Goths and Dacia

[barca]

I believe it was in the 3rd century under the reign of Aurelian that the Romans allowed the Goths to remain in Dacia. They must have encountered a large Romanio-Dacian population that may have inluenced them in many ways. We all know that present-day Romania still has a language closely related to latin.

 

What is known of the relationship between the Goths and the local population during this time period? Later in the 4th century the Romans allowed the Goths to cross the Danube to escape the Huns, but what happened to the local Romano-Dacians?

[sylla]

I believe it was in the 3rd century under the reign of Aurelian that the Romans allowed the Goths to remain in Dacia. They must have encountered a large Romanio-Dacian population that may have inluenced them in many ways. We all know that present-day Romania still has a language closely related to latin.

 

What is known of the relationship between the Goths and the local population during this time period? Later in the 4th century the Romans allowed the Goths to cross the Danube to escape the Huns, but what happened to the local Romano-Dacians?

Please don't let the verb "allow" confound you; it was not as if the Romans had any other option then or whenever they "allowed" any Barbarians to take any Roman territory.

[barca]

Please don't let the verb "allow" confound you; it was not as if the Romans had any other option then or whenever they "allowed" any Barbarians to take any Roman territory.

 

Regardless of their intent. The Romans army withdrew and never reconquered Dacia. Not even with Diocletian's reforms.

They were either unable or unwilling to undertake the reconquest.

 

The main point of my post is to find out what was going on in Dacia during that time interval. How Romanized were the Goths? What legacy, if any, did the Goths leave behind when they crossed the danube in the 4th century?

[sylla]

The main point of my post is to find out what was going on in Dacia during that time interval. How Romanized were the Goths? What legacy, if any, did the Goths leave behind when they crossed the danube in the 4th century?

Usus autem sum, ne in aliquo fallam carissimam mihi familiaritatem tuam, praecipue libris ex bibliotheca Ulpia, aetate mea thermis Diocletianis, et item ex domo Tiberiana, usus etiam [ex] regestis scribarum porticus porphyreticae, actis etiam senatus ac populi. 2 et quoniam me ad colligenda talis viri gesta ephemeris Turduli Gallicani plurimum invit, viri honestissimi ac sincerissimi, beneficium amici senis tacere non debui. 3 Cn. Pompeium, tribus fulgentem triumphis belli piratici, belli Sertoriani, belli Mithridatici multarumque rerum gestarum maiestate sublimem, quis tandem nosset, nisi eum Marcus Tullius et Titus Livius in litteras rettulissent? 4 Publ<i>um Scipionem Afric<an>um, immo Scipiones omnes, seu Lucios seu Nasicas, nonne tenebrae possiderent ac tegerent, nisi commendatores eorum historici nobiles atque ignobiles extitissent? 5 longum est omnia persequi, quae ad exemplum huiusce modi etiam nobis tacentibus usurpanda sunt. 6 illud tantum contestatum volo me et rem scripsisse, quam, si quis voluerit, honestius eloquio celsiore demonstret, et mihi quidem id animi fuit, 6 <ut> non Sallustios, Livios, Tacito<s>, Trogos atque omnes disertissimos imitarer viros in vita principum et temporibus disserendis, sed Marium Maximum, Suetonium Tranquillum, Fabium Marcellinum, Gargilium Martialem, Iulium Capitolinum, Aelium Lampridium ceterosque, qui haec et talia non tam diserte quam vere memoriae tradiderunt. 8 sum enim unus ex curiosis, quod infi[ni]t<i>as ire non possum, ince<n>dentibus vobis, qui, cum multa sciatis, scire multo plura cupitis. 9 et ne diutius ea, quae ad meum consilium pertinent, loquar, magnum et praeclarum principem et qualem historia nostra non novit, arripiam. Edited January 1, 2010 by sylla

[diegis]

Well, first, Traian ocupied just a part of Dacia, not all. Many dacians remain outside the province borders, and was usualy called "free dacians"(some of their most important tribes being known later as Costobocii or Carpii). Archeology show as well that usualy common peoples of dacians (thus not the majority of nobles and priests) survived well in roman province, even if affected by the war, so romans bring a lot of colonists (the localities almost doubled their number, and many dacians was resettled in locations where can be better controled). Roman colonists arrived from many parts of the empire (many right from Italy), but the bulk of them was probably from neighbour provinces (Moesia, Panonia, Thracia, etc.), provinces who was inhabitated as well by dacians (and thracians, thraco-dacians), already romanized. This help to spread of latin language more quickly (they was probably bilingual, and understand each other), as well the contacts betwen dacians from the province and free dacians was strong. However, dacians from the province rebbel quite often against roman rule (first time in the year of death of Traian, and Hadrian almost wanted to abandon province back then), and later they coordinate this rebellions with invasions of free dacians (some of this invasions go as far as reaching deep in Greece). In III century AD will appear the peoples called goths, and they formed the so called (by archeologists) Santana de Mures/Cherneakhov culture. Goths was infact a conglomerat of peoples as dacians, sarmatians, germans, taifali, possible even some celts too, a mix who had very visible roman influences too.

This are some quotes from some historians who deal with the subject (from wikipedia, but their books can be find on the internet too)":

 

""Michael Kulikowski also challenges the Wielbark connection, highlighting that the greatest reason for Wielbark-Chernyakhov connection derives from a "negative characteristic" (ie the absence of weapons in burials), which is less convincing proof than a positive one. He argues that the Chernyakhov culture could just as likely have been an indigenous development of local Pontic, Carpic or Dacian cultures, or a blended culture resulting from Przeworsk and steppe interactions. Furthermore, he altogether denies the existence of Goths prior to the 3rd century. Kulikowsky states that no Gothic people, nor even a noble kernal, migrated from Scandinavia or the Baltic. Rather, he suggests that the "Goths" formed in situ. Like the Allemani or the Franks, the Goths were a "product of the Roman frontier"".

 

""Halsall (2007, p. 132)The Cernjachov culture is a mixture of all sorts of influences, but most come from existing cultures in the region""

 

""Matthews (, p. 90) argue that it shows that the local Daco-Getans played the leading role in the creation of the Culture""

 

After goths pass the border (the Danube), and entered in roman empire as "foederati", then move further to west, the majority (thus probably not all) of their dacian component remain in Dacia areas. Teodoric the Great goths was just 100,000 (the entire people not just warriors) if i remember correct, when they moved in Italy, so not a big population.

 

""Matthews (, p. 91) settlement was continuous from the period of the Sintana de Mures/ Cernjachov Culture right through the Migration Period into the Middle Ages proper"".

 

Halsall, Guy (2007), Barbarian migrations and the Roman West, 376-568, Cambridge University Press

Matthews, John; Heather, Peter (1991), The Goths in the fourth century, Liverpool University Press

Kulikowsky, Michael (2007), Rome's Gothic Wars: from the third century to Alaric, Cambridge University Press

 

There is as well even more "pure" dacian archeological cultures finded, beside this Santana. However, Aurelian retreated mostly the army (formed back then by 2 legions, each around 1000 soldiers ), civil administration, and patricians, merchants, etc. Most of the peoples stay, especialy common peoples, farmers, etc. based on the fact they have relations with the "barbarians", who was in a big part from the same nation with them, they was free from paying taxes to romans, well, they was generaly free now, even if probably many need to give a kind of tribute to new military arrived, anyway way less then to roman administration. The contacts with romans was still keept anyway, and roman influence was still going on, since Danube wasnt a real border, and dacians from both sides still continue their relations, both of them being already under heavy roman influence (from linguistical point of view more). Emperor Constantine the Great even retook partialy the teritories north of Danube (he took the title of "Dacicus Maximus" too, like Traian), and build a bridge there, and fortifications in north of Danube. This mix of dacians and former roman colonistst who remain in Dacia (both northern one and Moesia for ex.) will still be in contact with romans, and adopted a romance language (with a dacian substrat stronger then gallic one in french, from what i read) a local development of vulgar latin spoked in the area (some of the most arhaic form i understand) and eventualy form the proto-romanians (folklore and mythology remain dacian instead). The huns for ex., who had the base in Panonia fields, or any migratory peoples coming from stepes had less influence in the Dacia, because the teritory was covered 80 % by forests and 30-35 % by mountains. Peoples gradualy abandoned the towns, who was on roads possible used for invasions, and rely more on rural life style, less afected by migrations, but without to be able to build a new strong state/kingdom, up until middle ages. About goth influence, it was more like a dacian (and obviously roman) influence in this conglomerat of peoples, since this two was the higher developed cultures. Ofcourse after they move in roman empire and dacians remain in Dacia, the germanic part becomed more pregnant and dominant, but dacians was still saw in high regard by goths, even after they move in west (see Getica of Jordanes, and independent of him, Issidor from Sevilla).

[diegis]

Please don't let the verb "allow" confound you; it was not as if the Romans had any other option then or whenever they "allowed" any Barbarians to take any Roman territory.

 

Regardless of their intent. The Romans army withdrew and never reconquered Dacia. Not even with Diocletian's reforms.

They were either unable or unwilling to undertake the reconquest.

 

The main point of my post is to find out what was going on in Dacia during that time interval. How Romanized were the Goths? What legacy, if any, did the Goths leave behind when they crossed the danube in the 4th century?

 

Constantine the Great (who's father was probably from dacian origin as well, and his brother-in-law Licinius being from dacian origin too) retook some lands north of Danube, and possible other emperors controled "de facto" the former province. Galerius for ex. was one of the emperors from dacian origin who took most of his troops from the region (acording with Lactantius in "De mortibus persecutorum" he even intended to change the name of the Roman empire in Dacian empire), as well Regalianus, one of the throne usurpers was from dacian origin and even pretend is the from the same family with Decebalus, probably to took under his control the free dacians too.

[sylla]

Constantine the Great (who's father was probably from dacian origin as well, and his brother-in-law Licinius being from dacian origin too) retook some lands north of Danube, and possible other emperors controled "de facto" the former province. Galerius for ex. was one of the emperors from dacian origin ...

Close but not so; those and other emperors of the late III/early IV century were from Dalmatia (Illyricum), not Dacia. (In modern terms, Croatia, not Romania).

(acording with Lactantius in "De mortibus persecutorum" he even intended to change the name of the Roman empire in Dacian empire)

A fascinating anecdote; would you be kind enough to post the full reference? Thanks in advance.

... as well Regalianus, one of the throne usurpers was from dacian origin and even pretend is the from the same family with Decebalus,

The quote is exact but comes from an extremely unreliable source, the Historia Augusta, especially fictionalized for the "minor biographies" of usurpers like Regalianus.

Constantine the Great ... retook some lands north of Danube, and possible other emperors controled "de facto" the former province... probably to took under his control the free dacians too.

Troops from both sides of the Danubian border often raided the other side; however, a persistent re-occupation of a significant portion of the former Roman Dacia seems unlikely. Edited November 23, 2009 by sylla

[diegis]

Constantine the Great (who's father was probably from dacian origin as well, and his brother-in-law Licinius being from dacian origin too) retook some lands north of Danube, and possible other emperors controled "de facto" the former province. Galerius for ex. was one of the emperors from dacian origin ...

Close but not so; those and other emperors of the late III/early IV century were from Dalmatia (Illyricum), not Dacia. (In modern terms, Croatia, not Romania).

(acording with Lactantius in "De mortibus persecutorum" he even intended to change the name of the Roman empire in Dacian empire)

A fascinating anecdote; would you be kind enough to post the full reference? Thanks in advance.

... as well Regalianus, one of the throne usurpers was from dacian origin and even pretend is the from the same family with Decebalus,

The quote is exact but comes from an extremely unreliable source, the Historia Augusta, especially fictionalized for the "minor biographies" of usurpers like Regalianus.

Constantine the Great ... retook some lands north of Danube, and possible other emperors controled "de facto" the former province... probably to took under his control the free dacians too.

Troops from both sides of the Danubian border often raided the other side; however, a persistent re-occupation of a significant portion of the former Roman Dacia seems unlikely.

 

Salve Sylla

 

Well, i didnt said they was born in Dacia north of Danube, but that they was from dacian origin. I dont know exactly where was born Regalianus for ex., but Galerius and Licinius was born in Moesia (later know as Dacia Ripensis) province, as well there was born the father of Constantine, and this is today Serbia mostly, not Croatia, and was a former dacian teritory incorporated in roman empire previous to one in north of Danube.

 

About Lactantius and what he wrote about Galerius

 

http://www.ucalgary.ca/~vandersp/Courses/t...pers.html#XXVII

 

More specific the chapter XXVII, at the end.

[Kosmo]

Diegis first post summarizes very well what is known about the subject.

I add that there was probably no large evacuation of the parts of Dacia away from the Danube as by the time of Aurelian several major units from the garrison had sided with pretenders and left Dacia and there are no finds of coins from the time of Aurelian so romans were probably not in control of most of the province. One (later two) Dacia province was indeed created south of Danube usually called Aurelian's Dacia to distinguish from Trajan's Dacia north of Danube.

Romans kept cities on the north bank of the Danube and from the time of Constantine controlled a deep area demarcated by a vallum fortification some 700 km long parallel to the Danube until after 400 when the huns destroyed the area. Some small cities survived in a reduced state in Dacia proper until the advent of the huns.

It is probable that local latin speakers played an important role in the conversion of goths to arian christianity.

The Santana de Mures/Cernikhov material culture can be seen as a mix and an interaction between goths, sarmatians, free dacians and roman provincials.

[sylla]

Salve Sylla

 

Well, i didnt said they was born in Dacia north of Danube, but that they was from dacian origin. I dont know exactly where was born Regalianus for ex., but Galerius and Licinius was born in Moesia (later know as Dacia Ripensis) province, as well there was born the father of Constantine, and this is today Serbia mostly, not Croatia, and was a former dacian teritory incorporated in roman empire previous to one in north of Danube.

 

About Lactantius and what he wrote about Galerius

 

http://www.ucalgary.ca/~vandersp/Courses/t...pers.html#XXVII

 

More specific the chapter XXVII, at the end.

Usus autem sum, ne in aliquo fallam carissimam mihi familiaritatem tuam, praecipue libris ex bibliotheca Ulpia, aetate mea thermis Diocletianis, et item ex domo Tiberiana, usus etiam [ex] regestis scribarum porticus porphyreticae, actis etiam senatus ac populi. 2 et quoniam me ad colligenda talis viri gesta ephemeris Turduli Gallicani plurimum invit, viri honestissimi ac sincerissimi, beneficium amici senis tacere non debui. 3 Cn. Pompeium, tribus fulgentem triumphis belli piratici, belli Sertoriani, belli Mithridatici multarumque rerum gestarum maiestate sublimem, quis tandem nosset, nisi eum Marcus Tullius et Titus Livius in litteras rettulissent? 4 Publ<i>um Scipionem Afric<an>um, immo Scipiones omnes, seu Lucios seu Nasicas, nonne tenebrae possiderent ac tegerent, nisi commendatores eorum historici nobiles atque ignobiles extitissent? 5 longum est omnia persequi, quae ad exemplum huiusce modi etiam nobis tacentibus usurpanda sunt. 6 illud tantum contestatum volo me et rem scripsisse, quam, si quis voluerit, honestius eloquio celsiore demonstret, et mihi quidem id animi fuit, 6 <ut> non Sallustios, Livios, Tacito<s>, Trogos atque omnes disertissimos imitarer viros in vita principum et temporibus disserendis, sed Marium Maximum, Suetonium Tranquillum, Fabium Marcellinum, Gargilium Martialem, Iulium Capitolinum, Aelium Lampridium ceterosque, qui haec et talia non tam diserte quam vere memoriae tradiderunt. 8 sum enim unus ex curiosis, quod infi[ni]t<i>as ire non possum, ince<n>dentibus vobis, qui, cum multa sciatis, scire multo plura cupitis. 9 et ne diutius ea, quae ad meum consilium pertinent, loquar, magnum et praeclarum principem et qualem historia nostra non novit, arripiam. Edited January 1, 2010 by sylla