Arvioustus Posted February 3, 2006 Report Share Posted February 3, 2006 (edited) Dacia, I would not classify as backwards in any means. Just because Romans used the term barbarian does not mean they were backwards. Bulgarian archeologists just unearthed a string of mounds rewriting early European history of goldworking. Thriacians were well known for their metal works and were far ahead of the Romans in this. The time ranges of the findings were fin 4000 BC thru 800 AD and the caliber and abundance of the finely wrought work suggest the region was a center in ancient Europe. Unexpected technical expertise and a cache of 15,000 gold artifacts so meticulously crafted that the seams are invisible to the naked eye. Perhaps other areas in the frontiers had similar? January 2006 Discover magazine Edited February 4, 2006 by Arvioustus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Favonius Cornelius Posted February 3, 2006 Report Share Posted February 3, 2006 It is possible to be backwards and yet do something really well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted February 3, 2006 Report Share Posted February 3, 2006 But doesn't the high degree of specialization in metalwoking suggest that the Dacians were producing these goldworks for trade? If so, who were their trading partners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted February 3, 2006 Report Share Posted February 3, 2006 I meant also to ask: If Dacia wasn't 'backwards', who was? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Favonius Cornelius Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 I meant also to ask: If Dacia wasn't 'backwards', who was? The Lapps to the north? It's always the guy over the next hill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Dalby Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 Dacia was remarkable for its architecture as well as its gold. The fortified palace of Old Sarmizegethusa was really something, as you might gather even from the partial depiction on Trajan's Column. Where did I read that under one of the Dacian kings wine was banned? Does this mean they had got as far the the US in the early 20th century? Had they noticed that wine had corrupted the Celts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 Dacia was remarkable for its architecture as well as its gold. The fortified palace of Old Sarmizegethusa was really something, as you might gather even from the partial depiction on Trajan's Column. Where did I read that under one of the Dacian kings wine was banned? Does this mean they had got as far the the US in the early 20th century? Had they noticed that wine had corrupted the Celts? From Strabo Book VII The following is an indication of their complete obedience: they were persuaded to cut down their vines and to live without wine. However, certain men rose up against Boerebistas and he was deposed before the Romans sent an expedition against him;Link to the editor's note at the bottom of this page and those who succeeded him divided the empire into several parts. Though it doesn't give the reasons, you have an interesting theory. Was wine corrupting the Dacians, or worse, was it Romanizing them? We know that Burebista sided with Pompey against Caesar, and perhaps the cutting of the vines was a symbolic gesture after Pompey's defeat, intending to say... Dacia will never submit to Caesar? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sextus Roscius Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 Yes yes, they had good architecture and gold working, but look who went out to put it to work to the people, the Romans of course. I think when it comes to a civilizations advanced or backwards classification, we should judge by the sophistication of the average person, the whether the average person is literate (Roman literacy rates were incredible for the time, Dacia, not so much) and the addvanced technology that effects the average persons life (such as roman aquaducts and things like that). So by those terms, I think it is fair to declared Dacia inferior to the Romans. Though then again, I'm incredably bias towards the "barbarian" cultures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvioustus Posted February 4, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 The 'literacy test' you mentioned, I am not so sure. The Romans are then backward compared to the Greeks? The Romans idolazed the Greeks to be sure and who was it that stated ' a good Greek is better than any barbarian but a bad Greek is worse than any'? Romans were considered barbarians to the Greeks for various reasons too. Think more data will come from this region concerning its Roman period. (probably neglected and squashed during communist era) Just the location of where Dacia is suggests a nation that can take care of itself. The Romans valued Gold above all, Dacia had gold and was free from Rome for a long time. For, example Rome view Germania inferior as a source for their typical recruitment odf sone but superior supported taxation,which menat alot to the Romans. You do not think the knowledge of Dacian gold was perhaps the real reason for Roman interest there? The location of Dacia also supports a nation that can handle itself and maintain independence. The German tribes I am sure did all they can to invade and were repulsed. The Samartian to the east the same and of course the Romans. If I am not mistaken the largest invasion force the Romans ever assembled was needed to conquer Dacia. (except of course civil wars) The Romans lost many battles there, to be sure Romans lost battles all over but given the size of the Roman force this was a major feat.( even though I have read the Romans were most likely outnumbered,plus Dacians had German allies) The falx was not the only thing Dacia possessed that was formadible I am sure, they traded with Greece long before the Romans did so they must have obtained much. Doubtful Dacia was backwards in most areas especially warfare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucius Calpurnius Capitolinus Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 It is possible to be backwards and yet do something really well. I believe the saying is: Ginger Rodgers did everything Fred Astaire did backwards and in heels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted February 5, 2006 Report Share Posted February 5, 2006 We know that Burebista sided with Pompey against Caesar, and perhaps the cutting of the vines was a symbolic gesture after Pompey's defeat, intending to say... Dacia will never submit to Caesar? Why didn't you mention this in the first place? Now I'm convinced that Dacia wasn't backwards! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurion Legioneer Posted February 5, 2006 Report Share Posted February 5, 2006 I believe that they were not backwards. Only that it sounds that they were, many times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sextus Roscius Posted February 5, 2006 Report Share Posted February 5, 2006 We know that Burebista sided with Pompey against Caesar, and perhaps the cutting of the vines was a symbolic gesture after Pompey's defeat, intending to say... Dacia will never submit to Caesar? Why didn't you mention this in the first place? Now I'm convinced that Dacia wasn't backwards! Cato! no, now your not the real cato, the REAL cato wouldn't have been factional, he would've supported Rome, not Pompey, Pompey was not Rome. Sigh cato, am I the only real republican left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Dalby Posted February 5, 2006 Report Share Posted February 5, 2006 We know that Burebista sided with Pompey against Caesar, and perhaps the cutting of the vines was a symbolic gesture after Pompey's defeat, intending to say... Dacia will never submit to Caesar? Why didn't you mention this in the first place? Now I'm convinced that Dacia wasn't backwards! Cato! no, now your not the real cato, the REAL cato wouldn't have been factional, he would've supported Rome, not Pompey, Pompey was not Rome. Sigh cato, am I the only real republican left. Not factional? I'm not so sure. Maybe he was more factional than our colleague Cato ever is. In putting together a brief biography of Cato for my translation of his /On Farming/, I developed the impression that Livy was right: the political feuds aroused by Cato's censorhip 'occupied him for the rest of his life' (Livy 39.44.9). Here's more on the Cato translation, by the way! http://perso.wanadoo.fr/dalby/books/CatoFarming.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted February 5, 2006 Report Share Posted February 5, 2006 Cato! no, now your not the real cato, the REAL cato wouldn't have been factional, he would've supported Rome, not Pompey, Pompey was not Rome. Sigh cato, am I the only real republican left. You're right Sextus: mea culpa! Mea maxima culpa!! Now, what's the right ritual to cleanse myself of this Pompeian miasma so I can look at the statues of my ancestors once again? Not factional? I'm not so sure. Maybe he was more factional than our colleague Cato ever is. My namesake was Cato Uticensis, the great grandson of Cato the Censor. It's confusing: there were 8 M Porcii Catones (see my stemmata, Kinsmen of Cato). Both of them, by the way, were factional to their very bones--the elder Cato was hauling people to court (and being hauled to court) well into his 80s, about the time he took a second wife (Salonia), who was the about the same age as his first son. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.