Was The Abandonment Of Dacia A Good Thing?

[Emperor Goblinus]

Aurelian thought that the empire could no longer afford to hold onto it, but later historians saw it as the beginning of the imperial breakup. Did Aurelian make the right choice?

[AEGYPTUS]

I think that he did. Mainly because Dacia jutted outside the normal line of defense and would have been very hard to defend against growing barbarian activity! So I think it was the logical choice.

[PerfectimusPrime]

Actually, if I recall, Dacia was easier to defend than it seems. It was shielded by mountains in the east and north.

[Rameses the Great]

Actually, if I recall, Dacia was easier to defend than it seems. It was shielded by mountains in the east and north.

 

Very true, it was like Poland but with defenders. Maybe like Switzerland too, the French had a hard time conquering it because of the surrounding mountains. Same could be said about Rome and Dacia.

[AEGYPTUS]

I suppose you are right there were mountains. The position of the province was unusual. taking a glance at a map of the Empire I would think it would be logical. Remember the man who made the decision to pull out was famous for consolidating what Rome already had!! opposed to Trajan who was more into adding province to the Empire.

[Neos Dionysos]

I beleieve his reasoning was there was not a great natural barrier to defend it. While there may be mountians to the North and East, the West did not have these and without a strong concentration of troops in the province, order and control could not be maintained. Now, take this and compare it to have land on the otherside of the Danube or Rhine. You have a great natural barrier, and should anyone attempt to invade they must cross the river, and so long as you have a handful of troops watching the major corssing points and guard towers with a couple men watching the rest, any major attempt to cross could be caught, and word sent out for a force to assemble to meet them, thus the enemy simply might turn around and leave if faced with the notion of having to make a landing that was guarded.

[docoflove1974]

Excuse my ignorance...but perhaps the question should be viewed as: what good did the land/territory/people do for the Roman Empire? Perhaps it was 'let go' because there were no resources of interest?

[AEGYPTUS]

There must have been some form of resources in Dacia or Trajan would not have made the effort to conquer the region. Slaves perhaps?

[PerfectimusPrime]

There must have been some form of resources in Dacia or Trajan would not have made the effort to conquer the region. Slaves perhaps?

 

Gold, gold, gold, gold, gold, so much gold to make one filthy rich!

 

Dacian kingdom was rich and powerful, that's why Trajan made the effort to conquer it. And, there were many profitable gold mines as well. The mountains offered excellent protection, it was logistically very difficult to move armies through it, especially horse armies of the steppe tribes which were the closest threat to Roman Dacia.

[docoflove1974]

Gold, gold, gold, gold, gold, so much gold to make one filthy rich!

 

Dacian kingdom was rich and powerful, that's why Trajan made the effort to conquer it. And, there were many profitable gold mines as well. The mountains offered excellent protection, it was logistically very difficult to move armies through it, especially horse armies of the steppe tribes which were the closest threat to Roman Dacia.

 

Well, now, that's certainly a reason to conquer the Dacians! Ok, my hypothesis failed...next!

[PerfectimusPrime]

Well, now, that's certainly a reason to conquer the Dacians! Ok, my hypothesis failed...next!

 

Oh, yeah, I forgot, Dacians themselves were strong and so the Romans quite often recruited them to the army, IIRC.

[Neos Dionysos]

Despite these resources, it still have seemed to Aurelian that abandoning it was the best solution, afterall what's the point on holding onto a resorce rich area when you expend more in resources simply holding it and then extracting the wealth, this may have been the reasoning behind his abandonment, we must remember he had just concluded two very resource exhaustive wars in which he destroyed the Gallic Empire and reassimilated it back into the Imperial fold and then all of the land lost to the Palymaric Empire which was most of the Eastern territories.

[AEGYPTUS]

If what is said is true an Dacia was full of gold. Should the Romans not have tried to hold onto it to extract resources to cover the cost of the expensive wars they were fighting. They could have used the gold to train more legionaries and have new defenses built and stuff?

[Ursus]

There must have been some form of resources in Dacia or Trajan would not have made the effort to conquer the region. Slaves perhaps?

 

Excuse my ignorance...but perhaps the question should be viewed as: what good did the land/territory/people do for the Roman Empire?

 

 

Since when did a Roman elite need an objective geopolitical reason for conquest? Military triumph was its own social capital.

 

Claudius, after all, put four legions in Britain for prestige, not for the tin. And certainly not for the cuisine and climate.

[Pertinax]

What was the quote regarding Armenia and Britain? Their conquest was not for a purpose but to display the prestige of Roman arms, and that they would "be fitting embellishments to the omniscience of the Empire" . Only as Rome garrisonned Britain did it come to have a "national" identity and to develop a coherent economic productive infrastructure.