So Julius Caesar attacks Burebista's Dacia in 45BC...

[Romano-Dacis]

Since we're all into historical revisionism here at TWCenter I think it's important to ask this question. What would have happened if Julius Caesar attacked Burebista's Dacian Kingdom in 43BC, the year before the assassinations of both of these rulers.

So let us give some background info. This is the Roman Empire in 44BC:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

And this is the Dacian Kingdom in 44BC:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Alternative map:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Historically the Dacian kingdom was conquered 150 after Caesar's death by Trajan. However, that is not an accurate reflection of how it could have been in 44BC. The Roman Empire was substantially larger in 101AD when and the Dacian Kingdom was over 5x smaller at that point, the rest being fragmented among the other Dacian tribes (Costoboci, Carpi, Getai etc.). [see euroatlas]

First of all there was a rather serious plan by Julius Caesar to attack the Dacian Kingdom before he was assassinated. In 89BC the consul Curio planned attacking the Dacians but upon arriving at the Danube he was too scared of them and decided not to (the Roman authors say he was "afraid of the dark forests" but we all know the truth ) [Florus, Epitome. III: "Curio Dacia tenus venit; sed tenebras saltuum expavit"]. Julius Caesar was considering fighting the Dacians according to Suestonius but his death prevented war [Suestonius, Julius Caesar. XLIV: "Dacos qui se in Pontum et Thraciam effuderant coercere... mors praevenit."].

So, assuming Julius Caesar does not die and he declares war on Dacia, what would have happened?
a) The Romans would have wiped out the Dacians. No question about it.
b) The Romans could have fought the Dacians to the Danube, then a peace settlement would have been made between Julius Caesar and Burebista, with a partial Roman victory.
c) The Dacians would have takebn Illyria and Anatolia most likely with their confederate allies. The Romans would have been pushed back and sued for peace.
d) The Dacians would have taken Rome and become the preeminent power in the West.

Before you make any rash choices, consider this:
-The Dacians were fierce horsemen, fighting in a style which the Romans had not encountered before. According to Theucydides "The Getai [read: Dacians] and the other people from these lands are neighbors of the Scythians, they have the same weapons and the same customs; they all shoot with the bow from horseback."]
-Burebista had interefered in the Roman Civil War, supporting Pompey. He knew the Romans and their style of warfare but they did not know his. Burebista is also considered to have been implicated in the Illyrian revolt of 48BC.
- Burebista's reign coincided with Dacian apogee. He has smashed the Bastarnae, Boii, Taurisci, Scordisi and Scythians. After his death his kingdom was split into four, then five pieces. Strabon wrote of him: "Burebista, the Get, Having become the leader of a people exhausted by frequent wars, the Getic Burebista raised it so much through drilling, abstention from wine and obedience to orders that he achieved a powerful state within a few years, he created a great kingdom and brought almost all of the Getai's neighbors under their rule; coming to be feared by the Roman themselves, as he crossed the Danube without care of anyone and looted Thrace up until Macedonia and Illyria, while the Celts whom mixed with the Thracians and Illyrians were devastated, while the Boii who listened to the king Cristasiros, as well as the Taurisci were wiped off the face of the earth." As can be seen the Romans feared the Dacians, but the Dacians didn't fear Rome. It was not mutual according to Strabon.
-The people of Dyonisios referred to Burebista as "the first and the most powerful among the kings who ever reigned in Thraike, master of the entire region this side of the great river"
-Strabon gives Burebista's military power at 200,000 men. [Geografia, Book VII, 3, 13]. He sometimes even refers to Burebista's realm as an "empire." Whether exaggerated or not, it is clear Burebista had a considerable army at his disposal. Strabon himself says that once the kingdom was divided into 5, each kingdom could barely muster 40,000 men for their own defense. While 200,000 is an enormous figure, it is definitely not impossible to imagine, especially given that Burebista was the supreme lord of a vast land.
-When the Romans did conquer Dacia under Trajan they had to do it as the largest military operation in Roman history. Trajan brought 150,000 men in 101AD and 200,000 men in 106AD and only then was he able to conquer half of the Dacians. This leads me to believe that Julius Caesar would be hard-pressed for a victory given his far more limited manpower and far stronger opponent.

So, what would have happened?

[OccamR]

I don't know, but I'm dfinitely sure the Romans wouldn't have sued for peace. With the Romans it all the way in everytime.

[Romano-Dacis]

I don't know, but I'm dfinitely sure the Romans wouldn't have sued for peace. With the Romans it all the way in everytime.

The Romans sued for peace on several occasions, even against the Dacians. For instance after the Dacian war of 87AD the emperor Domitian* sued for peace and gave Decebal extremely favorable terms after he lost a legion at Tapae and scored an undecisive victory a year later.

P.S. Friggin' Romanophiles. Voting away but not justifying their choice in the thread.

P.P.S. I just realized there is a mistake in choice #2. Treat that as "between the reigns of Burebista and Decebal" as in "between 44BC and 80AD."

[Carpathian Wolf]

As a Romanian I love very much both my Latin and Dacian and consider myself both equally. I think if the Dacians and Romans fought at this stage it would have been an initial Dacian victory and then a stalemate with heavy heavy casualties on all sides and the Romans having to use every last bit of strength to just hold the line.

However Romano Dacis you forget to mention one thing. Correct me if I am wrong but didn't Burebista also have an alliance with the Sarmatians and was in discussion with the Germanic tribes as well? If the Dacians of Burebista formed a sort of coalition of allies, the last option would be my choice.

[ShockBlast]

P.S. Friggin' Romanophiles. Voting away but not justifying their choice in the thread.

Remove the first variant and the 4th because they are too extreme,the Romans didn't conquer us when we had half of Burebista's kingdom and anyway the biggest majority of the people who will vote don't know one little thing about Dacians, i bet they think they were ''me smash you die'' type.
Yeah a coordonated attack form the Dacians with a part of the Germanics and other allies the Romans could have been pushed but conquering Rome would require a very big alliance.
The Romans could have conquered some Dacian land if the Daicans didn't have serious allies land but conquering all of it is just day dreaming.

[DAVIDE]

if trajan did conquer just half of Dacians, why then there werent dacians at all? the dacians post siege of Sarmigezetusa, were totally replaced by mass-produced colons, taken from italy and eastern gallia.. this is why second modern historians, Italian language is very close to Romanian one

[Carpathian Wolf]

if trajan did conquer just half of Dacians, why then there werent dacians at all? the dacians post siege of Sarmigezetusa, were totally replaced by mass-produced colons, taken from italy and eastern gallia.. this is why second modern historians, Italian language is very close to Romanian one

Actually there were "free" Dacians afterward which even Constantine the Great fought.

The colonists into Dacia were Romans from Rome itself since only people of the city were "Romans." This along with Legio Macedonia and Gemini (and one more Drom told me about but I always forget the name of).

[ShockBlast]

if trajan did conquer just half of Dacians, why then there werent dacians at all? the dacians post siege of Sarmigezetusa, were totally replaced by mass-produced colons, taken from italy and eastern gallia.. this is why second modern historians, Italian language is very close to Romanian one

Tell me when the romans killed all the people in an aria?
Well yes Romanian is simmilar to Italian but it's also more closer then Italian to Latin and in 165 years that couldn't happen if the dacian language and latin didn't have some common features,this possible fact together with the romanization that came with the colonists could create the most latin language.

P.S. I'm not saying Dacians are Romans or something like that.

[Carpathian Wolf]

The Romanization of Dacians could have happened long before Trajan conquored parts of Dacia. We had Dacians speaking Greek just because of the colonists along the Black Sea. Maybe Dacian and Latin were related in the same manner Greek and Latin was but now we're going pretty far back into the area of "adam and eve" linquistics.

[DAVIDE]

Tell me when the romans killed all the people in an aria?
Well yes Romanian is simmilar to Italian but it's also more closer then Italian to Latin and in 165 years that couldn't happen if the dacian language and latin didn't have some common features,this possible fact together with the romanization that came with the colonists could create the most latin language.

P.S. I'm not saying Dacians are Romans or something like that.

dacians broke many times the roman peace treaties, killing and destroyin here and there, every roman they met . this is why sarmizegetusa has been reduced to rubble once and for all, why the head and the right arm of Decebalus had been cutted off. Romans were totally pissed off about "dacians locals"... it's clear they did not accept roman culture or presence... they exterminated Dacians and replaced the population with colonial one, as they did other times... see Dio or Carthage

also: second ancient roman historians, thousands and thousands of dacians, were "sacrified into Colosseum"..

[ShockBlast]

dacians broke many times the roman peace treaties, killing and destroyin here and there, every roman they met . this is why sarmizegetusa has been reduced to rubble once and for all, why the head and the right arm of Decebalus had been cutted off. Romans were totally pissed off about "dacians locals"... it's clear they did not accept roman culture or presence... they exterminated Dacians and replaced the population with colonial one, as they did other times... see Dio or Carthage

Excuse me it's not like the Romans weren't building the forces for another push and even if the would have killed all the dacians on the conquered lands the free dacians still remained on non conquered territories.
There are huge sources of information about Dacians soldiers in Roman armies how do you think the Draco got to Wales?
Anyway do you have any sources that backup the so-called extermination?

Maybe Dacian and Latin were related in the same manner Greek and Latin was but now we're going pretty far back into the area of "adam and eve" linquistics.

Well we know that the Dacians,the Romans and the Greek aren't europeans,they arrived here along time ago,it's very possible that the Dacians and the Romans were related but developed differenty because of the distance.:hmmm:

[Romano-Dacis]

dacians broke many times the roman peace treaties, killing and destroyin here and there, every roman they met . this is why sarmizegetusa has been reduced to rubble once and for all, why the head and the right arm of Decebalus had been cutted off. Romans were totally pissed off about "dacians locals"... it's clear they did not accept roman culture or presence... they exterminated Dacians and replaced the population with colonial one, as they did other times... see Dio or Carthage

also: second ancient roman historians, thousands and thousands of dacians, were "sacrified into Colosseum"..

There are several authors who show that Dacia was "depleted of men" (later authors more accurately say "depleted of resources") but to believe the Romans could or even would exterminate everyone in such a vast area is ridiculous.
Keep in mind that on Trajan's Column alone you have 7 scenes of Dacians submitting to Roman rule. Cassius Dio himself shows that at the start of the 106 war many Dacians willingly placed themselves under Rome's rule. Furthermore there are lots of Roman legions composed of Dacians, like Ala I Ulpia Dacorum, Cohors II Augusta Dacorum pia fidelis veterana milliaria equitata, Cohors III Dacorum equitata, Vexillatio Dacorum Parthica, and other units in Britain under the names Decibalus and Dida. There were at least 10 Roman military units purely of Dacians. Furthermore, the Latin inscriptions in Dacia sometimes show evident Dacian personal names, like Mucatra, Brasus, Mucapor Mucatralis, Rescuturma (the wife of a Roman cavalryman), Dula (wife of Volusius Titianus), Aurelius Duda, Aelius Diales etc. This clearly shows Dacians remained in Dacia, even though a huge number of colonists from the Roman Empire came over them. BTW, some interesting things to note are Romans taking Dacian brides and people with Roman first names (Aelius) and Dacian last names (Diales), showing the process of assimilation was quite strong. The latter phenomenon is shown by another, Aurelius Denzi. While it is true that only 100 of the names on inscriptions are Dacian (while 1920 are Roman) this number is of course affected in a pro-Roman sense due to the fact that the urban centers, where most of the writing happened, was dominated by Romans, and due to the assimilation of the locals. Nevertheless, the presence of Dacian names shows that there were Dacians living under Rome's banner, and they were being assimilated.

Furthermore, consider the toponyms and even names of cities in Roman Dacia: Prolissium, Sarmizegetusa, Recidava, Sucidava, Peridava, Potaissa, Napoca, Cumidava, Dierna etc. these are not Roman names. The Romans weren't "wiping everything clean" and starting over. Also, remember that there were revolts in Dacia by the locals. How could they revolt if they were exterminated?

It's a game of numbers really: the Dacians in Decebal's kingdom are considered to have numbered 500,000, maybe 1,000,000 at a maximum. The Roman military veterans settled in Dacia alone numbered some 87,000. Add in the families of those veterans (an average of 5 per person) and you have some 450,000 colonists in Dacia from the military component alone. Nevermind the cities, mines, and rural areas which were all heavily colonized, such that Roman Dacia probably had around 2,000,000 residents at a minimum, a majority of which were Romanized locals coming from Illyria, Thrace, and Macedonia (like the Legio V Macedonica and Legio XIII Gemina).

[DAVIDE]

Excuse me it's not like the Romans weren't building the forces for another push and even if the would have killed all the dacians on the conquered lands the free dacians still remained on non conquered territories.

There are huge sources of information about Dacians soldiers in Roman armies how do you think the Draco got to Wales?
Anyway do you have any sources that backup the so-called extermination?

for example Eutropius.. btw there are 1800 AD historians theories, who tries to explain why Romania and their inhabitants, are the unique chase in eastern europe, where a slavic language is not spoken at all and, at difference of Hungary, Romania is the only one eastern europe country, where neolatin is still there 100%... ... simply they said (their theories), ancient romans exterminated every dacian men, leaving alive dacian women... the dacian men replaced totally with romans colons. In fact Dacia/Romania, is the only chase of "massive romanization" of roman time

about dacians in roman army..it's the theory of slow progress romanization.. they were a very small part of roman wannabes.. Also, for roman law at the time, they did not have the same rights of roman colons, to have it they had to join military career.. once finished, they received farming lands in dacia, could hve the permission to live inside roman towns etc

[Nikos]

The Romans sued for peace on several occasions, even against the Dacians. For instance after the Dacian war of 87AD the emperor Justinian sued for peace and gave Decebal extremely favorable terms after he lost a legion at Tapae and scored an undecisive victory a year later.

Justinian was Emperor from 483 to 565 AD.

[Romano-Dacis]

Justinian was Emperor from 483 to 565 AD.

, sorry. I meant Domitian. God damn...

davide: I don't see why the Dacians needed to be exterminated. First of all consider that the Costoboci, Carpi, and many Getai were not in Roman Dacia. They couldn't be exterminated because of that. Even Constantine the Great entitled himself Dacicus Maximus and Diocletian called himself Carpicus Maximus. Were these people fighting with no one according to you?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

And Eutropius is a bit of a propagandist. He makes many wild statements like saying Dacia was colonized with an "unending number of people." Likewise his lines about the abandonment of Dacia are equally exaggerated, involving the loss of three provinces (Illyria, Thrace, Dacia) then the resettlement of everyone from Dacia South of the Danube. Both are physically impossible and not shown archaeologically.

I'm glad they made this book avaliable on Google Books and highly recommend it to anyone wanting to learn about Roman Dacia.

[Nikos]

, sorry. I meant Domitian. God damn...

It's all good.

I think the Romans would have won. They're superior training and discipline would have won the day. Not that the Dacians were pushovers.

[DAVIDE]

There are several authors who show that Dacia was "depleted of men" (later authors more accurately say "depleted of resources") but to believe the Romans could or even would exterminate everyone in such a vast area is ridiculous.
Keep in mind that on Trajan's Column alone you have 7 scenes of Dacians submitting to Roman rule.

simply cuz in there, the last scenes rappresents the campaign of 106DC, with some dacians surrendin to romans, after decebalus death

Cassius Dio himself shows that at the start of the 106 war many Dacians willingly placed themselves under Rome's rule. Furthermore there are lots of Roman legions composed of Dacians, like Ala I Ulpia Dacorum, Cohors II Augusta Dacorum pia fidelis veterana milliaria equitata, Cohors III Dacorum equitata, Vexillatio Dacorum Parthica, and other units in Britain under the names Decibalus and Dida. There were at least 10 Roman military units purely of Dacians. Furthermore, the Latin inscriptions in Dacia sometimes show evident Dacian personal names, like Mucatra, Brasus, Mucapor Mucatralis, Rescuturma (the wife of a Roman cavalryman), Dula (wife of Volusius Titianus), Aurelius Duda, Aelius Diales etc. This clearly shows Dacians remained in Dacia, even though a huge number of colonists from the Roman Empire came over them.

simply not dacians 100%. just to make u an example, in Zlatna, were taken hundred thousands of dalmatians colons, to make them all work in gold mines.. and u can check this info also in your country archeology sites.. imagine how many romans were taken into dacia.. tons
the dacians in roman army, is plausible they were roman dacian of 3rd/4th generation.. mixted weddings between roman men and dacian women or they were dacians escaped from dacia, and returned to become roman

BTW, some interesting things to note are Romans taking Dacian brides and people with Roman first names (Aelius) and Dacian last names (Diales), showing the process of assimilation was quite strong. The latter phenomenon is shown by another, Aurelius Denzi. While it is true that only 100 of the names on inscriptions are Dacian (while 1920 are Roman) this number is of course affected in a pro-Roman sense due to the fact that the urban centers, where most of the writing happened, was dominated by Romans, and also shows a process of assimilation. Nevertheless, the presence of Dacian names shows that there were Dacians living under Rome's banner, and they were being assimilated.

Traditional dacian names, never been found archeo talking, on their original form.. you can find always: Decebalus, Diurpaneus or Scorilus.. roman variant of the names.. maybe because dacians simply avoided to use nationalistic names.. so avoidin the hanger of romans

Furthermore, consider the toponyms and even names of cities in Roman Dacia: Prolissium, Sarmizegetusa, Recidava, Sucidava, Peridava, Potaissa, Napoca, Cumidava, Dierna etc. these are not Roman names. The Romans weren't "wiping everything clean" and starting over. Also, remember that there were revolts in Dacia by the locals. How could they revolt if they were exterminated?

it's Colonia Ulpia Trainana Augusta Dacica Sarmizegetusa
and were founded above old Castrum Traiani.. also roman were not new to mix old school dacian town names, to their language.. the example is Colonia Ulpia Trainana Augusta Dacica Sarmizegetusa etc etc

[Romano-Dacis]

@Nikos: Roman training vs. Dacian fanaticism; it's a tough call. The Dacians were noted by many Roman authors to believe they were immortal and laughed when they died. Pomponius Mela even said ["paratissimi ad mortem Getae, utique", "the Getai are prepared for death above all"]. Julian the Apostate wrote "We have conquered even these Getai, the most warlike of all people that have ever existed, not only because of the strength in their bodies, but, also due to the teachings of Zalmoxis who is among their most hailed. He has told them that that in their hearts they do not die, but change their location and, due to this, they go to their deaths happier than on any other journey." BTW, this doesn't mean the Dacians were shirtless barbarians. Dio Chrisostom wrote "the Getai are the wisest of all the barbarians, and resemble the Greeks more."

@Davide: I don't see what we disagree with. Romans came into Dacia in huge numbers, most of them coming from the Balkans, and mixed with whoever remained after the Roman conquest.

Traditional dacian names, never been found archeo talking, on their original form.. you can find always: Decebalus, Diurpaneus or Scorilus.. roman variant of the names.. maybe because dacians simply avoided to use nationalistic names.. so avoidin the hanger of romans

If you're like me you see it as assimilation in action.

[Antigenes]

Why are you assuming Thukydides' description of the Getai as horse-archers (along the style of the Skythoi) is still valid in the 40s BC(E)?

Also, why are all of the options except possibly the second one massive hyperbole? How the devil was Burebista going to get to Anatolia?

[Romano-Dacis]

Also, why are all of the options except possibly the second one massive hyperbole? How the devil was Burebista going to get to Anatolia?

He was already at the Balkan mountains in 45BC. He could have reached Anatolia in the same way the Romans reached the Danube. However, I suppose it's a rather poorly designed poll. Just treat the options then as:
1. ROMAN TOTAL VICTORY
2. ROMAN PARTIAL VICTORY
3. DACIAN PARTIAL VICTORY
4. DACIAN TOTAL VICTORY