statues of Dacians.
Annals 1.44 meters in diameter and at c. now housed in a museum at the site.18. Reuter. J. ed. and the Dacians captured a slave of Laberius Maxiimus. 48. whether they tell a story and in what sequence they should be read provoke discussion.D. 255–63. east-west routes spawned a town (Municipium Tropaeum Traiani) flourishing into the Late Roman period. see D. the governor of Moesia Inferior (Pliny. Commemoration of the slain on state-sponsored monuments was not a Roman custom. were not found in situ. The Tropaeum Traiani would be merely an interesting detail were it not for the survival of fifty-four metopes (1. not only supplementing Trajan’s Column’s scenes of the same operations. “Germanico e i caduti di Teutoburgo. 44.1. ed. Limes XIX.. 92–93) has little to support it.47 Atop the hill of Adamklissi (extreme southeastern Romania). but also providing a different view of Dacian and Roman armor and weapons.000 to 4. particularly as the invaders are shown on the Column (scene XXXI) swimming a major river. 197–206.48 meters high). 49. B. Das Siegesdenkmal von Adamklissi: Tropaeum Traiani (Bonn/Bucharest: Verlag der Akademie der Rumänischen Volksrepublik. as Stefan believes. see G. 1986).EVERETT L.” in Studien zu den Militärgrenzen Roms III: Acten des 13. 1995). Yet two other enigmatic monuments share the site: on another hill 127. Letters 10. which once decorated the frieze of this monument (destroyed by an earthquake c.) offered the only precedent. Suetonius. Aalen 1983. 1990). These remarkable examples of early second-century provincial art illustrate.49 Debate 47. Charles’s denial (“The Flavio-Trajanic Miles. The metopes. too (for Stefan).” in Visy. its attraction and location on major north-south. Wege zum Ruhm: Krieg in der römischen Republik. 277–78. based in part on A. cf.g. ed. however. which he believes depict the Romans’ surprise attack by night on the Dacians and Rhoxolani at scene XXXVIII of the Column. “Wege zum Töten.” Klio 87 (2005): 123–38. on the Roman attitude. Beobachtungen an den Grabinschriften im Kampf getöteter römischer Soldaten. C. ed.” in Töten im Krieg. Germanicus’s recovery and proper burial (15 A. Poulter.” 669) of any Domitianic association with the site. Clementoni. is Domitian’s concern for Roman war dead. 233. 500). 1965). “The Lower Moesian Limes and the Dacian Wars of Trajan.74. Caligula 3. on Roman identification of battle dead and construction of such casualty lists.” in “Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori. 1206 ★ THE JOURNAL OF . von Stietencron and J. Trajan erected in 108–109 a cylindrical Tropaeum Traiani. H. M. “Military Burial and the Identification of the Roman Fallen Soldiers. Trajan Optimus Princeps. ILS 9107. Florescu. and on the Tropaeum Traiani: 693 with figs. the Dacian and Rhoxolan counterattack across the Danube in the winter of 101–102. Rüpke (Munich: Verlag Karl Alber. are reproduced in F. Peretz.48 As the metopes. WHEELER Notable. Internationalen Limeskongreßes. Unz (Stuttgart: Landesdenkmalamt Baden-Württemberg. 233–34. approximately the same height as his Column in Rome—a monument visible north of the Danube (10 kilometers away). Cassius Dio 57.000 dead.2..1): see Stefan 560–68.61–62. surely the Danube. Bennett. Tacitus. Sordi (Milan: Vita e Pensiero.) of the dead from Quinctilius Varus’s Teutoburg Forest disaster (9 A.5 meters north-northwest of the Tropaeum lies a Roman-style “mausoleum” with little datable material and 255 meters east of the “mausoleum” stands a monumental altar inscribed with an extremely fragmentary casualty list estimated at 3. Stefan’s republication of nine of them at fig. cf. 37 meters tall. A recent view that the Dacian-Rhoxolan attack occurred somewhere north of the Danube (e.” La morte in combattimento nel’antichità. to which the titulature of either Domitian or Trajan could be restored. M. “Gefallen für Rom. Rüpke.D.
1998). Strobel (Die Donaukriege Domitians. 76. after Roman forces had gained access to the “Costesti corridor” to Sarmizegethusa Regia. 402.” Annual of the Society for the Study of Caucasia 6–7 (1994–96): 70–71 with n. signaling military action. Absil. 2000). E. Poulter’s case for the legion I Minerva’s connection with Adamklissi monuments is not convincing. just as he obliterated Domitian’s building projects at Rome. Domitian (pace Stefan) later erected a victory monument (Tropaeum Domitiani = the “mausoleum”) west of the altar (89 or 90?) to celebrate his Dacian war. cf. 86–87. as Poulter cannot establish that Durostorum (Bulgarian Silistra) c. Oppius Sabinus. the dedication of the 519–28. ed. was ever a base of the I Minerva. concedes a Domitianic origin of the “mausoleum” and the altar.260 ap.” in Le Bohec and Wolff. dedicated to Mars Ultor (“the Avenger”) to obscure the earlier Domitianic monuments. generally following traditional views on the 101–102 campaign. 43) locates the attack east of Novae (Bulgarian Svishtov). C. followed the same route as the attack of late 84. thus indicating building in stone (that is. 191. 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”). the Dacian counteroffensive (with their Rhoxolan allies) in the winter of 101–102. the base of the legion I Italica under the Flavians. 1997). 50.51 crossing the lower Danube into the Dobrudja and sweeping south with the Danube on their right past Adamklissi and west into Roman Moesia Inferior. 51. J. Wilkes.” in Rome et l’intégration de l’Empire 44 av. a city) rather than the earth-wood construction of an army camp.50 During Trajan’s first war. Enemies of Rome: Barbarians through Roman Eyes (Stroud. as Stefan argues. Inscriptions grecques et latines de Novae (Mésie Inférieure) (Paris: De Boccard. would put the Dacian inroad of late 84 west of the Iron Gates Gorge. although this Tropaeum was destroyed probably in 96 as part of the damnatio memoriae and Domitian’s name was erased from the altar. Kolendo and V. Y. Untersuchungen zu den Dakerkriegen Trajans. 70-71. on which Poulter’s case is partially based. In Stefan’s reconstruction. is too sweeping.. M.. 442–44 with fig. “Legio I Italica. eds. to occasion a rare state-sponsored war memorial. 60 kilometers from Adamklissi. Adamklissi marks the site of a major Roman defeat. M. Le Bohec. “Les provinces danubiennes. 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. Something happened at Adamklissi. II: Approches régionales du Haut-Empire romain. 1:227–38.. Wheeler. depicted already on Roman coins dated to January– March 85: see 400. Sic Stefan. Les légions de Rome. MILITARY HISTORY ★ 1207 . on this important site. the attack’s date of late 84 or early 85 derives from Dacian arms. J. eds. U. a rather isolated site hitherto of no significance.K. After the war Trajan built at Adamklissi his own Tropaeum. see J. of which the construction (pace Stefan) appears in scene XXXIX of Trajan’s Column. J. Lepelley (Paris: Presses universitaires de France.: Sutton Publishing. where (besides civilian settlers) soldiers are shown working with chisels. “A New Book on Ancient Georgia: A Critical Discussion. Les légions de Rome. 1:83–85.. This legion’s participation in Trajan’s Dacian wars is not at issue: see Strobel. “Legio I Minervia (1er-IIe siècles).-C. 263.-C. Bozilov.” in Le Bohec and Wolff. on the enigimatic text ILS 4795. the semi-popular work of I.The Dacian Wars of Domitian and Trajan rages whether the “mausoleum” and the altar are originally Domitianic or the whole site is Trajanic. Stefan 437–38. eds. Ferris.
but it seems unlikely that Trajan devoted 1208 ★ THE JOURNAL OF . Bekker-Nielsen (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. Syme.2. Superior and Inferior. Nicopolis ad Istrum. 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. Available evidence permits various reconstructions of the chronology. Trajan’s Column. Oppius Sabinus. Stefan (400.23. “The Roman Army as a Factor of Romanisation in the North-Eastern Part of Moesia Inferior. 2006). 406) attributes the same destruction layer at Viminacium to Dacian attacks in both 85 and 86. Victory at Nicopolis: Ammianus Marcellinus 31. “Rhine and Danube Legions under Domitian. Getica 76 (the fullest account). Tacitus. Stefan 400 with additional evidence.” 593. 31–35. “Dacia and the Dacian Wars. excavations at Novae and Viminacium (Serbian Kostolac. Trajan’s Column. T. as the site of Trajan’s victory finds confirmation in two literary sources. cf. highly critical of Stefan’s views of the campaigns associated with the Adamklissi monuments and an advocate of their exclusively Trajanic origin. Geographical details and literary narratives are lacking. would derive from the scenes of the Column and the metopes a second Roman victory of Trajan at Adamklissi—not the first attempt to tie Adamklissi directly to the events of 101–102. The Dacians plundered Moesia in 85 and were still in Moesia in 86. WHEELER Tropaeum Traiani to Mars Ultor suggests revenge for a defeat. see Lepper and Frere. most recently. although scattered units of auxilia and the Moesian fleet (established by Vespasian) surveyed the area between Novae and the Danube’s mouth. Jordanes. 295–304. ed.” Journal of Roman Studies 18 (1928): 47. Domination. where he rejects an alternative view (above. however. for a survey of previous work on the problems of the Adamklissi monuments.4.54 The Adamklissi monuments remain enigmatic. Stefan 400 with n. Scene XXXIX may indicate Trajan’s foundation of Nicopolis ad Istrum. see also above.. Eutropius 7. and the capture of the governor of Moesia Inferior’s slave would seem to attest Dacian operations south of the Danube.16. reasoning that the Dacians attacked the less well-defended sector of Moesia. Diaconescu. including coin hoards.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 praetorian standard. consul with Domitian in early 84. Jordanes. as Stefan believes. Petculescu. 54. subsequently (perhaps already later in 84) became governor of Moesia (in 86 divided into two provinces. as a result of the Dacian war). Getica 101. Diaconescu. R. 6. Stefan (405) equates the severity of the situation to the Teutoburg Forest debacle. for a view that there was no Dacian-Rhoxolan invasion of Moesia Inferior in 101–102. Positing Adamklissi as the site of Oppius’s defeat goes back to Sir Ronald Syme (1928). cf. Lepper and Frere. note 48. L. although they offer no real solutions. 53.EVERETT L. note 51). cf.1. placing the Dacian attacks in the sector between Viminacium and the Danube’s Iron Gates Gorge.” in Rome and the Black Sea Region. Resistance. as no legions were yet stationed on the Danube east of Novae. 87. base of the legion VII Claudia) show some destruction in this period possibly associated with Dacian attacks. Agricola 41.53 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. Domitianus 6. Likewise conjectural is Stefan’s route of the attack through the Dobrudja in both 84–85 and 101–102. Suetonius.5. Romanisation.
Petculescu. These other major players demand acknowledgement. His extensive pre-history to the wars of Domitian and Trajan seeks to validate his theses concerning Hellenization of the Dacians (for example.10–11. Lica. the most powerful Thracian tribe in the fifth and fourth centuries B.52. Macedonia as buffer: Livy 33. figured prominently in the power politics of Athens and Philip II of Macedon in the northern Aegean during the fourth century B. 485–673) covers the entire history of the Dacians from the sixth century B. Stefan’s emphasis on Dacians marginalizes the conglomerate of other peoples (Greeks.3. when a dynasty of the Sapaean tribe emerged. Germans. 56.C. a task subsequently incumbent on Roman commanders in Moesia (the area between the Haemus Mountains and the Danube) from the time of Augustus. 146–47. In the Greek Classical period Thracian tribes. Iranians. 2.C. to the conclusion of Trajan’s second war in A.D. the scene may be an anachronistic interpolation in the Column’s narrative.C. Rome tolerated Thrace as a client-kingdom as long as order was preserved. 1998). Strabo 7.” in Piso. Archibald. as well as westward through modern Bulgaria into Serbia. Slavs).) to the Danube against the Triballi to secure Macedonia’s northern MILITARY HISTORY IV ★ 1209 .” Some impression of these issues will precede discussion (V) of Stefan’s innovative reconstructions of the topography of Domitian’s and Trajan’s campaigns.C.C. The Odrysae. opinions differ on whether the Dobrudja. 42. Celts) sharing the Carpathian basin—an ancient ethnic mix antedating medieval complications (for example. see now Z. south of the Haemus Mountains (modern Stara Planina). Greek influence on Dacian architecture and urbanism is less problematic than the character of the Dacian “state. 55.. including the Greek cities of the coast.. H. 271–80. Macedonia buffered Greece and the Mediterranean world generally from inroads of Thracians as well as Illyrians northwest of Macedonia.The Dacian Wars of Domitian and Trajan .” 31. If Stefan is correct. On the Thracians. After Macedonia’s annexation in 146 B. The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace: Orpheus Unmasked (Oxford: Clarendon Press. dominated the area between the Strymon River (Thrace’s border with Macedonia) and the Black Sea. Stefan’s third “book” (359–441.12. Suceveanu and Barnea.1. ed. “The Roman Army. 25–28. Coming of Rome.C. Sarmizegethus Regia as a Dacian version of Attalid Pergamum: 109–11) and the rule of Burebista and Decebalus over essentially Hellenistic kingdoms. note Alexander the Great’s campaign (335 B. it fell to the Roman governor of Macedonia to deter threats anywhere in the Balkans. cf. These thorny questions can only have their surface pricked here. An Odrysian dynasty retained varying degrees of authority over much of Thrace into the forties B. 41 n. of which the Getae were a branch. La Dobroudja Romaine.55 Historically.. Magyars. and from the northern coast of the Aegean Sea northward through the Carpathians and beyond the Siret River.56 time and manpower to building and settling a city in the middle of the 101–102 campaign. and “De nouveau autour de l’annexion romaine de la Dobroudja. 106. Die römischen Provinzen.11.D. was annexed as part of Thrace in 46 and when the Dobrudja became part of the Moesian province: cf. Part II of this article will assess Dacians and Roman strategy on the Lower Danube. but dynastic disputes compelled annexation in 46 A.
193–220.D.” 200–201. Strabo 7. Anabasis Alexandri 1. and Mesembria (modern Nesebur). c.. Ptolemy.10. ed. 60 kilometers due west of Tomis on the northward bend of the Lower Danube).8. and. 249–70.D. Geography 3. “Die Nordgrenze der römischen Provinz Obermoesian. Syme. Coming of Rome.” in Piso. cf.3. R. also inhabited or migrated into the Carpathian basin. 217–18 with n. and the Crozbyzes of the Carpathians—the mountain Getae.12–13. Gudea. “The Early History of Moesia. 110.EVERETT L. The Triballi stretched from Oescus (modern Gigen) on the Danube southward and west into the Serbian mountains. Callatis. Strabo 7. F. H. an oddity not matched by Greek ventures into the border before his Persian expedition: Arrian. A Greek market (emporium) even arose at some point far inland at Axiopolis (modern Cernavoda. however. The Fortifications of Lower Moesia (Amsterdam: Adolf M.4–6.).C.” in Römische Inschriften—Neufunde. without sufficient evidence) would have Oescus as a permanent legionary base from 2/3 A. Strabo 7. WHEELER Decline of Odrysian power in the fourth century B. the absence of a consular governor of a province of Moesia before Claudius (r. Batty. 58. 74. and in Bulgaria. cf.1–4. Stefan 359–60. Lica. Histria. M. could list fifteen Geto-Dacian tribes. 460) obscures the complex and poorly reported history of Roman military activity on the Middle and Lower Danube. Gudea. Mirkovic. “Roman Legions and their Fortresses.und Donauprovinzen im Blickwinkel ihrer Zielsetzung.8. 429. Chr. Odessus (modern Varna). A. cf. A.” 102 for the V Macedonica at Oescus as early as 9 B. the northern terminus of the shortest route between Macedonia and the Danube. 38. of which the Trizes/Terizes tribe was prominent in the Dobrudja. “Die Anfänge der Provinz Moesia. with whom they shared the cult of Zalmoxis.13. 1999). the chief deity of Dacian religion. 1997). Ptolemy. Materialen zu ihrer Geschichte (86–275 n. Neulesungen und Neuinterpretationen: Festschrift für Hans Lieb. Reinhardt. Wilkes. the Getae often allied with the Thracian Triballi. “Die römische Erschliessung der Rhein. Batty. ed. Dionysopolis (modern Balcic). Oescus. but certainly during Claudius’s reign (38–54): N. ed.” Jahrbuch des römisch-germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 48 (2001): 11–12. 14–38). 325–27. synonymous terms from Burebista’s time. 520–22. Two branches can be discerned: the Getae proper. R. Geography 3. M. 57.11. Rome and the Nomads. 72: a synopsis of the Roman fort’s history. Batty’s denial of Augustus’s annexation of Moesia (Rome and the Nomads. extending on both the northern and southern banks of the Danube from the Iron Gates Gorge east to the Black Sea coast. Ptolemy. By the time of Roman occupation they were more a name than a people.C. which Latin sources called Daci.57 Toponyms ending in “-dava” distinguish Geto-Dacian sites. 376–78: a superfluous commentary on ancient authors’ preferences for Getae or Daci.C. “The Early History of Moesia. From the seventh century B. In the Classical Greek and Hellenistic eras. however. most recently. favored a Getic rise north of the Haemus. Rome and the Nomads (405. Zahariade and N. Die römischen Provinzen. cf. Birley (Exeter: University of Exeter Press. 41–54) does not preclude Moesia as a provincia in the sense of a military command: on the problems. Hakkert. Stolba and M. or 11 A. Tomis (modern Constantia). cf. 1210 ★ THE JOURNAL OF . Speidel (Basel: F. 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. Syme.5: “Oescus of the Triballians” (Oiskos Triballon).3.” in Syme. The Provincial at Rome and Rome and the Balkans 80 BC–AD 14.. Wolff. Greek colonies dotted the west coast of the Black Sea: (for example) in Romania. see R. cf.3.58 Non-Thracians. 1995).
Oltean (Dacia. Dr.C. the plains of Wallachia.2. the Iazyges migrated west into the Great Hungarian Plain and formed a not unproblematic Iranian buffer between Dacia to the east.4. apparently a Thracian people on the Muresh River. D. Móscy.” in Scythians and Greeks. 61. cf. another Iranian people. burials show a mixture of Geto-Dacian and Scythian elements until the midfifth century B. the majority of the Dobrudja’s population remained Geto-Dacian despite the influx of Scythians.5.C. and later occasioned the poet Ovid. and the German Quadi and Marcomanni to the north. a term revived in the Late Empire. Stefan 367. “Darius in Scythia. for the latter date see E.” Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 25 (1977): 439–46.. Braund (Exeter: University of Exeter Press.. Alani) dominated the steppe from the Don to the Dnieper. 52. pace Suceveanu and Barnea (La Dobroudja Romaine. 20 A. 60. See Suceveanu and Barnea. Hinds. Coming of Rome. F. Strabo.” American Journal of Ancient History 12 (1987 ): 121–22. but how much earlier is unclear.3. Aorsi. Les légions de Rome. 47.D. “Ovid and the Barbarians beyond the Lower Danube (Tristia 2. Petculescu.C. until the Goths arrived in the third century and the Huns in the fourth. 62. they were already in Hungary. 104. 5.61 For events of the fourth and third centuries B. 63. P. 320–38) partially finds correction in J. Arrian. Roman Pannonia to the west.The Dacian Wars of Domitian and Trajan interior elsewhere.. the site also has a Roman history. bear Iranian (that is. eds. Annals 12. Scythian) names: Zalmodezikos and Rhemaxos. Periplus 24. Rhoxolani. “Legio XV Apollinaris: From Carmuntum to Satala—and beyond. Valeria Kulcsár (Budapest) informs me that the earliest Iazyges material in the Hungarian Plain is undatable. and the Dobrudja by the sixth century B. Georges. Iranian peoples from the Ukrainian steppe were already migrating into Transylvania. as Iazyges cavalry served in the forces of the Quadic king Vannius. saw a second wave of Sarmatians.17). Between 20 and 49 A.. “The Roman Army. whose successive waves (Iazyges. A. La Dobroudja Romaine. Tacitus.191–2. 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 . later intensified. The Agathyrsi. as the Scythians were pushed from the steppe into the Crimea and the Dobrudja by the Sarmatians. cf.D.3. to complain of living in a Sarmatian land. Lica.C. G.” in Le Bohec and Wolff.12. ed.6. 63 with bibliography. 157) are too certain about the Iazyges’ move to the Hungarian Plain c. two Getic kings of the third century B. Wheeler..62 Some segments of the Sarmatian Iazyges reached the Danube in the first century B. “The Lower Dnieper Region as an Area of Greek/Barbarian Interaction.2 (Spargapeithes).D. the Rhoxolani (“White Alans”).29.59 Of equal significance. 1:273–74.” Dacia 51 (2007): 241–45.60 Intermittent Scythian migrations and raids from the Ukraine through the fourth century B. 241 n.C.D. V. Herodotus 4. 142. who resisted assimilation.48.C. Mikra Skythia). The Dobrudja became “Little Scythia” (in Greek. 7. who wandered about between 59. Bylkova. Anabasis Alexandri 1.C. when the Dobrudja (detached from Moesia Inferior) became Scythia in the Diocletianic reorganization of provinces. 2005). Batty’s uncritical acceptance of Ovid’s writings from Tomis as accurate ethnography (Rome and the Nomads.1. “Die Einwanderung der Iazygen. 53) and Lica (Coming of Rome. 78. exiled to Tomis in 8 A.” 35. Geogr. the sources often do not distinguish Scythians from Getae. In fact. Strabo 7. had a king with an Iranian name (Spargapeithes) in the early fifth century B. when his kingdom dissolved in 50 (or 49.3). 37–38).63 The first century A.
. edd. 233–34. 426.79 and Annals 6.. Lebedynsky.. ed. “New Discoveries of Sarmatian Complexes of the 1st Century A.” in Istvánovits and Kulscár. since the Rhoxolani could not have adopted use of cataphracts from European peoples they encountered subsequently: see R.C. 44. 1986). 427–28 for his dubious notion that Tacitus’s descriptions of Sarmatian tactics at Histories 1. No evidence.D. see Istvánovits and Kulscár..” 412). N. August 1981 dargebracht von Freunden. Armes et guerriers barbares au temps des grandes invasions (IVe au VIe siècles après J. The unlikelihood of complete preservation of bows in graves and the infrequency of weapons as grave goods in Sarmatian burials (cf. does not depict them as cataphracts.79 and the Impact of Sarmatian Warfare on the Roman Empire. on the upper Dniester River. “The First Sarmatians in the Great Hungarian Plain: Some Ideas on the Jazygian Migration into the Carpathian Basin. Stefan (506–7. only a single piece of scale armor (characteristic of cataphracts) is known from the Great Hungarian Plain: E. Both Iazyges and the Rhoxolani may have already been equipped with the Hunnic bow. attributed Scythian practices to them. Istvánovits and V.3. cf. Sarmatians.” in Kontakt—Kooperation— Konflikt: Germanen und Sarmaten zwischen dem 1. WHEELER the Dnieper and the plains of Wallachia into the late second century. III.” Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 4 (1997): 37. have them go north of Dacia. A. Alans.D. 962–66).C. ed. Jahrhundert nach Christus. Rhoxolan participation in Domitian’s war is unattested. but Syme may be correct that Strabo’s probable source. cf. Kulscár. Studies in the History of the Sarmatians (Budapest: Pázmány Péter Tudományegyetemi Görög Filológiai Intézet. Alemany (in press). Marcus Aurelius’s concession to the Iazyges in 179 (Cassius Dio 71. for fragments of a possible Hunnic bow from a Sarmatian burial dated first century B./first century A.64 migration invite speculation: see the still useful study of J. erroneously 72. eine Krisenphase der römischen Herrschaft an der mitteren und unternen Donau. A fresh evaluation of these issues is forthcoming in the acta of a 2007 conference at the Autonomous University of Barcelona: E.19. Historiae I.D. however. 157. On the problematic use of the Hunnic bow in the first century A. 2001]): 10–12.. seen on Trajan Column and already known to Rome from wars with the Parthians (also Iranians). 2003). Treister.” 153. Rome and the Nomads. 66) negate J. “Sarmatians through the Eyes of Strangers: The Sarmatian Warrior. Syme.. von Carnap-Bornheim (Neumünster: Wachholtz Verlag. Unlike the Iazyges. and “Die Jahre 117 bis 119 n. C. 57–58.19 at Batty. Geburtstag am 4. Stefan (507–8) denies the presence of Sarmatians in 1212 ★ THE JOURNAL OF . C.D. Getica 74: the Alutus (modern Olt) River as the border between Iazyges and Rhoxolani.79. Coulston. Kulscár. Kollegen und Schülern (Rome: Giorgio Bretschneider. I. 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. 165. Studien zur alten Geschichte: Siegfried Lauffer zum 70. 1950). Jordanes. who favors the southern route and Roman involvement.EVERETT L. 697) and Strobel (Untersuchungen zu den Dakerkriegen Trajans. Batty. und dem 4. 107 B. in sharp contrast to Tacitus’s description (Histories 1. 1978).). Harmatta.” in H.” in Scythians.35 are contrived from information gleaned about Sarmatians in the Dacian wars of Domitian and Trajan. Istvánovits and V. “Overcoming the Barbarian. History in Ovid (Oxford: Clarendon Press.17).) [Paris: Errance. Batty.Chr. suggests that the Iazyges were ever cataphracts (sic. 442. Coulston’s point about their absence in Sarmatian graves: “Tacitus. cf. “Sarmatians through the Eyes of Strangers. Rome and the Nomads.-C. the Rhoxolani introduced on the Danubian frontier the fully armored cavalry with long thrusting spears (cataphracts). Kalcyk et al.: A Survey of Publications in VDI. erroneously. eds. 64. 45–46. involving a conflict in the Crimea against the forces of Mithridates VI Eupator of Pontus c. raid of 69 A. the Stoic Poseidonius. and. International Connections. both discounting their presence in the Dobrudja. An early description of the Rhoxolani (Strabo 7. M.
Taurisci). Part II. whose ashes (pace Stefan 365 with n. 125 (parallel text in German and Romanian). text with notes 144. 1997): 323–35 on MILITARY HISTORY ★ 1213 . Beiträge zur Geschichte und Lokalisierung eines antiken Ethnonyms. 66. the Getae. Mirton. Nemeth. and Philip married a Getic princess. their participation in the campaign of 101–102 suggests their proximity. 46. “Die Taurisker. Vindogradov. and later Asia Minor (hence Galatia in central Anatolia) brought these “westerners” into the Carpathian basin.. La Dobroudja Romaine. Lysimachus. sealed with his daughter’s hand his release and an alliance with the Getic king Dromichaetes. Diaconescu. Noviodunum and Diogetia: Suceveanu and Barnea. expanded their influence south to the Haemus Mountains and on the coast as far as Odessus. Stefan 361–67. The Getae protected the Greek cities against Macedonian imperialism (for example. Pontische Studien: Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte und Epigraphik des Schwarzmeerraumes. Protection. Jordanes. H. 64) are preserved in the now famous tomb of Philip II at Vergina.66 Wallachia before the second century A. 300 B. my sincere thanks to Dr. 65. “Dacia and the Dacian Wars. Peutinger Table: K. and the same Celtic movements featuring invasions of Greece in 279 B. Stefan’s emphasis on Geto-Dacian interaction with Greeks plays down Celtic influence on Dacian civilization. as the Getae gained wealth through tribute from the Greek cities besides the land’s natural products (herding.C.C. Getica 74 (above. the Germanic Bastarnae (in some ways precursors of the later Goths) moved southeast from northern central Europe into Moldavia. Zidovar: Stefan 380 n. The Dacian fort on the Middle Danube at Zidovar (upstream from the Iron Gates Gorge) was originally a Scordiscan site.” in Vindogradov.C. 616 (Alpes Bastarnicae). cf.” 592–93. Stefan overlooked (366) J. and 70 (see Wheeler. 62 (ILS 986) and raided Moesia in 68. Itineraria Romana (Stuttgart: Strecker und Schröder. the Getae thwarted Philip II’s attack on Odessus in 342 B. 69. c. Miller. the Peutinger Table. 147).” Orbis Terrarum 6 (2000): 127–38. Scordisci. 1916). note 63). agriculture. ed. just as Noviodunum later became Dacian.. however. “Eine neue Quelle zum Zophyrion-Zug. noting the (predictable) emphasis of the “Cluj school” on the Transylvanian origins of the Dacians. G. similarly. Lysimachus) and intermarried with Macedonian dynasts. Heinen (Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern. Taurisci: H.C.. Boii. 2005). 600.C. Valeria Kulscár for supplying a chapter from this work. defeated and captured by the Getae in 292 B. as does Dinogetia downstream from Noviodunum. E. and Noviodunum (modern Issacea). came with a fee. although they were already a problem for the governor of Moesia c. Philip II. Graßl. timber). Greek settlers in the Dobrudja intermingled with the natives and Getae formed part of the urban population at Histria and other cities. Olbia at the Bug River’s mouth). Stefan (512) does observe Dacian use of the Celtic war trumpet (carnyx). bears a Celtic name.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.. Geto-Dacians also mingled with Celtic peoples of the Middle Danube (for example. In the fourth century B. Die Armee im Südwesten des römischen Dacien (Timisoara: Ed. former allies or subjects of the Odyrsiae.D.The Dacian Wars of Domitian and Trajan Essentially simultaneous with the influx of Scythians. 48–49. near the Danube delta and the site of a later naval base of the Moesian fleet. The northern Carpathians appear as the “Bastarnic Alps” on the fourth-century map. As at other Greek colonies on the Black Sea (for example.
no. 67. who claims Popeshti is comparable to Sarmizegethusa Regia. 74 with bibliography.p. and T. a major fortified and religious center. 100 kilometers west-southwest at Borovo (ancient name unknown) on the Iatrus River. Strategika 4. Rome and the Greek East to the Death of Augustus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 40 kilometers south of the Danube on the north slope of the Haemus Mountains at Bulgarian Sboryanovo. Popeshti and Poiana: Locklear. twice the size of the Odyrsian capital of Seuthopolis. and Oltean. including manufacture of iron and bronze tools and weapons. Popeshti (25 kilometers southwest of Bucharest).. 375. 100 A. 1214 ★ THE JOURNAL OF . flourishing c. diameter 70 meters) enclosing a burial chamber rimmed with caryatides. Acornion decree: Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae (hereafter IGBulg) I2 13=(in English translation) R. as the ally of the Seleucid Antiochus II Theos. during the civil war with Julius Caesar. 2006). At ten hectares.). Rome and the Nomads. Getic kings. Yet other fortified Getic royal residences of the Hellenistic period are known at Cotofenii din Dos in Oltenia (Little Wallachia. Stefan 372–73. 1984). and gold. the plain north of the Danube. 250 B. participated in the siege of Thracian Cypsela in 254 B. the capital of Dromichaetes mentioned by Diodorus Siculus (21. for updates on the site. Other Greek aspects could be detailed.C. and that Borovo must be the Argedava.C. 350 to c. silver. the possible residence of Burebista’s father. and Poiana (ancient Piroboridava) in Moldavia. south of the Carpathians.D. Zopyrion. Sboryanovo is unknown to Batty.C. somewhere between the Danube and the Dniester. Dacia. Stefan speculates that a Getic capital had existed at Borovo (site of a “treasure” found in the 1990s) before Sboryanovo’s foundation. Stoyanov et al. Stefan finds a precursor c.. Stefan identifies the site with Helis. another Getic (?) king. “The Getic Capital at Sboryanovo: New Excavations. Coming of Rome. 250 B. For his Hellenistic Sarmizegethusa Regia.2). 8.2. 376 n. mosaics. was perhaps the largest European center for iron working the Getic (Scythian?) defeat in 331(?) of Alexander the Great’s governor of Thrace. as Sarmizegethusa Regia c. would anticipate the Greek building techniques and urban amenities three centuries later at Sarmizegethusa Regia. the inscription dates between 7 June and 9 August: Lica. see T. west of the Olt River).and third-century B. jewelry in bronze. Stefan 367–72. WHEELER Wealthy Getic kings who intermarried with Macedonian monarchs needed to display their prosperity. an ambassador of Burebista to Pompey in 48 B. mentioned in the decree of Dionysopolis honoring Acornion. and an extensive necropolis with a supposed royal tumulus (11. 68. Manufacturing at both sites suggests another parallel..68 The spectacular site of Sboryanovo. ably demonstrating the wealth and Hellenic tastes of fourth. Issues and Research Developments.67 After an earthquake destroyed Sboryanovo/Helis c. where the Macedonian king Lysimachus was held captive (292 B. Stoyanov.C.5 meters high.” Thracia 15 (2003): 413–23.16 is correct. Dromichaetes (II?).” 41. and a mint producing imitations of the coins of Histria and Alexander the Great.EVERETT L. 78. as in Stefan 374. the site features Greek statuary (one inscribed in Greek by the sculptor).C. the site was abandoned for another fortified center c. “Late Iron Age Background. Sherk.C. The Getic Capital in Sboryanovo (Sofia: n. not the Antigonid Antigonus II. who also erroneously cites the source: Polyaenus.
Stefan 275.D. where he rejects the possibility that Burebista imported Greek technicians from Greek cities. MILITARY HISTORY ★ 1215 . Locklear’s self-contradiction. a poorly known period. In literary sources. impedes understanding Geto-Dacian culture. the alleged residence of Burebista’s father.C. cf. Direct Dacian contacts. except for Greek architectural techniques.” but the passage 69.71 For Stefan (109–11). 96) raises the possibility of Geto-Dacian mercenaries importing Greek ideas upon returning home. Sarmizegethusa Regia is c. Cf.C.12) of Lysimachus’s detention at Helis and the Dionysopolis decree for Acornion.C. Yet for Stefan.70 The number of major fortified sites corresponds to the multiple Geto-Dacian rulers popping in and out of the sources c. specifically the title of philos (“friend”) of the king. An absence of major cemeteries north of the Danube. “Late Iron Age Background. 267. Diodorus shows the Getic king Dromichaetes’s awareness of Macedonian court practice and Lysimachus’s “friends. To what extent (if any) did Hellenism penetrate below the ruling class? Lica (Coming of Rome. formal state organization remains problematic. 72. however. however. the first eight lines of the Acornion decree are too fragmentary to determine whose father at Argedava is mentioned. from only two pieces of evidence: Diodorus Siculus’s account (21. 350 kilometers from Sboryanovo. 71.. Dacian wealth and sophistication are not at issue: the monumental works speak for themselves. 511 (the high quality of Dacian weapons). and planned a defensive ring of forts throughout the Carpathians centered on the holy mountain of Cogaeonum.’” 333. in which the center of Geto-Dacian power passed from south of the Danube north into Transylvania. 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.69 Yet a valley of obscurity separates these two peaks of splendor three centuries apart. above text with notes 22–23. 250–100 B. but cites no examples. As Stefan notes (375). iron working: Stefan 102–3. Geography 3. cf. 83 n. is speculative.8). Burebista in the first half of the first century B. Stefan wishes to infer Geto-Dacian imitation of the Macedonian and Hellenistic royal courts. especially for the first century A. with major cities like Pergamum or Panticapaeum cannot be proved and. initially established a capital at Costesti. Lica (Coming of Rome.The Dacian Wars of Domitian and Trajan outside the Roman Empire. The Dacian situation corresponds to a broader absence of Late La Tène (first century B. consolidated power over numerous other Geto-Dacian kings and their neighbors. 69: drawing conclusions about diverse Dacian burial customs after asserting that too few examples exist for assessment.72 Despite Dacian wealth and architectural sophistication.10. “‘Devictis Dacis. 70.” 63–65. 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).) burials throughout Central Europe: see Babeş.. 236–42) identifies Argedava with Zargidava on the Siret River in Moldavia (Ptolemy. the capital of the Bosporan Kingdom (eastern Crimea). use of “friends” (whether a court title or simply an indication of familiarity) can be ambiguous. Getic philhellenism manifest at Sboryanovo went north of the Danube with the shift of power to Transylvania. Identification of Borovo with Argedava.
given more force through the religious awe of the holy Decenaeus. gaining control of the Greek coastal cities from Olbia to Mesembria and Apollonia. cf. 1974). Pannonia and Upper Moesia. attributes the rise of Sarmizegethusa Regia to gaining control of resources (e.3). 507–8). the decree of Acornion derives from a Greek city likely to frame situations in Greek institutional language. 2005).73 A document from Burebista’s chancellery (if there was one) would make a more impressive case. Nevertheless.” 70). Gallic War 6. but Burebista’s accomplishment in founding Sarmizegethusa Regia on the Dacians’ holy mountain and uniting four Dacian principalities under a divine aegis should not be underestimated. Further. Mesembria.) maintained records in Greek (Gallic War 1. still emphasized the Dacians’ religious fervor. Oltean. For rebuttal of an alleged hostility of Burebista to the Greek cities (sic Batty. 18. Strabo’s therapontes for Burebista’s attendants is ambiguous. 106. and extending Dacian power to the March River in Slovakia. ed.3. IGBulg I2 13 lines 22–26. Dacia.” in Birley.14. likewise. after driving the Celtic Boii. Crito. Batty’s skepticism (427 n. but although the Helvetians defeated by Caesar (58 B. Suceveanu and Barnea. Crito. supposed Getic destruction at Histria derives from a questionable reading of the stratigraphy. Acornion is characterized as “in the best and greatest friendship” with Burebista—surely a court title is implied.75 A tremendous influx 73. His supposed abuse of the Greek cities is misunderstood.C.g.” 63–64. 47. Danube] and on this side of it”—typical Hellenistic Greek. on the Hellenistic court titles. Rome and the Nomads. who misunderstands Lica’s argument and incorrectly imputes to him a view similar to Stefan’s. Provincial. 96. 82–83 with n. recounting Trajan’s Dacian wars. Les philoi royaux dans l’Asie hellénistique (Geneva: Librairie Droz. 138 with n. conseiller intime de Burébista. “Salt Trade and Warfare: The Rise of the RomanianSlavic Military Organization in Early Medieval Transylvania. 379. cf. In the Dionysopolis text (a documentary source more reliable for official terminology). slaves. trans. La Dobroudja Romaine. whether ministers (sic Stefan). Syme. iron). 11. Apollonia) suffered from Burebista.5. pejorative term). Locklear (“Late Iron Age Background. see text with note 88 below. prominent at Buridava.EVERETT L. Taurisci. Frere (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Madgearu. Strabo 7.3. Stefan 373. Dacia. 66. cf. 19) about Burebista’s defeat of the Scordisci is groundless: see A. 67. nr. For Strabo. Indeed Strabo (7. 103–20. ed. see recently I. or courtiers.5) has Burebista issuing decrees (prostagmata). Decrees imply literacy and writing. Coming of Rome. Savalli-Lestrade. on the salt trade. “Macedonia and Dardania. 200 fr. 80–30 BC. and Scordisci west from the Middle Danube. Decenaeus was a goes (“magician”.. above text with note 65 for Scordiscan Zidovar as a Dacian fort.74 Besides uniting the Getae and Dacians. 1998). the Dacians’ widespread use of silver but the absence of gold jewelry would support the view: Oltean. 75. F. Stefan (279) posits a royal monopoly on salt and gold. Lica. ignoring Burebista and the religious influence of Decenaeus. WHEELER will not prove Geto-Dacian adaptation of such titles. Curta (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 51.” in East Central & Eastern Europe in the Early Middle Ages.. “Décénée. 7. S. Salt continued to have a role in the area’s later history: A. 23: only cities without traditional ties with the Getae (Olbia. 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. Mócsy. The Gallic Druids also knew Greek (Caesar. R. 74. Burebista is credited with subduing the Bastarnae. 1216 ★ THE JOURNAL OF . Die Fragmente.29) no one would speak of a Helvetian state. Vulpe. in Jacoby. see Stefan 382 with n.
and Dacian coinage north of the Danube (initially imitations of Greek tetradrachms. coinage does not define a state: the Celtic Boii also struck coins: R. could signal organized units of the Dacian army. Cassius Dio (67. Dana and F. Getic coinage is attested at Sboryanovo/Helis.000. Gamber.78 Dacian use of battle flags (vexilla) and dragon standards (dracones). Similarly. although only Dacian infantry is depicted on the Column. “Dakische und sarmatische Waffen auf den Reliefs der Traiansaüle. Daci. similarly. 260.g.76 For some. “Romans. c. 96. “Die Eroberung Dakiens. 124–25. Coming of Rome. 256.77 But could a tribal confederation have built Sarmizegethusa Regia? Debate on whether Burebista’s Dacia had crossed the threshold from a confederation to a Hellenistic state is justified in the current state of the sources. 1983). in any case. note also O. Daci. Sim.” 65–66. 77. yielding an army of c.3. Rome enlisted Dacians for cavalry alae and adopted some Dacian practices (e.g.000 square kilometers and over 1. a Dacian army of 200. “The Making and Testing of a Falx also Known as the Dacian Battle Scythe. 120–23.1). La Dobroudja Romaine. 1994). 79. later Roman denarii) dates to at least the second century B.000 people. seen on Trajan’s Column. Matei-Popescu. 264. Göbl. 64.K.000 seems to be Strabo’s number for the size of Burebista’s armed forces: 7. which consisted of both cavalry and infantry. 25. the “long-haired” 76. Decebalus’s Dacia included all territory north of the Danube between the Pathissus (modern Tisza) River (bordering the Hungarian Plain) and the Black Sea. 515. 197.C.” 105–6. Die Hexadrachmenprägung der Gross-Boier (Vienna: Fassbaender.: see Oltean. Lica. 363 n. the Dacian elite distinguished a lower class.. See Locklear. Bogdan Cataniciu. B. although with exaggerations. A state organization for Decebalus’s Dacia has better (although not unproblematic) prospects. 78. 115 with n. who all three favor Dacia as the equivalent of an Hellenistic state.. 82–83 with n. a view that the Dacians were nomads has no credibility: D.The Dacian Wars of Domitian and Trajan of Roman denarii throughout Dacia c. Tactica 44.1) even includes high praise of Decebalus’s skills in generalship. 23. “Le recruitement des Daces dans l’armée romaine sous l’empereur MILITARY HISTORY ★ 1217 . Wilkes. ed. however. who gives a full description of Dacian armor and weapons: 508–16. rejecting a view tying the coins to a Roman desire for Dacian slaves after Spartacus’s slave revolt. the Dacians were adept at both offensive and defensive siegecraft—not primitive barbarians ignorant of siegecraft. Slaves as a major export of the Carpathian basin is a motif of Batty. Dacians and Sarmatians in the First and Early Second Centuries. Rome and the Nomads.” in Rome and her Northern Provinces: Papers Presented to Sheppard Frere. just as Rome heavily recruited Thracian infantry and cavalry in general: see D.” Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien 60 (=Sonderheft 192 ): 7–34.13. 113. “Late Iron Age Background. yet like literacy. Wacher (Gloucester. might point to a western orientation rather than Stefan’s Hellenism. on Getic and Dacian horsearchers: 363. and J. Arrian. 200. 98.” Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 11 (2000): 37–41. 75–c.C. Dacia. who posits recruitment of Dacian mercenaries. Burebista’s empire represents no more than a huge but ephemeral tribal confederation.79 Further. Bogdan Cataniciu. Dacia. Suceveanu and Barnea. E.: Alan Sutton Publishing. Stefan concedes the hypothetical character of such figures.6.. Hartley and J. Strobel. 106. contra. 48. For Stefan (508). alliances stretched his influence northeast beyond the Siret River to the Lower and Middle Dniester and westward into the Slovak Carpathians: in total. Lica. 65 B. Oltean. U. 121 n.000. the typical characterizations of Germans and other barbarians in Roman sources. Coming of Rome. Stefan 516–25.
Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum (Paris: Firmin Didot.1. Petrus Patricius fr. Coulston.. 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. see J. conseiller intime de Burébista. Crito. cf.5 (Bicilis). on the dracones. 81.1–6. an alternate edition of the text in E. 5=C.9.” 210–11.83 Dacian literacy in Latin is attested and knowledge of Greek can probably be assumed. cf.EVERETT L.5–8 (Alesia. Cosmosicus.” 65–66) for suggested corrections to Jordanes. cf. Such administrative divisions of authority. The Thracians in the Roman Imperial Army from the First to the Third Century A. above text at note 26. 1885). N. cf. but this conclusion is premised on Burebista as a grand strategist and creator of the system. called Decebalus’s brother (frater). again the term is ambiguous: court title or biological relationship?82 But nothing here proves a state rather than a tribal confederation.C. M. Caesar. An hetairos (“companion”) of Decebalus. handled the peace negotiations with Domitian in 89. WHEELER (comati/capillati) from the “cap-wearers” (pileati/tarabostesei). cf. 84. Cosmosicus: Jordanes. 52 B.1. M.10. although kings and priests belonged to the “cap-wearers”. Cassius Dio 67. Bicilis. but like Strabo’s therapontes. Septimius Severus at Lugdunum/ Lyon. Smallwood. Die Fragmente. in combination with social classes. Müller.7. Batty’s feeble discussion (Rome and the Nomads.14.2 (Vezinas).6. Before the second Battle of Tapae (101). literacy. Too little is known to posit a Dacian form of Hellenistic ruler-cult (the king as a divine manifestation). C. who (pace Jordanes) seems to have ruled for a time after Burebista.84 Trajan: une esquisse préliminaire. 2009). 228. coinage. More decisive. 200 fr. Vulpe would compare the “cap-wearers” to a priestly caste like the Celtic Druids. Stefan 517 (a Dacian devise) and Whitehead’s ingenious interpretation making it Roman: “Apollodorus’ Poliorketika. 224) depicts the Dacian use of a battering ram against a Moesian city during the 101–102 counteroffensive.73. an episode illustrated on the Col- 1218 ★ THE JOURNAL OF . Jordanes. 220). united the posts of king and priest. cf. is also on record. where he feigned death and escaped capture. Getica 40.80 A Vezinas. Martial 5.81 Diegis. both groups appear on Trajan’s Column. and. Gallic War 7.). 185. a fragment of Crito’s Getica refers to officials in charge of arable lands and those responsible for forts. suggest an organized state.3. Cassius Dio 68. most recently. nr.2–3. although a later successor. both of which could serve as ambassadors. Trajan received an embassy with a message written in Latin on a large mushroom: Cassius Dio 68. 83. especially if Dacian architects had read Philo Mechancius. Getica 73. and a fixed capital with monumental architecture. on that most curious siege machine at scene CXIV (fig. Nothing suggests him a religious leader like Decenaeus. Stefan 666.” Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 2 (1991): 101–14.8. 80. scene XXXII (fig. IV. On Dacian siegecraft. Cassius Dio 75. Documents Illustrating the Principates of Gaius Claudius & Nero (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1: Auxilia (Cluj/Napoca: Mega Publishing House. 5. Zahariade. “The ‘Draco’ Standard. 221). in Jacoby. called the “second” (in power) after Decebalus may have commanded at the first battle of Tapae (88 or 89). nr.4–5 (Clodius Albinus vs.D. 197).” Dacia 50 (2006): 195–206. 497–98) and perverse attempt to represent Moesian and Thracian troops as unreliable. the term is ambiguous if a court title. the text’s meaning is unclear. cf. 71–72. Cassius Dio 67. Vulpe (“Décénée. 68. 272–73: the Dacian defensive fortification scheme in the Carpathians attests long-term planning and maintenance. cf. ILS 986. 1967). Stefan 525. 82. note use of lilia (concealed sharpened stakes): scene XXV (fig.
162–63. and writing his Stratagems 84–88 during Domitian’s Dacian war. where Dacian coins did not circulate. 4. 328–29 with n. accordingly. also MILITARY HISTORY ★ 1219 . Dorpaneus: Jordanes. cf. and Daci. missing in Jordanes’ account of Domitian’s war. Trajan’s Column. Getica 76. refers to the Dacian leader Scorylo (fl. “The Legend of Decebalus. 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. approved by Strobel. Diurpaneus: Orosius 7. Decebalus.–A. It may be significant that Frontinus. Bruun. 87. Above text at note 68. numerous Hellenistic Geto-Dacian fortified residences are known and the local circulation of different local Dacian coinages (dated second century B.) suggest at least four or five different Dacian principalities. cf. As noted earlier.10.6. a Duras. an anecdote faintly echoed at Tacitus. 227. after 23 A..” 723–25. Locklear posits from his archaeological survey of pre-Roman Dacia a competition between Dacian princes eventually won by the group of Sarmizegethusa Regia. “Dacia’s Borders.The Dacian Wars of Domitian and Trajan Nevertheless. 92.” 160. 65 B. this view fails to convince. cf. Strabo (d. 697. Dio’s Roman History. 100). shares the stage with at least two other Dacian rulers: a Diurpaneus or Dorpaneus led the Dacian offensive into Moesia in late 84/early 85 and commanded Dacian operations until about 87.C. advising a Dacian king.C. inscribed in Greek. (above. 85. “Late Iron Age Background.4. note 82). originally a Celtic area. 73. for commentary.11) that Burebista’s union of four kingdoms had dissolved in his own day into sometimes five parts with no stability. mentions an unknown basileus (king).” 106 n. 16?). presumably following Tacitus’s Histories. Bogdan Cataniciu. was the victor over the Praetorian Prefect Cornelius Fuscus. 29 B.D.) claims (7. 86. see note 88 below. which opened access to the Dacian heartland. “Die Eroberung Dakiens.10. 98.C. to show a single Dacian monarch proves nothing. note 76) represented Roman support (real or pretended) for different rulers.6. not Decebalus. Oltean. Decebalus first appears after Roman forces crossed the Danube in 86 or 87.1 with Excerpta Valesiana 284 (see Loeb edition: Cary. Decebalus’s sole rule of Dacia at the start of the war with Domitian in late 84 is far from clear.2.85 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. 100. a text generally assumed to refer to the Dacian king: Locklear. 75–c. indeed Diurpaneus/Dorpaneus. when a less militarily adept king Duras at Sarmizegethusa Regia abdicated rule to Decebalus. 1). 59–60. approved by Stefan (393).87 umn (scene IX). 67. See Lica. the influx of Roman denarii c.3. Lepper and Frere.” 69–70. leader”) and not a rex (“king”): Stratagems 1. 139–40. 104–5. despite valiant efforts to create a single line of kings based in Transylvania.86 Moreover.” 44. a Roman ally in Licinius Crassus’s campaign on the Lower Danube 29–27 B.. “Late Iron Age Background. Duras: Cassius Dio 67. Stefan 388–92.D.46. Histories 3. 133.C. 672).5. Coming of Rome. trans. 120–23. excluding the Banat (between the Carpathians and confluence of the Tisza and Danube).4. three times consul (c. who then tried to negotiate with Domitian. a pottery sherd at Buridava. part of the senatorial clique that put Trajan in power in 97. 69) as a dux (“general. 142 for a Getic king Rholes in the Dobrudja (c. Emending the problematic text of Plautius Silvanus (ILS 986: above. The lip of a large amphora found at Sarmizegethusa Regia is stamped four times: Decebalus per Scorilo (AE 1977 nr. Locklear. Peace came only in 89 following a Dacian defeat at Tapae. Dacia.
cf. Nemeth. 15. see Strobel. and supposed capital of the Dacian tribe... On the peace terms. “Dacia’s Borders.” 724. Getica 78) and not at Sarmizegethusa. 123–24: Oltenia and the upper Olt River were not jointly ruled with Wallachia. on Buridava. Strobel (Die Donaukriege Domitians. “Die Eroberung Dakiens. 40. they were apparently not in Decebalus’s possession: Bogdan Cataniciu. see Stefan 255 with figs. 130–31) that control of the territory between the Carpathians and the Danube passed to Rome in 89 lack archaeological or literary support. who cannot be tied to Diurpaneus/Dorpaneus. and military standard lost in Fuscus’s defeat at another Dacian fort (Cassius Dio 68. Strobel (Die Donaukriege Domitians. on Decebalus’s late entry into the war. 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. Bogdan Cataniciu (“Dacia’s Borders. exploitation of local salt mines rendered the site a major trading center with high-quality imports. Diurpaneus/Dorpaneus. and Daci. this reconstruction would have a minor Dacian king waging war on his own resources against the might of Rome for two years. would make Diurpaneus/Dorpaneus a major monarch. not German Buri. Conjectures (Lica. Stefan relegates the problem to a footnote (399 n. 173) uncritically accepts the negative view of Trajan’s propaganda. 90. Stefan 404–5. Die Donaukriege Domitians.e. 1).” 106–7. technical support.90 appears in a supposed fragment of Crito’s Getica. cf. “Dacia’s Borders.” 724. 185. including a year in Roman Moesia. on one reconstruction. G. “Getica lui Statilius Crito. noted by Bogdan Cataniciu. WHEELER Corruption of names in manuscripts may explain Diurpaneus and Dorpaneus.88 But.” 724 n. 126–27. preserved in the tenth-century encyclopedia called the Suda (Q 413): see Russu.9. 1220 ★ THE JOURNAL OF . however. 54–63) would make Buridava the objective of Fuscus’s disastrous campaign. who (425– 29) finds a parallels in the diplomatic procedures of 89 with Nero’s Armenian settlement with Parthia in 63. 88. living north of the Quadi and Marcomanni: Tacitus. on the importance of the 89 peace to Decebalus’s position. ruling Oltenia. as Stefan notes. but equation of all these names with Decebalus is hardly satisfactory.10. 89. contra.” 126 fr. summarized at Stefan 651 n. II. Die Armee im Südwesten des römischen Dacien.g. 159. As Trajan recovered in 102 the arms. 15=A. “Dacia’s Borders.EVERETT L. 45) attractively suggests that the Buri of the “mushroom embassy” (above. Jordanes.” 724. is far-fetched. including subsidies. 192–93. note 84) are Dacian Buri of Buridava. and parts of southern Moldavia. a fortified residence from the first century B.89 Definitive solutions are elusive on present evidence. A fragmentary Greek inscription on a pottery sherd mentions a (probably post-Burebista) king (basileus). Stefan 425–36. Yet Domitian’s favorable terms to Decebalus in 89.3. Suidae Lexicon (Leipzig: B. 1928–38). see Lica. Daci.1. may have consolidated his position in Sarmizegethusa and extended his authority over other Dacian kingdoms with Rome’s approval. 188. In fact only conjecture ties Diurpaneus/Dorpaneus to Buridava. but see Bogdan Cataniciu’s objections. i. the whole of Dacia south and east of the Carpathians. 62–63. 40). some Dacian forts on the Danube’s north bank (e. Russu’s commentary. and recognition as a client of Rome. 721. the Buridavensii. Wallachia. 121. would be the Dacian king based at Buridava (modern Ocnita).C. Stefan 404–5. Teubner. 548. Divici west of the Iron Gates Gorge) may have still been in Dacian hands in 101: Stefan 436. Coming of Rome. Strobel. 125 n. Coming of Rome. Adler. Germania 43. artillery. Mattern (Rome and the Enemy.
Trajan’s march is illustrated. Trajan with the main army crossed at Lederata (modern Ram. note 88) and Opreanu’s map (391 fig. suggest multiple armies at different locations. and Oescus—a multi-pronged offensive unlike Tettius’s expedition in 88. Die Donaukriege Domitians.93 Trajan’s Dacica refers to Berzobis and Aizis 91. just as Stefan has the Dacian offensives south of the Danube in late 84 and 101–102 follow identical paths. Alföldy. Cornelius Nigrinus Curiatus Maternuis: Neues und Altes zum Werdegang eines römischen Generals. 93. Even Trajan’s canal at the Iron Gates Gorge to by-pass the notorious rapids.” Revue des MILITARY HISTORY V ★ 1221 .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. on his Column (for what that is worth) and the sole fragment of Trajan’s Dacica partially indicates the initial campaign’s route. nr. scene LXXVIII shows a single goddess of Victory but two trophies. Strobel. 92. Stefan thinks at least one Dacian fort on the north Danube bank still functioned in 101: see above.The Dacian Wars of Domitian and Trajan Stefan’s theme of Trajan’s imitation of Domitian continues in operational analysis of Domitian’s war (84–89) and Trajan’s two campaigns (101–102. For Stefan (550). the battle at scene XXIV may be at Tapae. The following commentary on Stefan’s views will emphasize novelties. see most recently G. As Viminacium appears the chief Roman base for Dacian operations. completed by 101 and highlighted by an inscription found in 1969. on Nigrinus. Trajan and Hadrian. note 90. 105–106). but the argument seems circular. inscription: AE 1973 nr. Roman forces crossing the Danube on parallel pontoon bridges. Although (on the Column) Trajan crossed unopposed. 10 kilometers to the northeast). Both campaigns (88 and 101) led to a battle at Tapae.92 Scenes IV–V. of course. a site absent from later Roman itineraries.” 390) also posit identical routes for Tettius and Trajan. Smallwood. the likely bases of operations. Drobeta (site of the later stone bridge).” 11) and Opreanu (“The Consequences. but Diaconescu also has Cornelius Fuscus take this route in 86 or 87 (contra. 540–41 (Trajan). as Opreanu (“Bellum Dacicum. space precludes detailed comparison with previous views on all points. See scenes IV–XXIII. as four Dacian forts west of the Iron Gates Gorge are known: see Stefan 416–17. cf. Stefan 489–95 (Domitian). Trajan’s campaign of 101 followed the same route as the decisive Roman offensive of 88–89 under Tettius Julianus (suffect consul 83. 262–66 for descriptions of the forts. cf. 1) has two Roman armies crossing the Danube west of Viminacium and none at Lederata. “M. see above. governor of Moesia Superior from 87).” 113) notes. Documents Illustrating the Principates of Nerva. Tettius’s crossing may have been contested. 475. Much of the Iron Gates Gorge fell victim to hydroelectric projects in the 1960s and 1970s. Diaconescu (“Dacia under Trajan. for Stefan (495) the canal was probably Domitian’s project initially. a potential rival to Trajan for the imperial purple in 97. inscriptions also distinguish expeditio Dacica prima from secunda expeditio. which (as his Column shows) were portrayed (post eventum) as a single war. continued Domitian’s postwar efforts to improve communications between the Middle and Lower Danube. based exclusively on Trajan’s campaigns. other armies with different operational objectives possibly crossed farther downstream at Dierna (modern Orshova). these other armies aimed at protecting the flank of Trajan’s main force by blocking southern and southeastern exits from the Carpathians. 413. supplemented by known legionary camps on the Danube.
Sarmizegethusa Regia lay c. 187. WHEELER (known from later Roman itineraries). 95. The later Roman road system need not indicate Dacian dispositions. 412 fig. 51–54. 29 n. a date (Domitianic? Trajanic? or even later?) is impossible: Stefan 279. 88–90. Boutae. became more formidable with the Dacians’ construction of an immense earthen rampart (recently discovered but not yet excavated). Realization of the distinction of Colonia from Regia has not (hitherto) changed scholars’ placement of Tapae. roughly midway between Dierna on the Danube and Tibiscum (modern Caransebesh/Juba). The Iron Gate Pass.95 Previous reconstructions of the campaigns of Domitian and Trajan assumed that Tapae must be somewhere near the Iron Gate Pass (near modern Bucova). Jordanes. Untersuchungen zu den Dakerkriegen Trajans. a significant natural obstacle. where the Jiu River emerges from the Carpathians. Berzobis (modern Berzovia) was later the base of the legion IV Flavia Felix. 78. From Herodotus on. quoted above. A major Roman camp with room for four or five legions at Schela Cladovci (just upstream from Drobeta). the ancients perceived the Muresh (with the Tisza River as a tributary) as a continuous stream from northeastern Dacia to its confluence with the Danube. found in the seventeenth century. note 9. because Colonia Sarmizegethusa (See Map 2. 52–53 and 41–43 (more details on the Carpathian passes). Trajan’s Dacica. and identification of Tapae with the Iron Gate Pass would require a direct assault on a narrow well fortified position. the distinction of Colonia from Regia removes the rationale behind the traditional location of Tapae. Getica 74. formerly at Singidunum (modern Belgrade). and farther east the Vulcan Pass. 94. indicating a march north from Lederata along the Apus (modern Karash) River. 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?). page 1199). IV Flavia Felix: Strobel. Strobel. then farther east the Orashtioara (formed from the union of the Alb and GodeanÉtudes Militaires Anciennes 1 (2004): 23–44. a narrow 15-kilometer corridor (elevation 699 meters). the gorge of the Alutus River. whereas modern geography has the Muresh empty into the Tisza. as Stefan argues. although he ignored on the Carpathians’ southern face the defile at Teregova. 1222 ★ THE JOURNAL OF . Trajan’s Column. 92–93. Trajan’s Column. Boutae and Tapae. a toponym otherwise unattested. Der Kampf um den Donauraum unter Domitian und Trajan.EVERETT L. 7. Lepper and Frere. 75. A later Roman road passed through the Iron Gate Pass to the Colonia. Patsch. Stefan 409 n. was (erroneously) thought to be the site of the Dacian capital. an important center of Roman Dacia. an ancient topographical perspective should be preferred: the western entry into the Carpathians was the Muresh River valley north of the Orashtie Mountains and the Dacian capital. is generally identified as the Red Tower Pass north of Buridava. has since disappeared. Untersuchungen zu den Dakerkriegen Trajans. 43 kilometers northeast of the Colonia. Rather. Nevertheless. in a plain just east of this pass. a collection of earlier views on the two pontoon bridges and Roman strategy is in Lepper and Frere.94 But where is Tapae? Jordanes described a Dacia surrounded by a ring of mountains with only two entries.
all action proceeds from the south. barring new evidence for an exact location. and units scattered south and east of the Carpathians in Oltenia. when Domitian lost a campaign against the Marcomanni and Quadi. Strabo 7. “Dacia under Trajan. as seen on the Column). although hypothetical.13. Roman Military Records on Papyrus (Cleveland. Opreanu. whereas Stefan’s emphasis on the Muresh valley shifts attention to the west with the main Roman operations against Sarmizegethusa moving south and southeast. Trajan had the option (pace Stefan 558) to move directly on 96. Wallachia. riverine transport in the area in an Augustan campaign: Strabo 7. the Danubian border of modern Romania (whence Roman armies departed.98 Stefan’s reconstruction of the campaign of 102 is also innovative. Stefan’s Tapae would be essentially the same distance as the Iron Gate Pass but due east rather than east-southeast.” in Gudea. he went to war with the Iazyges in 92. After the victory at Tapae. ed. as the Hungarian Plain was not necessarily friendly territory in 89. Only an impression of detailed topographical and archaeological arguments can be offered. 301 lines 25–29=R. Stefan assesses how much of Dacia the Romans occupied after the peace of 102: 636– 37. and even Moldavia. however. Tibiscum. MILITARY HISTORY ★ 1223 . the Iazyges. On traditional views.3. inhabitants of the Plain and apparently Roman allies in Trajan’s war. 269–90. “Dakien und Iazygen während der Regierung Trajans. 746) records detachments at Buridava and Piroboridava (modern Poiana) on the Siret River in Moldavia: see Smallwood. These remarks about the Pannonian army and the Iazyges pertain only to Trajan’s wars. occupation forces came from the armies of Pannonia. Stefan’s placement of Tapae. Iazyges: C. controlling access to the eastern Muresh valley and the inner ring of Dacian forts guarding Sarmizegethusa Regia on the Strei and Orashtioara Rivers. Accordingly. Römer und Barbaren. Tapae lies in the vicinity of modern Deva. 552. 1971): 217–27 nr. perhaps also had a role in operations in northwestern Dacia. Stefan 642–43. 419 for possible rebuilding at the fort of Blidaru after 89—proof that Tettius Julianus probed the “Costesti corridor”.48. Moesia Superior. Ohio: Press of Case Western Reserve University. Pannonia: Diaconescu. 642–43. offers an innovative perspective on the campaigns of 88 and 101 with logistic and strategic implications.. Stefan 241 (Deva). 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.The Dacian Wars of Domitian and Trajan nul Rivers.3. and Moesia Inferior. 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. where the city’s expansion has obscured Dacian defensive works except for the lofty fortress Dealul Cetatii (unexcavated). cf. Documents Illustrating the Principates of Nerva. 407–11. 639–40.97 A change of Trajan’s base of operations should not. although conservative inference must not be pushed too far. the site of the later Colonia. Trajan and Hadrian. 63 (partial English translation and extensive commentary).96 From Aizis. the papyrus preserving the daily strength report (pridianum) of the cohort I Hispanorum veterana at Stobi (now dated to late 105: AE 1981 nr. both flanking the mountain of Sarmizegethusa Regia). Fink. as Romans occupied by 102 the whole of southwestern Dacia with camps (for example) at Berzobis.O. Muresh River: Herodotus 4. be inferred. nr. 97.13.” 14–15. 98.
The suovetaurilia is a rite of beginnings. which is also technically correct. Part I. With order restored south of the Danube by early 102.498 meters. It cannot have been a surprise and unopposed.563. a site presumably fortified with defenses (not yet found) comparable to Costesti and Blidaru.100 99. Scenes LIII–LIV. 298–313 (Comarnicel). Trajan could now devote the rest of the campaign season to encirclement of Sarmizegethusa and a siege of the capital. topography dictated a split in the Roman strike force (perhaps no more than two legions. The degree of Dacian resistance to this turning movement along the crests of the mountains from Banita to Muncel can only be conjectured. 15 kilometers atop the crests brought the force to the peak of Muncel (elevation 1. “Shock and Awe: Battles of the Gods in Roman Imperial Warfare.99 Pace Stefan. as legally the territory of southwestern Dacia taken in 101 would have been now part of Roman Moesia Superior.EVERETT L. and Trajan’s address to the army mark the beginning of the 102 operations. a strike force from the camp at the site of the later Colonia began what he calls the “alpine campaign. both northwest of the Dacian capital on separate ridges. From Comarnicel a march of c. depicting the suovetaurilia (pig-sheep-bull sacrifice).” 240 with n. He did the latter. just as the camp at Comarnicel blocked all points east through the mountains. The captors of Banita were at this point on the same mountain as Sarmizegethusa. cf.000 meters). as the custom of sacrificing before crossing a river ceased to be practiced in the Imperial era: see Wheeler. as the narrow crests prohibited collective movement of the whole body with any speed. reuniting at Comarnicel (elevation 1. as the crow flies) indicate the two corps’ routes. difficult siege at Banita.893 meters. Muncel also offered approaches to the Dacian forts at Fetele Alba and Vârful lui Hulpe. no suovetaurilia is shown on the Column when Trajan crosses the Danube to initiate operations in 101. Scenes XXVI–XXX illustrate these operations and mark the end of the 101 campaign.” Decebalus was surrounded in his capital. a purification rite customary before a campaign. as the crow flies). After a probably long. 289–91 ( Jugir). Roman capture of Banita cut off Sarmizegethusa’s communications with the south. 100. 7. 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. as the Dacian-Rhoxolan counteroffensive into Moesia Inferior (winter of 101–102) begins with scene XXXI (Dacians and Rhoxolani swimming the Danube). 10) are based on false assumptions. 313–17 (Muncel: not yet fully studied). 10 kilometers southeast from Sarmizegethusa. Notably. Stefan’s efforts to explain away this apparent error (546 with n. Remains of Roman temporary camps at Jugir (elevation 1. 1224 ★ THE JOURNAL OF . at an elevation higher than the capital. Stefan 575–92. Stefan (571) interprets the suovetaurilia scene as a sign of the Romans about to cross a border.5 kilometers north of Banita) and Vârful lui Petru (c. 20 kilometers northeast of Banita. With the capture of Muncel and simultaneous Roman progression up the “Costesti corridor. where three Roman temporary camps are in evidence. 73. 213–17 (Fetele Alba.5 meters). which commanded the upper corridor of the Strei and a southern approach to Sarmizegethusa. identities unknown). WHEELER Sarmizegethusa Regia or to press south down the Strei River valley to cut off the Dacian capital from the west. on the forts and camps: 230–33 (Banita). and only 5 kilometers away.” moving down the Strei River against the fort at Banita (elevation 1. 291–98 (Vârful lui Petru).
Traditionally. Cassius Dio reports (68.101 Perhaps a different corps from the Banita task force dealt with this area. Trajan’s Column. 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. Stefan marginalizes Laberius Maximus and the army of Moesia Inferior perhaps unjustifiably. cf. Stefan 229–30. Many sites remain uninvestigated (for example. Stefan is partially constrained by available evidence. and the Banita expeditionary force. probably responsible for the entire eastern theater of the war in Oltenia. an earlier version of Stefan’s view of the 102 campaign at “Les Guerres daciques de Trajan: les opérations du front alpin. as the surprise DacianRhoxolan counteroffensive in Moesia Inferior demonstrates. Nevertheless. MILITARY HISTORY ★ 1225 . 49. relegated to a rather passive assignment: blocking all exit routes south and east of the Carpathians in Oltenia and Wallachia. Strobel. Vârful lui Hulpe) or yet undiscovered. is based exclusively on archaeological evidence and topographical probability. of the numerous Roman armies active throughout Dacia in 101– 102. since the Dacian-Rhoxolan counteroffensive begins with scene XXXI. 517–25. Previous reconstructions of the first war posited a different pincer movement: Trajan’s army group attacking through the Iron Gate Pass. and Moldavia. Likewise. Stefan’s alpine campaign of the Banita task force usurps the role of Maximus’s army. 102. however. a greater role is assigned to the army of Moesia Inferior under its governor Laberius Maximus (suffect consul 89). A Roman camp is known at Cioclovina. where a Dacian rampart runs for 1. “Late Iron Age Background. Wallachia.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.9. he omits Roman operations against other approaches to Sarmizegethusa in the Strei River valley and the southwestern sector of the Orashtie Mountains. 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. Lepper and Frere. responsible for the attack up the “Costesti corridor” (see below).” in Roman Frontier Studies 1995: Proceedings of the XVIth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies. 217–18 (Vârful lui Hulpe: not studied or excavated). who defend Cassius Dio’s apparent placement of the event in 102 and think “the Maestro” has erred. Stefan 572 and n.4). not far west of Cioclovina. Roman capture of the major fort of Piatre Rosie. cf. while Laberius Maximus marched from Oescus up the Alutus River to take the Red Tower Pass and approached Sarmizegethusa from the east.” 55–56. W. ed. Not all of them obviously were guarded by the end of 101. Stefan emphasizes only the Muresh River army group. 1997). 115 with bibliography. Untersuchungen zu den Dakerkriegen Trajans.102 In any case. In haste to get the siege of Banita underway. above text at note 36). To be fair. 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.The Dacian Wars of Domitian and Trajan Stefan’s new reconstruction of the 102 campaign. 101. Groenman-van Waateringe et al. (Oxford: Oxbow Books. although plausible. is left in obscurity. Details on the Cioclovina area in Locklear. cf. Piatra Rosie: above text with note 26. 76–77.
Van Campernolle (Montpellier: Presses universitaires de Méditerranée.” Details of the siege depend on the Column and archaeology. see page 1192) with mountain peaks inside the camp’s perimeter. Trajan’s Column. After the suovetaurilia and Trajan’s address to the army (scenes LII–LIV) mark the start of the campaign. the Column depicts Roman soldiers clearing forests. permit asserting the accuracy of Roman siege techniques on the Column in support of Stefan’s thesis that Apollodorus of Dasmascus was “the Maestro. 87. 100–102. Sauzeau and T. 75. Much depends on “the Maestro’s” narrative technique.8. 1226 ★ THE JOURNAL OF . Next comes the famous depiction of Lusius Quietus’s Moorish cavalry chasing Dacians into a forest (LXIV). 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. Birley. as does a mounted Trajan (LVIII). Hadrian: The Restless Emperor (London: Routledge. 249) on siegeworks implies a shift of the action back to the “Costesti corridor. Roman cavalry enters the mountains (LVII). before being named a consular and governing Judaea (117). The Moorish chieftain Lusius Quietus and his native cavalry. Scenes LXIV–LXV with Trajan’s absence imply operations on a different front and may correspond to Cassius Dio’s report (68. “Les armes du cavalier africain: de la réalité à la symbolique. on the continuity of Moorish cavalry practices throughout Antiquity. The following archaeological details are notable. burning forts. 582–89. all with close connections to Trajan. scene LXV (figs. R. The following sequence shows Romans constructing a camp (LXV. Two Roman siege ramps at Costesti are partially preserved. my review of this work is in press: Antiquité tardive 17 (2009). 2007): 191–211.EVERETT L. confusing to the Column’s modern viewers. topographical identification of scenes on the Column is the bane of studying Trajan’s Dacian wars. and building camps. where two inscriptions of later governors of Roman Dacia have been 103. 242–43) represents the alpine campaign. while Trajan receives a Dacian embassy (LXVI). so distinguished themselves in the Dacian wars that Trajan elevated Lusius to a major command in his Parthian war (114–117). also poses problems. Scenes LXVI–LXXV. 1997). De la technique à l’imaginaire. the base camp for the attack on Sarmizegethusa Regia was probably at Sub Cununi (8. see C. a different view of both the 102 campaign and interpretation of the Column’s scenes is at Lepper and Frere.103 Yet scene LXIV shows the Moorish cavalry in mountainous terrain and scene LXVI (fig.5 kilometers west of the capital). tracing events in the ultimate advance to the walls of Sarmizegethusa (the surrender scene at LXXV). For Stefan. where he gained infamy as a butcher of Jews in the Jewish revolt in Mesopotamia (116–117). ed. Hamdoune. Stefan 572–75. Lusius Quietus (suffect consul 117) was killing and capturing numerous Dacians elsewhere. 78–79. the only real source for the chronology of events in 102. He was one of the four consulars. then a scene of Roman construction of siegeworks. but Roman infantry follows only at LXII–LXIII. Readers of Trajan’s Dacica might understand these jumps in the narrative. WHEELER The Column. P. As noted.” where Trajan was.” in Les Armes dans l’Antiquité. After the capture of Costesti and Blidaru. murdered in Hadrian’s first year of rule: a summary of his later career is in A.3) that while Trajan approached Sarmizegethusa by capturing peak after peak. however. the Mauri. from which Stefan offers his own reconstruction (592–624). Stefan would have at least three successive scenes each indicating a different topographical location.
including mopping up operations. there is no basis for identifying Ranisstorum with Piatra Craivii (cf. 232) an elaborate siege-tower. his suicide is seen at scene CXLV and the public display of his severed head at CXLVII. Sic Blyth. Such views are diametrically opposed to allegations of the Column’s misrepresentation of military equipment: see above. Decebalus’s attempt to reverse the first war’s outcome were quickly squashed. “Apollodorus of Damascus and the Poliorcetica”. 32. Trajan’s Column. Stefan’s ingenious interpretations of the devices in these scenes invite debate. Details in Lepper and Frere. is seen. “Apollodorus of Damascus and the Poliorcetica. Decebalus’s flight from Sarmizegethusa: Cassius Dio 68. Whitehead “Apollodorus’ Poliorketika. need not be addressed. barricade: 99 with figs. AE 1969–70 nr.” Journal of Roman Studies 60 (1970): 142–53. 101. Trajan Optimus Princeps. Sub Cununi: 618. “The Captor of Decebalus: A New Inscription from Philippi.” 149–50. 108. several hundred meters beyond the excavated areas of the capital. 249) supposedly shows construction of a siege ramp and a moveable tower (turris ambulatoria).” 209. 104. 242–43. 107. 246. topography dictates this site as the only suitable staging area. Stefan 601–10. a summary of older views on the archaeological evidence at G. Tiberius Claudius Maximus. whereas in the background of the surrender scene (LXXV=fig. as in Bennett. traversing the breadth of the entire ridge.106 Operational details of the second war (105–106). Blyth. 583. coming down the ridge from the peak at Muncel: the area remains unexplored. although more action.The Dacian Wars of Domitian and Trajan found.104 In any case.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. although Decebalus fled the capital and committed suicide at Ranisstorum (location uncertain) in September 106.107 The second capture of Sarmizegethusa largely followed the course of the first war. “Apollodorus’ Poliorketika. 35. MILITARY HISTORY ★ 1227 . followed by Whitehead. an officer of the ala II Pannoniorum. Costesti siege ramps: 595–97 with fig. Florea. P. “Archaeological Observations concerning the Roman Conquest of the Area of the Dacian Kingdom’s Capital. Untersuchungen zu den Dakerkriegen Trajans.” esp. Lepper and Frere. Nothing can be said about a Roman assault from the east. occurred north of the Muresh River and the northeastern parts of Dacia. Strobel.3. Thus scene LXVI (fig. 275) on his tombstone at Philippi (Greece): see M. to which Stefan adds little new. 210–11 (corrections to Blyth).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. 106. 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. 205–19. although commentators on Apollodorus of Damascus’s Poliorcetica share Stefan’s belief in the accuracy of the Column’s details on siegecraft. above. 703. details and discussion at Stefan 663–65. 176–79. Trajan’s Column. The whole affair was over by July 106. topped by two galleries.” Acta Musei Napocensis 26–30 (1989–93): 33–38. 105. although satellite photos detected a remarkable barricade or ravine. note 16.14. 612. Speidel. later claimed to have captured Decebalus and illustrated the deed (Stefan fig. note 29).
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. . or email articles for individual use. download. users may print.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.