FROM THE GETAE (ABOUT 335 B.C.) TO THE CLOSE OF THE ROMAN DOMINATION IN
DACIA TRAJANA (ABOUT A.D. 274).
The Getae; their supposed origin and history--The Dacians; their
origin and migrations--Their incursions into the Roman
provinces--Their King, 'Decebalus'--His contests with Cornelius
Fuscus and Tertius Julianus--Legends regarding him--Domitian pays
him tribute--Trajan--His first expedition against the Dacians--His
supposed route--The engineering works of the Romans--Defeat and
submission of Decebalus--Trajan's triumphal return to Rome--The
bas-reliefs on Trajan's Column--Description of the first expedition
therefrom--Decebalus breaks the treaty--Trajan's second
expedition--Capture and suicide of Longinus--Defeats of the
Dacians--Arrival of the Romans before Sarmizegethusa and its
destruction by the Dacians--Suicide of Decebalus and his
chiefs--Dacia a Roman province--Approximate boundaries--Carra's
opinion of the colonists--Hadrian destroys Trajan's
bridge--Duration and decline of the Roman power in Dacia--The Goths
and Vandals defeat the Emperor Decius--They are beaten by Marcus
Aurelius Claudius (called Gothicus)--Permanent withdrawal from
Dacia by Aurelian--Conflicting opinions of historians regarding the
evacuation--Gibbon's views probably correct--Character of the
colonists who remained in Dacia.
I.
Although the earliest authentic records of Roumania or, more correctly
speaking, of Dacia, the Roman province which embraced Roumania,
Transylvania, and some adjoining territories of to-day, do not reach
further back than about the century immediately preceding the Christian
era, a good deal of information is to be gathered from the writings of
Herodotus, Dion Cassius, and other early historians regarding the
_Getae_, the race from whom the Dacians sprang. The Getae were in all
probability a branch of the Thracians, who were amongst the earliest
immigrants from the East; and for some time before they appeared in
Dacia, which was situated on the northern side of the Danube (or Ister,
as it was called by the Romans), they had settled between the south bank
of that river and the Balkans (Mount Haemus of the Romans). About the
fourth century B.C., however, the Getae had crossed the river,
either driven north by an inimical neighbouring tribe, the Triballi, or
in consequence of the growth of the nation itself. When they were first
encountered by the Greeks, they occupied the eastern part of Dacia,
reaching probably to one portion of the Black Sea; and some account of
them is given by Ovid, who was exiled to their vicinity, but little is
known of them until they came in contact with the Roman armies. The Getae
have little direct interest for us, but as we find associated with them
the names of Philip of Macedon, Alexander the Great, and Lysimachus, a
few words concerning their connection with those heroes may not be out
of place, and will at least serve to fix a period in the history of the
people. Whilst they were still seated on the southern side of the
Danube, they are said to have been the allies of Philip in his
expedition against the Scythians, and in his contest with the Triballi;
but Alexander the Great found them on the northern bank of the river
when he undertook the conquest of the Thracian tribes prior to his
expedition into Persia. He is said to have crossed the Danube at a place
not clearly defined (B.C. 335), and to have defeated about
10,000 foot and 4,000 horsemen. These took refuge with their families in
a wooden town, from which they were also dislodged, and fleeing to the
steppes they escaped from the victorious Greeks. Now it is that we find
the name Getae changed into that of Dacians,[77] and in the events which
followed during the reign of Lysimachus they are known by both
designations. After the death of Alexander the Great, Lysimachus
inherited Thrace, and subsequently acquired Macedonia and Asia Minor;
but in order to secure the first-named territory he found it necessary
to cope with barbarian tribes, who formed a coalition against him. These
he defeated; but inasmuch as the Getae or Dacians, under their king
(hellenised) Dromichaetes, had co-operated with the barbarians, he
undertook an expedition into their country north of the Danube shortly
afterwards. Penetrating to their barren plains, he sustained a defeat,
and was captured along with his whole army. According to certain Greek
writers he was treated with great magnanimity by the Dacian king; but
all are agreed that the latter only liberated him for a ransom of some
kind, either in money or territory. Paget thinks he secured a large
treasure, as many thousands of gold coins have been found, some of them
bearing the name of Lysimachus. 'I am in possession of some of these
coins,' he says, 'and though many were melted down by the Jews in
Wallachia, to whom they were conveyed across the frontier in loaves of
bread, they are still [1850] very common, and are frequently used by the
Transylvanians for signet rings and other ornaments.'[78]
From the time of Lysimachus until about that of Augustus Caesar we hear
little or nothing of the Getae or Dacians, and we will therefore pass on
to what may be called the Roman period.
[Footnote 77: Full accounts of the relations, or supposed relations,
between the Thracians, the Getae, and the Dacians will be found in Smith,
_Geog. Dict._, articles 'Dacia,' Geography; 'Thracia,' p. 325; 'Moesia,'
p. 677; and 'Dacia,' p. 679. In Dierauer (pp. 63-4 and note 1) and
Roesler (chap, i.) everything of interest from the Greek and Roman
historians is fully discussed, but the other German, French, and English
writers treat the matter with more or less brevity, in some instances
dismissing it in a few words.]
[Footnote 78: Vol. ii. pp. 105-106. The whole question is involved in
obscurity.]
II.
Some modern writers are of opinion that when the Romans first became
acquainted with the country north of the Danube, they found two allied
or germane tribes, the Getae in the eastern, and the Dacians in the
western part of the territory; but according to Dion Cassius the Romans
called all the inhabitants north of the Ister '_Dacians_,' no matter
whether they were Thracians, Getae, or Dacians, and the probability is
that the Getae had spread themselves gradually over the plains westward,
then acquired possession of the Carpathian mountains, and descended into
the plains of Transylvania.[79] Their fastnesses, called forts or
cities, were built of wood, and were situated in the mountains, and
there it was that their fiercest contests with the Roman arms took place
previous to their complete subjugation.
The first we hear of them is that under a powerful chief Burvista or
Boerebestes, they conquered their neighbours, the Boii, Jasyges, and
probably other tribes, at the eastern boundary of their territory,
driving them from their possessions, and from that time they appear as a
distinct nation constantly threatening the safety of the Roman provinces
in their vicinity. Julius Caesar, it is said, proposed to attack them
shortly before his death, as they made periodical inroads into the
Empire, more especially into Moesia, the country lying between the
Danube and the Balkan mountains, of which the Romans had secured the
possession. Every winter, as soon as the Danube was frozen over or
blocked with ice, they descended from their mountain fastnesses, crossed
the broad stream, and carried fire and sword into the Roman territory.
Before the latter people had time to gather their forces, their
barbarous enemy had retreated, and, the river being once more open, the
Dacians endeavoured to prevent the landing of the Roman troops, or,
failing that, they made good their retreat to the mountains, whither the
Romans feared to follow them. Nor were the Dacians by any means
despicable opponents. Although many of them fought bareheaded and
clothed in a light tunic, they were well acquainted with the use of
armour, and possessed standards, shields, helmets, breast-plates, and
even chain and plate mail, fighting with bows and arrows, spears,
javelins, and a short curved sword somewhat resembling a sickle.[80]
They fought on horseback as well as on foot, and it is said that they
sent showers of poisoned arrows into the ranks of their enemies. Of
their further proceedings in war as well as in peace we shall have
occasion to speak hereafter. About the year 10 B.C. the Emperor
Augustus sent one of his generals, Cn. Lentulus, to punish them for
having entered and devastated Pannonia under a chief Kotiso, but the
expedition was ineffectual, and for a long series of years they
continued to harass the Empire, often threatening to overrun whole
provinces. One such enterprise is mentioned by Tacitus:--
'Commotions about the same time broke out amongst the Dacians, a
people never to be relied on, and since the legions were withdrawn
from Moesia there was no force to awe them. They, however, watched
in silence the first movements of affairs. But when they heard that
Italy was in a blaze of war, and that all the inhabitants were in
arms against each other, they stormed the winter quarters of the
cohorts and the cavalry, and made themselves masters of both banks
of the Danube. They then prepared to raze the camp of the legions,
when Mucianus sent the sixth legion to check them, having heard of
the victory at Cremona, and lest a formidable foreign force should
invade Italy on both sides, the Dacians and the Germans making
irruptions in opposite quarters. On this, as on many other
occasions, fortune favoured the Romans in bringing Mucianus and the
forces of the East into that quarter, and also in that we had
settled matters at Cremona in the very nick of time.'[81]
It was in the reign of the Emperor Domitian, however, that the inroads
of the Dacians assumed their most formidable proportions. About this
time it is probable that the Dacians were divided into several tribes,
and that one leader more powerful than the rest had secured the
chieftainship of the whole nation. Thia chief is known to historians as
'Decebalus,' although there is great difference of opinion as to whether
that was his name or his title.[82] In the year 86 A.D., he
gathered together a great host, and, crossing the Danube into Moesia,
defeated and killed the praetor Oppius or Appius Sabinus, seizing several
of the Roman fortresses and driving their army to the foot of Mount
Haemus. As soon as the defeat and the position of the Roman forces became
known, Domitian collected an army in Illyria and placed it under the
command of Cornelius Fuscus, a general of more bravery than experience,
who entered Moesia, and, finding that Decebalus, according to precedent,
had retired across the Danube, followed him into his own country, only,
however, in his turn to be defeated and slain. Upon this the Romans
again recrossed the river, leaving behind them their baggage and many
prisoners. Tacitus writes in great indignation concerning these
reverses:--
'So many armies in Moesia, Dacia, Germany, and Pannonia, lost
through the temerity or cowardice of their generals; so many men of
military character with numerous cohorts defeated and taken
prisoners; whilst a dubious contest was maintained, not for the
boundaries of the Empire and the banks of the bordering rivers, but
for the winter quarters of the legions and the possession of our
territories.'[83]
Whilst these events were occurring, Domitian is said to have been making
progresses and indulging in all kinds of excesses, but; fortunately for
him and for the honour of the Roman arms, another general succeeded in
stemming the tide of invasion, and eventually (A.D. 89) in
assuming the offensive. This was Tertius Julianus, who had already
distinguished himself in Moesia under Otho and Vespasian. Following
Decebalus into his own dominions, he was not content to remain in the
plains, but pursued him into his mountain retreats, where he completely
overthrew him in a pitched battle and compelled him to sue for peace. It
is in the accounts of this expedition that mention is first made of
regular roads in Dacia, and two passes, the Vulcan and Rothenthurm (or
Red Tower), are referred to. A place called Tapae is also named, near to
which Julianus is said to have overthrown Decebalus, and where
subsequently Trajan obtained a victory over the same prince; but so much
doubt attaches to the movements of Julianus that it will be better for
the present to defer any reference to those localities. The whole
account of Julianus's campaign in Dacia is mixed up with legendary
tradition. It is said that he threatened the capital of Dacia,
Sarmizegethusa, and that he would have succeeded in capturing it and in
reducing the whole country but for a stratagem of Decebalus, who caused
trees to be cut down to a man's height in the woods through which the
Romans had to pass, and clothed them in armour, which so terrified the
soldiers as to stay their progress. According to another account he cut
the trees through their trunks but allowed them to stand, and when the
Romans attempted to force their way through with their engines of war,
the trees fell on them and killed them. Whether it was the difficulty
encountered by the Roman general in attempting to cope with his warlike
enemy in his mountains and forests, where the arts of war as practised
by the former were not so readily applicable as in the plains, or the
more probable circumstance that Domitian had been unsuccessful in an
expedition against two other tribes, the Quadi and Marcomanni, and
needed the support of Julianus, certain it is that the overtures of
Decebalus were at length received favourably, and a peace was concluded
with him in the year 90, which was less favourable to the victors than
to the conquered. Decebalus refused to treat in person with the Roman
general, but sent one of his chiefs (some historians say his brother),
with whom the conditions were arranged. According to Roman accounts
Decebalus restored the Roman prisoners, acknowledged the supremacy of
Domitian, and accepted sovereignty at his hands. It subsequently
transpired, however, that this was not the whole treaty, and that
Domitian agreed to pay the Dacian king an annual tribute, and to send
him a number of skilled artificers to teach him the art of constructing
works and fabricating arms upon the Roman model. Domitian then
celebrated a triumph, which was however made a subject of ridicule by
those who were aware of the actual result of the expedition.
We now approach a crisis in the history of Dacia. During the short reign
of Nerva nothing was undertaken against the country, and Decebalus
continued to harass and annoy the Romans in Moesia until Trajan (who had
been adopted by Nerva) ascended the throne (A.D. 98).
This emperor at once began preparations for putting an end to his
humiliating relations with Decebalus and his people, and although there
have been many conjectures concerning his motives and intentions, there
can be little doubt that his object was eventually, if not immediately,
to incorporate Dacia with his empire. Already in the reign of some of
his predecessors the construction of a military road along the right or
south bank of the Danube had been proceeding, and the first operation of
Trajan was to hasten the completion of this road for the passage of his
troops.[84] With this object he is said to have reconnoitred in 98 and
99, and the road probably attained completion as far as the bank
opposite Orsova, about A.D. 100, as the tablet at Gradina, to
which reference has already been made, indicates. It is impossible for
us to estimate the difficulties which must have attended this
undertaking. Possessing as we do explosives and rock-borers with which
to break a passage through mountains and to blast rocky embankments, we
can hardly understand how a people, with such limited mechanical
appliances as then existed, can have surmounted the obstacles that
presented themselves to their progress. In one place the way was a plank
road resting on beams, which were driven into the perpendicular face of
the solid rock a few feet above the water's edge, whilst a little
further on it is seen to wind along terraces cut artificially, high up
on the hillsides. Hundreds if not thousands of lives must have been
sacrificed in the work, for it must be remembered that the Roman
generals and artificers had not only to combat natural difficulties, and
to overcome the same obstacles as those which our modern engineers have
to face, but that they were harassed by the savage but skilled enemy
from the heights above, or from the opposite bank of the river, which
here and there narrows itself into defiles 150 or 200 yards wide.
As soon as the road was sufficiently advanced for the passage of his
army, A.D. 101, Trajan commenced his first expedition into
Dacia. The constitution and number of his forces are not accurately
known.[85] They varied, according to different accounts, from 60,000 to
80,000 Romans, with a considerable number of allies, Germans,
Sarmatians, Mauritanian cavalry, &c., the last-named under Lucius
Quietus; and these Trajan is said to have assembled at a place somewhere
south of Viminacium, which subsequently served as the base of his
operations.[86]
Pages upon pages have been devoted by ancient and modern historians to
surmises concerning the routes taken by Trajan in his expedition and the
localities where his encounters with the Dacians took place, but in
every case the ascertained facts have been few in number. The best
history of the campaigns is delineated in the bas-reliefs on Trajan's
Column[87] at Rome, and many details have been collected from
fragmentary writings of Dion Cassius and other old historians.
For the convenience of crossing the Danube the army was divided into two
parts, and the river was crossed by bridges of boats at two points, one
near Viminacium and the other opposite Orsova. The first section then
skirted the western slopes of the Carpathians through the valley of the
Theiss, and so entered the Dacian highlands; the other marched up the
valley of the Tierna (Czerna), past the baths of Mehadia, which already
existed in the Roman period, and the two divisions of the army formed a
junction at Karansebes,[88] or at Tibiscum close by, where two Roman
roads met; Trajan is known to have accompanied and led the eastern
division until the junction was completed. It is probable that in that
year (101 A.D.) no serious encounter took place between Trajan
and Decebalus, who had been occupied for some time in preparing for his
defence, and had now received reinforcements from many of the
neighbouring tribes. One of these in the name of the allied tribes sent
a threatening message to Trajan, written or scratched upon a fungus,
warning him to withdraw his troops, but he heeded neither this
admonition nor overtures of peace proceeding from Decebalus himself. His
army went into winter quarters, and early in 102 A.D. he
commenced operations by forcing the Iron Gate pass in the
Carpathians,[89] and encountered the enemy, it is said, at the same
place where Julianus had previously defeated Decebalus, namely,
Tapae.[90] Here the Dacians again met with a sanguinary defeat, but the
Romans also sustained severe losses, and Trajan secured himself in the
affections of his soldiers by tearing up his garments to make bandages
for the wounded.[91] After this reverse Decebalus sought to reopen
negotiations with Trajan, but on his refusal to receive the emissaries
of the emperor, who declined to meet him in person, hostilities were
renewed, and the war was prosecuted by the Dacians with great fierceness
and barbarity. The discipline and warlike resources of Rome, however,
maintained the ascendency for her arms. Decebalus was pressed from
stronghold to stronghold, and defeated in one encounter after another,
until at length his capital Sarmizegethusa was threatened by his
triumphant enemy. Then it was that he sued earnestly for peace, and
accepted the unfavourable conditions offered him by Trajan. He was
compelled to give up all his war material and artificers, to raze his
fortresses, to deliver up all Roman prisoners and deserters, to conclude
a treaty defensive and offensive with Rome, and to appear before and do
homage to the emperor. Dacia thus became a vassal but autonomous
province of the Empire, and, content with his victory, Trajan returned
to the capital, taking with him certain Dacian chiefs, who repeated the
act of homage in the senate. He then celebrated a triumph, and received
the distinctive title of 'Dacicus.'[92]
[Illustration: TRAJAN ADDRESSING HIS ARMY.]
As we have already stated, the story of Trajan's expeditions into Dacia
is recorded in the bas-reliefs of the column bearing his name and still
existing in Rome. These bas-reliefs have been subject to various
readings and interpretations, but we have so far avoided referring to
them under the impression that they can only be taken in a general sense
to represent the exploits of Trajan, and that any attempt to extract
from them the names of localities is at best a hazardous experiment.
With these reservations, however, it is safe to say that they vividly
represent incidents of the campaign and bring us face to face with the
warlike character and customs of the contending nations. The progress of
the expedition, as shown on the column, is divided into sections, placed
one above another, and separated by stems of trees which coil round the
column; in the first of these sections we see the passage of the army
across the Danube over two bridges of boats. The Roman soldiers are
chiefly bareheaded, carrying their shields and helmets, and many bearing
standards with eagles, images of the gods, and other devices. Some of
the objects carried are supposed to be lanterns, from which it is
inferred that the passage took place at night. In advance are the
trumpeters bearing long curved horns, and the led horses of Trajan and
his generals. The last-named have already crossed the river, and Trajan
is seated on a platform surrounded by his officers, haranguing his men.
Next we find ourselves in the enemy's country, although there are no
signs as yet of the Dacians, and the two succeeding sections of the
column are occupied by the progress of the Roman arms. The soldiers are
felling timber, removing obstructions, and building forts and bridges,
over all of which operations Trajan is seen to preside in person. In the
fourth division the Dacians appear, suing for peace; the emissaries are
clad in long robes, and Trajan meets them outside a fort. Then follow
further incidents in the campaign; encounters take place between the
opposing forces, in which the Dacians are defeated and their dead lie
scattered on the ground. They are then seen retreating with their women
and children, devastating the country and slaying their cattle which are
heaped up in piles. Trajan is again present, sparing the old men, women,
and children, and making prisoners. Now the Dacians are the attacking
party, and the Romans defend themselves behind forts; and then again the
army is in motion with Trajan at its head, crossing rivers, and erecting
fortifications. In the next section the Dacians have made a stand, and
the scene represents a pitched battle in which they are again defeated
with great slaughter. All the incidents of the fight are vividly
depicted: Romans fighting from their chariots, Dacians and their allies
mounted and on foot, prisoners brought in, and a man, apparently a spy,
bound before Trajan himself. Then follows a further advance, which
occupies some of the succeeding scenes of the panorama. Here the Romans
fall into an ambuscade, from which they extricate themselves; there
they pass a post of danger, apparently a wooden stronghold of the
Dacians, under cover of a wall of shields held aloft by the soldiers;
and at length they arrive before a fortified town, where Trajan is again
seen seated upon a platform, surrounded by his generals, whilst the
Dacians, one of whom is supposed to be Decebalus himself, kneel round
about, suing for peace. In this scene the attire, emblems, and
accoutrements of the two contending nations are presented in marked
contrast. The Roman standards and eagles have already been mentioned;
those of the Dacians generally represent serpentine monsters at the end
of a long pole.[93] Whilst the Romans carry their tall, curved, oblong
shield, the oval ones of the Dacians ornamented with floral devices lie
heaped in confusion. Most of the Dacians are bareheaded, but some,
supposed to be chiefs, wear a head-dress resembling a cap of liberty.
Another section completes the panorama of the first expedition,
representing the embarkation and landing of Trajan; the sacrifices,
triumph, and rejoicings in the capital.
But Decebalus had no more intention of abiding by the terms of his
treaty with the Roman emperor than had Trajan with that of his
predecessor. The Dacian king had no sooner seen his enemy's back than he
repaired his fortresses, armed his people afresh, sought new alliances
with his neighbours, and commenced depredations upon the territories of
Rome and her allies. Then it was that Trajan prepared to chastise the
barbarians, and this time he determined to crush the Dacian power
completely, and to annex the conquered country as a Roman province.
Although he is said to have been in Moesia in A.D. 104, the actual
movements against Dacia only commenced the following year, and in this
as in the preceding expedition the routes pursued by the Roman army have
not been clearly defined. The bridge across the Danube from Gladowa to
Turnu-Severin was most likely completed, and part, if not the whole, of
Trajan's army crossed there. Those writers who believe that in the first
expedition a portion of the forces entered from Pannonia, say that,
knowing the geography of the country better, Trajan now sent a division
up the valley of the Theiss, crossing the Danube at Viminacium; whilst
there is little doubt that a portion of the army continued the march
eastward along the Moesian bank of the Danube, crossed at a station
opposite the mouth of the Alutus (now Oltu), landed near the modern
Celeiu, and, crossing the plain, entered the mountain fastnesses through
the Rothenthurm pass.[94]
By whatever routes Trajan's army invaded the dominions of the doomed
king, it is known that his advance was prompt and successful, and that
this time the fame of the Roman arms prevented Decebalus from securing
many allies. He once more sued for peace; but Trajan's terms being a
virtual relinquishment of his independence, he prepared himself for a
supreme and desperate effort for the defence of his kingdom. At first it
is said that he attempted to remove Trajan by assassination, but that
his emissaries were detected and put to death. Another expedient seems
to have been temporarily successful. He managed to decoy into his power
Longinus, a Roman general, said to have been a great favourite of
Trajan, and, holding him as a hostage, Decebalus demanded extravagant
terms of peace. To this proposal Trajan gave an evasive reply, in order,
if possible, to save the life of his officer. The last-named, however,
with true Roman patriotism, had a message conveyed to Trajan by his
freedman, advising him to proceed with his operations, and at the same
time he himself took a dose of poison in order to relieve his master
from further perplexity on his account. Decebalus then offered to give
up the body of the Roman general and certain other captives in return
for the escaped freedman, but Trajan returned no answer to his proposal.
Very little is known of the incidents of this campaign, excepting that
Trajan forced the passes of the Carpathians, and, taking one defended
post after another, drove the enemy into the vicinity of his capital;
that the tribes who had allied themselves with the Dacians, amongst whom
the Sarmatians, Jasyges, and Burri are named, deserted them one by one,
and that the Romans at length laid siege to Sarmizegethusa, where
Decebalus had taken refuge. After a brave but ineffectual defence the
king, rather than yield himself a prisoner, committed suicide with his
sword; whilst his followers, after setting fire to the town, imitated
the example of their leader by taking poison. The head of Decebalus was
cut off and sent to Rome by Trajan, who discovered and divided amongst
his soldiers vast spoils and treasures which the Dacians had endeavoured
to conceal, and then returned to Rome, where (A.D. 106) a
triumph was celebrated on even a grander scale than after the conclusion
of his first expedition.[95]
[Illustration: DACIANS SETTING FIRE TO THEIR CAPITAL. (FROM TRAJAN'S
COLUMN.)]
Before drawing to a close this hasty survey of the rise and fall of the
Dacian monarchy, let us turn again for a moment to the bas-reliefs upon
Trajan's Column, the indelible and, after all, the most trustworthy
record of his second expedition.[96] Passing hastily over the first
scenes, which comprise tho landing of his troops, the assault and
capture of a fortified place, the defeat of the Dacians, and what
appears to be a refusal on the part of Trajan to grant them peace, we
have a very faithful and circumstantial picture of a halt, where the
emperor is present at the offering of a bull as sacrifice. Then there is
a continuance of the march inland, followed by fierce contests between
the two armies. At length the Romans arrive before a walled city
(probably Sarmizegethusa) where all the incidents of a siege, including
personal adventures, are portrayed. A Roman soldier, standing at the top
of a scaling ladder, has struck off the head of one of the Dacians on
the wall, whilst the latter are seen hurling stones and other missiles
at those engaged in the assault. Then comes another application for
peace, a Dacian prince kneeling at the feet of Trajan; whilst in the
same section, separated only by a couple of thin trees, we have the
scene of the Dacians setting fire to their city, and in close contiguity
is their dying leader. The remaining scenes depict the Roman soldiers
dividing the spoil. Trajan is addressing them, distributing rewards, and
bidding them adieu. Then follow secondary incidents; the building of
fortresses by the Romans; one or two more contests in which Trajan's
generals defeat the Dacians, driving them into the mountains, whither
they are seen fleeing with their flocks, women, and children. One of the
last scenes represents the second triumph of Trajan, with soldiers who
arrive bearing the head of Decebalus. Some of the minor incidents in the
panorama are intended to exhibit the barbarity of the Dacians, one being
the exhibition of a row of heads stuck upon spears on the walls of a
town or fortress; another the burning and torturing of naked Roman
prisoners by Dacian women. Altogether these bas-reliefs, which are said
to be the work of several artists, present anything but an edifying
spectacle of the ancient mode of warfare.
[Footnote 79: Dion Cassius (Cocceianus), the Roman historian, was born
155 A.D. at Nicaea in Bithynia, where he also probably died in
retirement after a long and eventful political life; the date of his
death is unknown. He was governor of Pannonia under Severus, and had
opportunities of learning about Trajan's expeditions into Dacia. He
wrote a history of Rome, including one of Trajan, but of the latter
there is only an abridgment by Xiphilinus made in the eleventh century;
our extracts are from the French version referred to in the Appendix.]
[Footnote 80: See initial letter, and vignette at the end of this
chapter.]
[Footnote 81: Bohn's _Tacitus_, vol. ii. p. 164. This occurred 70
A.D. under Vespasian. Moesia had been formally constituted a
Roman province 9 A.D. (or 2 B.C., Merivale).]
[Footnote 82: According to Merivale, vol. vii. p. 103 note (Longmans,
1862), it was a title: 'interpreted by some writers "The Strength of the
Dacians," by others "Dakhi-Valhus," the Scythian for the Day Falcon.'
Smith (_Biography_, article 'Decebalus') says it was probably a title of
honour amongst the Dacians equivalent to chief or king, since we find
that it was borne by more than one of their rulers, and that the
individual best known to history as the Decebalus of Dion Cassius is
named Diurpanus by Orosius, and Dorphaneus by Jornandes. Roesler and
Dierauer expend a large amount of research and learning upon the name.
The former (p. 35) believes that 'the Dierpaneus of Jordanes' is a king
Duras from whom Decebalus received his crown, and he leaves the question
an open one. Dierauer says (p. 67) that Decebalus was his name, and
quotes an inscription in which he is spoken of as 'Regem Decebalum.']
[Footnote 83: Bohn's _Agricola_, p. 382.]
[Footnote 84: See historical map.]
[Footnote 85: The fullest account of the probable number and
constitution of his army, his generals, &c., is to be found in Dierauer,
pp. 76 _et seq._ and the numerous notes appended.]
[Footnote 86: See map.]
[Footnote 87: Erected after the final subjugation of Dacia, probably
upon the designs of Apollodorus, who also designed the bridge across the
Danube.]
[Footnote 88: This is by no means the unanimous view as to the course
which was taken by the army, although most are agreed that it was
divided into two sections.]
[Footnote 89: This must not be confounded with the Iron Gates (sunken
rocks) in the Danube. The reader will find all the leading places
referred to in our historical map.]
[Footnote 90: Nothing certain is known as to the position of Tapae. By
some writers it is said to be identical with Crossfeldt near Thorda; but
this hardly agrees with the account of the operations against Decebalus
after his first defeat.]
[Footnote 91: Dion Cassius, lxviii. 8.]
[Footnote 92: Dion Cassius, lxviii. 9.]
[Footnote 93: See vignette at the end of this chapter.]
[Footnote 94: All these places, along with the lines indicating existing
remains of Roman roads, will be found on our map.]
[Footnote 95: Full details of games, gladiatorial fights, coins struck,
&c., in Dierauer, pp. 105 _et seq._]
[Footnote 96: Those of our readers who desire to follow these
superficial outlines of the story, as represented on the column, will do
well to inspect the beautiful line engravings of Piranese, without
however accepting his interpretations as conclusive.]
III.
Whatever uncertainty attaches to the details of Trajan's expeditions,
there is none as to their ultimate result, nor concerning the chief
operations of the conqueror and his successors in the newly-acquired
territory, which was formally annexed as a province of the Empire. Some
historians have attempted to define with great minuteness the boundaries
of the new province, but more cautious writers content themselves with
naming approximate limits; and these have done wisely, as there is no
doubt that the movements of the neighbouring tribes and even of the
conquered Dacians (for it is a mistake to suppose, as some do, that they
went out of existence) prevented any strict line of demarcation. The
nominal boundaries of Roman Dacia were the river Theiss on the west, the
Pruth on the east, 'barbarians' on the north, and the river Danube on
the south. The country actually colonised embraced the Banate of
Temesvar, Transylvania (Siebenbuergen), and Roumania as they exist
to-day. There were several centres of colonisation, of which the chief
was Ulpia Trajana, including the old capital of Decebalus,
Sarmizegethusa (now Varhely), and other important centres were Apulum
and Cerna or Tierna.[97]
Trajan and his successors built fortifications, walls, and towns; and,
attracted partly by the fertility of the plains and partly by the gold
mines of the Carpathians, the Roman colonies soon swelled in numbers
and importance.[98] Different opinions have been expressed concerning
the character of these colonists. One modern writer, Carra, who is
considered an authority in Roumanian history, says that the Romans
regarded Dacia as the French, Cayenne, and sent thither a colony
consisting of the scum of the principal towns of Greece and the Roman
Empire. Their descendants, he adds, who inherited their vices and
cowardice, were turn by turn conquered and enslaved by the Sarmatians,
Huns, and Tartars.[99] This is a statement which rather affects the
feelings of modern Roumanians than the current of historical events, and
it brings us face to face with an enquiry which we shall have to handle
with great circumspection, namely, the descent of the modern Roumanians
from the old Daco-Roman colonists, lest we find ourselves involved in a
controversy that would fill volumes. So far as the records of Roman
history enable us to judge, Carra has done great injustice to the
colonists of Dacia. It is true that the Romans banished some of their
malefactors, and especially political offenders, to their colonies, as
Ovid was expatriated; and that Trajan colonised Dacia from various parts
of the Empire; but the custom of the Roman generals, which Trajan would
doubtless have followed, was to divide the most fertile districts
amongst their veteran soldiers,[100] and therefore, if the charges of
cowardice and debauchery made by Carra were true, they would apply to
the bravest in the legions who had conquered the almost indomitable
Decebalus. But Carra lived and wrote at a time (A.D. 1777) when
cool judgment could hardly be expected in a writer on Roumania, and if
he were alive to-day he would be surprised to hear that there is a
school of modern historians who, using his very authorities, deny that
the descendants of the Daco-Roman colonists were ever to be found on
Dacian ground during the incursions of the eastern barbarians. But of
that more hereafter.[101]
The history of the Roman occupation of Dacia, which lasted from the time
of Trajan until it was evacuated by Aurelian,[102] affords little to
interest the reader. Dacia was, so to speak, the outwork of the Empire
which served to hold the barbarians at bay during its 'decline and
fall;' and the country was more prosperous than during the period of its
independence, when the tribes were constantly at war with one another
and there was no settled government. That the attitude of the barbarians
was threatening even a few years after the death of Trajan is, however,
more than probable, for his immediate successor, Hadrian, contemplated
withdrawing his legions, and destroyed the bridge across the Danube, 118
or 120 A.D. Some writers, indeed, attribute this act to his
jealousy of Trajan, others to his hatred of Apollodorus, the architect;
but most probably the cause assigned by Dion Cassius, that it was to
prevent its being used by the barbarians for making inroads into Moesia,
was the true one.[103] During the reigns of Antoninus Pius and Marcus
Aurelius for about half a century, the barbarians were kept in check,
although even during that period they had managed to encroach upon the
Roman territory.
At the beginning of the third century, however, the Roman hold on Dacia
began to be very precarious, and we approach the time when the dark veil
of the so-called barbarian ages is drawn over the history of Europe.
That the Roman emperors had to contend, with very varying fortunes, with
barbarous tribes is certain, and that their arms were still frequently
successful is proved by the erection of fortresses and towns, named
after their emperors, on the borders of their possessions. For example,
Caracalla defeated certain barbarous hordes about A.D. 212, and
assumed the name of 'Geticus,' but whether the conquered tribes were
Dacians or Goths is uncertain.
A few years later the Quadi and Marcomanni made inroads into Western
Dacia, but they were held in check by the proconsul Varus, who built a
tower or fort in close proximity to Trajan's bridge, of which the ruins
are still visible to travellers on the Danube, and which has given its
name to the modern town of Turnu-Severin. But the Goths, a people of
Scandinavian origin, had been for some time previously drawing nearer to
the borders of the Roman Empire. Between the beginning of our era and
the end of the second century they had spread themselves, associated
with the Vandals, in the direction of the Carpathians and the Ukraine,
and in the reign of the Emperor Philip (243-249) they made irruptions
into Moesia. In that of Decius they invaded the Roman territory a second
time under a chief, Cniva, and, after defeating the Romans and
compelling the emperor to flee, they took and sacked Philippopolis.
Shortly afterwards Decius met them again, but he was again defeated and
slain. The barbarians then retired with their plunder.
The next event of importance was the defeat of the Goths (about 268 or
269[104]) by Marcus Aurelius Claudius. They had once more entered Roman
territory, had overrun Moesia and Illyria, and were approaching the
capital; it was therefore found necessary to raise a powerful army and
drive them over the frontier. This time they were defeated with great
slaughter at Naissos in the Balkans and elsewhere, and were then driven
across the Danube. Marcus Aurelius, who took the name of 'Gothicus,'
describes the fate of the enemy in these terms: 'We have annihilated
320,000 Goths, and have sunk two thousand of their ships. Everywhere
rivers are covered with their shields, all the banks with their swords
and spears, whilst the fields are sown with their bones. The roads are
indistinguishable; much baggage is taken. We have captured so many women
that every soldier is able to possess two or three of them.'[105] And
yet, notwithstanding this decisive victory of Marcus Aurelius, his
successor Aurelian found himself very shortly afterwards in deadly
conflict with these same Goths, and his contests were so doubtful in
their results that he was glad to make a treaty of peace with them and
leave them in undisturbed possession of Trajan's Dacia. That he decided
to withdraw the Roman legions (about 270 or 275 A.D.) from
Dacian territory, that he offered protection to all colonists who were
prepared to follow them across the Danube, and that a new colony, called
Dacia Aureliani, was founded along the south bank of the Danube: these
are uncontradicted facts. But when we come to enquire into the details
of the withdrawal and the composition of the remaining population, we
find such a conflict of authorities that it is impossible to come to a
definite conclusion. Nay, not only do the historians differ from one
another in regard to the conditions under which Aurelian evacuated Dacia
Trajana, or Dacia north of the Danube, but in some cases they even
contradict themselves, and, after a careful perusal and comparison of
the statements of many of them, we are quite disposed to accept the
opinion expressed by our own historian Gibbon, who, after saying that
Aurelian withdrew the Roman legions from Dacia and offered the
alternative of leaving to those colonists who were disposed to follow
him, adds:--
'The old country of that name (Dacia) detained, however, a
considerable number of its inhabitants who dreaded exile more than
a Gothic master. These degenerate Romana continued to serve the
Empire whose allegiance they had renounced by introducing amongst
their conquerors the first notions of agriculture, the useful arts,
and the convenience of civilisation. An intercourse of commerce and
language was gradually established between the opposite banks of
the Danube, and after Dacia became an independent State it often
proved the firmest barrier of the Empire against the invasions of
the savages of the north. A sense of interest attached these more
settled barbarians to the alliance of Rome, and a permanent
interest very frequently ripens into sincere and useful
friendship.'[106]
And Gibbon, who had read and studied the works of Eutropius and his
successor Vopiscus, as well as other more recent historians, gives us
further details of the negotiations that took place between Aurelian and
the Goths, which remove any doubts as to the accuracy of his views.
Aurelian treated with the barbarians after a battle had been fought
which was by no means adverse to the Roman arms, and he stipulated with
the Goths that they should contribute an auxiliary force of 2,000 men to
the Roman army. He moreover secured a large number of hostages, being
the sons and daughters of Gothic chiefs, whom he sent to Rome to be
educated. He adds, concerning the constitution of the province north of
the Danube: 'This various colony which filled the ancient province, and
was insensibly blended into one great nation, still acknowledged the
superior renown and authority of the Gothic tribe, and claimed the
fancied honour of Scandinavian origin.'[107]
But this is not all. The great historian, whose views can only be
rejected on what we may call a political or partisan theory, believed
the Roman colonists to have been industrious agriculturists; for when he
speaks, in another place, of the temptations which led the wandering
Goths in the first instance to cast longing eyes upon Dacia, he says:
'But the prospects of the Roman territory were far more alluring, and
the fields of Dacia were covered with a rich harvest, sown by the hands
of an _industrious_, and exposed to be gathered by a warlike
people.'[108]
In bringing the history of the Roman occupation of Dacia to a close, we
have therefore to acknowledge that, far from being inhabited by the scum
of the earth as Carra supposed, the country was at first in the hands of
an industrious, though probably a sparse peasantry, and, as Gibbon has
said, 'only those who had nothing to lose accompanied the Roman army,'
leaving the remainder, a large body of industrious Daco-Roman
agriculturists, ruled over by a tribe of warlike barbarians. What these
and their posterity suffered, will be seen from the narrative in our
next chapter.
[Illustration: DACIAN TROPHIES. (FROM TRAJAN'S COLUMN.)]
[Footnote 97: According to certain writers, Transylvania was _Dacia
mediterranca_; the Banate, _D. ripensis_; and Roumania, _D.
transalpina_; but Smith (_Geography_, 'Dacia') gives those names to
divisions of Moesia after the withdrawal of the Romans from Dacia; and
later historians mate no reference to the divisions. Dicrauer (p. 103)
only refers to one or two leading colonies, and Roesler (p. 45) says
that Trajan did not subdivide his conquest at all, but that under
Antoninus Pius (168 A.D.) there existed three non-political
divisions: _D. Apulensis_, _D. Porolissensis_, and _D. malvensis._
Gibbon (chap. i. pp. 7 and 8) gives what he calls 'the natural
boundaries,' and says the province was about 1,300 miles in
circumference.]
[Footnote 98: Neigebaur (p. 43) gives a list of twenty-eight towns known
(and many doubtful ones) in Trajan's Dacia, built during the Roman
occupation. Of these the ruins of some still remain, and on the site of
others modern towns have been built, whose names vary but little from
the Roman appellations, _e.g._ Zernes, now Cernetz; Caracalla, Karakal;
Castra Severum, Turnu Severunul (where there is an old Roman tower);
Ardeiscus, Ardeish or Ardges; Pallada, Berlad; Kallatia, Galatz; Thermae
ad Medias, Mehadia.]
[Footnote 99: Carra, p. 3.]
[Footnote 100: As in the case of Britain; see Smith, _Geography_,
article 'Colonia.']
[Footnote 101: Carra takes his account from Eutropius, who says (Book
VIII. cap. 6): 'Trajan, when he conquered Dacia, transferred thither
from all parts of the Roman Empire considerable numbers of men to till
the fields and live in the towns. For by its long war under Decebalus
Dacia had been exhausted of its men.' he says nothing of the 'scum of
the towns.' But in Book IX. cap. 15, Eutropius, in speaking of the Roman
withdrawal from Dacia under Aurelian, says: 'He took the Romans away
from the cities and fields of Dacia, and planted them in the middle of
Moesia.']
[Footnote 102: Smith (Dacia) says it was evacuated between 270 and 275
A.D. Neigebaur and other German as well as French writers name
years between these two, the edict of Aurelian being dated, it is said,
274 A.D.; whilst Roesler (pp. 60-51) believes that the actual
withdrawal of the Roman army did not take place until 280 A.D.]
[Footnote 103: lxviii. 13. He says (after describing the bridge in
glowing terms): 'Trajan, fearing lest, when the Ister was frozen, the
Romans on the farther bank should be attacked, built it in order to
afford an easy passage for the troops; Adrian, on the other hand,
apprehensive that the barbarians, after having overcome those who
guarded it, would find it an easy means of penetrating into Moesia,
demolished the upper portion of it.']
[Footnote 104: Freeman (_General Sketch of European History_) says
269-270 A.D.]
[Footnote 105: Trebellius Pollio. Gibbon sets down the number of Goths
slain at 50,000.]
[Footnote 106: Vol. ii. p. 17. The other writers here referred to are
Pic, Roesler, Paget, Petermann, &c.]
[Footnote 107: Ibid.]
[Footnote 108: Vol. i. p. 330.]