The units list in the DAG for the Dacian is a disaster. Almost a generic ones, despite the variety it was.
best look at the http://www.europabarbarorum.com/faction ... units.html, the most complete and accurate information about this subject on the Web.
Hope you will manage to get them until the release of FOGLT.
L.
Dacian
Moderators: Slitherine Core, FoG PC Moderator, NewRoSoft
It is indeed a disaster. Most important part of it is the complete lack of heavy infantry, even if at sarmisegetusa was discovered the biggest european iron working center. There are many other references, some of them (most of them, unfortunately) in romanian.
Thing is, Slitherine won't change anything as long as the original TT dacian list is it as it is
PS: I also had a look over the EB list, and I must say most of it are inventions. When you do an army list you also need to rely on first hand ancient sources treating the subject.
Thing is, Slitherine won't change anything as long as the original TT dacian list is it as it is
PS: I also had a look over the EB list, and I must say most of it are inventions. When you do an army list you also need to rely on first hand ancient sources treating the subject.
I am a romanian player, but I'm afraid I do not have time for this. And I only know a single other romanian player, which is not active at all.
Also, there is a problem regarding ancient historical primary sources when it comes to getae/dacian subject. ALL the ancient works regarding them were lost, which by itself is a quite disturbing thing, as there were many treating the subject. It almost looks like some were deliberately trying to destroy any trace regarding the getae/dacian subject.
Dacia, at the Caesar's time was ruled by Burebistas, was almost an empire by itself, and could enlist an army over 200k. Actually, at the time of his death, Caesar was preparing a campaign against Burebistas (who supported Pompey during the civil war). Both Caesar and Burebistas were assasinated in the same year, 44 BC. Dacian empire was broken into 4 parts, and would only revive itself under Diurpaneus Decebalus, more than 100 years later.
It had fought some wars against romans, Domitian and then Trajan.
Under Domitian, an army of 5-6 legions advancing into Dacia (that is 50-60k) suffered a severe defeat, with the V Alaudae almost destroyed and eagle lost. Next year, another army (somehow believed to be smaller than the first one, though that doesn't make any sense) was sent to revenge the first, and won a partial victory over dacians, only to conclude it with a roman-dacian treaty in which Rome was paying tribute to Dacia, and sent military and engineer advisors to the same dacians in support!!
When Trajan got emperor, he prepared and started the famous dacian wars, 101-102 and 105-106, which seems to be the biggest wars ever fought by Rome. Almost all the affordable legions of the empire (that is almost 20 of them, for a total around 200k) were prepared to be sent into Dacia. That's less than in war against Carthage and Hannibal! Do you think romans would have to do that against an army as in FoG lists? or an army of around 15-40k, as wiki states the dacians had? Something is very fishy and doesn't fit the image in here. Also, the fortifications around dacian capital, sarmisegetusa, were the biggest and toughest the romans ever faced. During the second dacian war, and of course caused due to the experience from the first one, the roman army did a thing which never ever din until then, or after: they've changed their equipment specifically because of an enemy way to fight war (the gladiator manica armor was issued to a part of the army, which was only used by the roman army during the second dacian war, and the reinforced helmets). Have a look at the trophies from Trajan's column, and you'll see dacian heavy armor suits, and helmets presented in there. God knows why they were not represented on the dacians on the column (not even on their leaders, which must surely have them) - maybe just because they wanted to differentiate them from the heavy armored roman infantry, and wanted to present them as "barbarians"?!! This is, logic dictates that when you gather more than 2 thirds of the imperium's army, and go against some "barbarian tribes" which yet possessed the biggest and toughest complex of fortifications roman ever assaulted, and which had the biggest iron working center discovered in europe.. you don't do that because you are stupid, or go fight some naked barbarian army.. just think about it..
there are many things to be said about this (for example, the late roman cavalry standard, the draco, was adopted after the dacian draco standard, presented many times on the column as dacian main battle standard), but unfortunately this is not the time, nor the place.
Also, there is a problem regarding ancient historical primary sources when it comes to getae/dacian subject. ALL the ancient works regarding them were lost, which by itself is a quite disturbing thing, as there were many treating the subject. It almost looks like some were deliberately trying to destroy any trace regarding the getae/dacian subject.
Dacia, at the Caesar's time was ruled by Burebistas, was almost an empire by itself, and could enlist an army over 200k. Actually, at the time of his death, Caesar was preparing a campaign against Burebistas (who supported Pompey during the civil war). Both Caesar and Burebistas were assasinated in the same year, 44 BC. Dacian empire was broken into 4 parts, and would only revive itself under Diurpaneus Decebalus, more than 100 years later.
It had fought some wars against romans, Domitian and then Trajan.
Under Domitian, an army of 5-6 legions advancing into Dacia (that is 50-60k) suffered a severe defeat, with the V Alaudae almost destroyed and eagle lost. Next year, another army (somehow believed to be smaller than the first one, though that doesn't make any sense) was sent to revenge the first, and won a partial victory over dacians, only to conclude it with a roman-dacian treaty in which Rome was paying tribute to Dacia, and sent military and engineer advisors to the same dacians in support!!
When Trajan got emperor, he prepared and started the famous dacian wars, 101-102 and 105-106, which seems to be the biggest wars ever fought by Rome. Almost all the affordable legions of the empire (that is almost 20 of them, for a total around 200k) were prepared to be sent into Dacia. That's less than in war against Carthage and Hannibal! Do you think romans would have to do that against an army as in FoG lists? or an army of around 15-40k, as wiki states the dacians had? Something is very fishy and doesn't fit the image in here. Also, the fortifications around dacian capital, sarmisegetusa, were the biggest and toughest the romans ever faced. During the second dacian war, and of course caused due to the experience from the first one, the roman army did a thing which never ever din until then, or after: they've changed their equipment specifically because of an enemy way to fight war (the gladiator manica armor was issued to a part of the army, which was only used by the roman army during the second dacian war, and the reinforced helmets). Have a look at the trophies from Trajan's column, and you'll see dacian heavy armor suits, and helmets presented in there. God knows why they were not represented on the dacians on the column (not even on their leaders, which must surely have them) - maybe just because they wanted to differentiate them from the heavy armored roman infantry, and wanted to present them as "barbarians"?!! This is, logic dictates that when you gather more than 2 thirds of the imperium's army, and go against some "barbarian tribes" which yet possessed the biggest and toughest complex of fortifications roman ever assaulted, and which had the biggest iron working center discovered in europe.. you don't do that because you are stupid, or go fight some naked barbarian army.. just think about it..
there are many things to be said about this (for example, the late roman cavalry standard, the draco, was adopted after the dacian draco standard, presented many times on the column as dacian main battle standard), but unfortunately this is not the time, nor the place.
-
leonardus68
- Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
- Posts: 81
- Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 11:43 am
So am I. Glad to give help with translations but seems to me that it's little interest here. Despite and in opposition with the historical statement: ''the dacians were the most fierce warriors in the world'' according roman historians.cothyso wrote:I am a romanian player, but I'm afraid I do not have time for this. And I only know a single other romanian player, which is not active at all.
L.
-
IainMcNeil
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13558
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:19 am
The troops types for Dacian are treated in the same way as every other nation. While many people believe certain troop types should be better, usually because they are natives of that country 
, we only base changes on the evidence and the same level as other nations. To understand the classificatiosn you'd need to read up on how and why the differences were decided on which is covered in the tabletop forum.
Picking a phrse like "The Dacians weer the most feared" out of content does nto really give an argument any weight. You need to see the entire history of the ancient world and understand how all the troops types interact to understand why the decisions were made.
The designers unforuntately do not have time to reply to individual posts like this so you'd need to read up and become involved in the discussions on the tabletop forum. A huge amount of research and debate has gone in to this so please don't think there are any snap decisions being made.
IIf you have real new evidence that changes their minds then you could see a change but it needs to be hard facts rather than general opinions.
, we only base changes on the evidence and the same level as other nations. To understand the classificatiosn you'd need to read up on how and why the differences were decided on which is covered in the tabletop forum. Picking a phrse like "The Dacians weer the most feared" out of content does nto really give an argument any weight. You need to see the entire history of the ancient world and understand how all the troops types interact to understand why the decisions were made.
The designers unforuntately do not have time to reply to individual posts like this so you'd need to read up and become involved in the discussions on the tabletop forum. A huge amount of research and debate has gone in to this so please don't think there are any snap decisions being made.
IIf you have real new evidence that changes their minds then you could see a change but it needs to be hard facts rather than general opinions.
Hi there Iain,
No one is asking modifications of army lists based on loose phrases like the (actually Horodotu's) one cited in here. There is some evidence which should be taken into consideration when talking about dacian lists (and please do not bring the national pride in here, that has nothing to do with this, it is just the fact that usually the natives have access to more information than english speaker researchers):
- scenes from Trajan's column regarding the armors and helmets (see the 4 base fresco's in Batoli's drawings; also see the trophies appearing in other parts of the column, also there are some details clearly displaying the use of a sort of body cuirass, probably leather, underneath the dacian clothes)
- there were discovered an important number of iron working deposits, each containing between 30-50 iron lupes (lumps of iron readied for iron working), for a total of several tonnes of iron (something out of the ordinary for that historical period, certainly amongst the biggest iron working centers outside the roman empire, if not the biggest) in Orastie complex
- only around Sarmisegetusa (dacian kingdom's capital) were discovered around 27 anvils (each around 50kgs) a much bigger number of small ones
- the dacian mines (later exploited by the romans)
- scenes on Trajan's column regarding army's organisation (the draco flag, units standards, field artillery (scorpions))
- scenes on Trajan's column displaying roman castrums (not simple roman military camps) sieges (with iron headed battering rams and so on)
- scenes on Trajan's column displaying dacian fortifications (stone walls, using dacian (the famous murus dacicus) and celtic (Celtic oppidum) construction methods)
- the fortification complex arheological remains from the Orastie complex
- scenes on Trajan's column and Adamclisi's monument regarding the dacian battle weaponry (shields, dacian sica, dacian falx, battle axes, spears, bows, some types of greek Gastraphetes-like crossbows and so on)
- the amount of legions summoned to take part in dacian wars (for a total of 150k combatants for the first war and 200k for the second, making it the largest army ever assembled by the Rome) (roman historians)
- the amount of gold and silver brought from Dacia by Trajan
- the number of gladiatores (10k) used in the 128 triumph days gladiatorial games
- Domitian's peace treaty from 89, with dacian receiving money, craftsmen, war machines and military trainers from the Roman empire
- Trajan's 102 peace treaty asking for dacians to give back the above mentioned craftsmen, war machines, military trainers and roman desetors
and so on..
All of the above leads to the conclusion that it was one of the biggest war Rome ever fought, against a well developed and advanced nation (how many legions did Rome ahd to use to take Gaul, or Britain, or used in Germany? or how many stone walls fortifications did had the same mentioned Gauls, Britons or Germans? how many iron working centers were discovered in Gaul, Britain or Germany as the ones from Romania? - yet, all of them have heavy cavalry and heavy infantry while dacians only get a medium infantry and light cavalry rabble.
I don't want to pick any fight over this, but it is obvious that with so few voices advocating dacian's cause, and with so less desire to accept factual data and use logic based on it and with the complete lack of written ancient historical documents (as all of them were "lost"), there's little chance to ever saw this made right.
No one is asking modifications of army lists based on loose phrases like the (actually Horodotu's) one cited in here. There is some evidence which should be taken into consideration when talking about dacian lists (and please do not bring the national pride in here, that has nothing to do with this, it is just the fact that usually the natives have access to more information than english speaker researchers):
- scenes from Trajan's column regarding the armors and helmets (see the 4 base fresco's in Batoli's drawings; also see the trophies appearing in other parts of the column, also there are some details clearly displaying the use of a sort of body cuirass, probably leather, underneath the dacian clothes)
- there were discovered an important number of iron working deposits, each containing between 30-50 iron lupes (lumps of iron readied for iron working), for a total of several tonnes of iron (something out of the ordinary for that historical period, certainly amongst the biggest iron working centers outside the roman empire, if not the biggest) in Orastie complex
- only around Sarmisegetusa (dacian kingdom's capital) were discovered around 27 anvils (each around 50kgs) a much bigger number of small ones
- the dacian mines (later exploited by the romans)
- scenes on Trajan's column regarding army's organisation (the draco flag, units standards, field artillery (scorpions))
- scenes on Trajan's column displaying roman castrums (not simple roman military camps) sieges (with iron headed battering rams and so on)
- scenes on Trajan's column displaying dacian fortifications (stone walls, using dacian (the famous murus dacicus) and celtic (Celtic oppidum) construction methods)
- the fortification complex arheological remains from the Orastie complex
- scenes on Trajan's column and Adamclisi's monument regarding the dacian battle weaponry (shields, dacian sica, dacian falx, battle axes, spears, bows, some types of greek Gastraphetes-like crossbows and so on)
- the amount of legions summoned to take part in dacian wars (for a total of 150k combatants for the first war and 200k for the second, making it the largest army ever assembled by the Rome) (roman historians)
- the amount of gold and silver brought from Dacia by Trajan
- the number of gladiatores (10k) used in the 128 triumph days gladiatorial games
- Domitian's peace treaty from 89, with dacian receiving money, craftsmen, war machines and military trainers from the Roman empire
- Trajan's 102 peace treaty asking for dacians to give back the above mentioned craftsmen, war machines, military trainers and roman desetors
and so on..
All of the above leads to the conclusion that it was one of the biggest war Rome ever fought, against a well developed and advanced nation (how many legions did Rome ahd to use to take Gaul, or Britain, or used in Germany? or how many stone walls fortifications did had the same mentioned Gauls, Britons or Germans? how many iron working centers were discovered in Gaul, Britain or Germany as the ones from Romania? - yet, all of them have heavy cavalry and heavy infantry while dacians only get a medium infantry and light cavalry rabble.
I don't want to pick any fight over this, but it is obvious that with so few voices advocating dacian's cause, and with so less desire to accept factual data and use logic based on it and with the complete lack of written ancient historical documents (as all of them were "lost"), there's little chance to ever saw this made right.
-
leonardus68
- Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
- Posts: 81
- Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 11:43 am
Please, don't be naive nor ignorant. I have no reason to ''overclass'' my native country Romania, since I leave it for a ''better'' countryiainmcneil wrote:The troops types for Dacian are treated in the same way as every other nation. While many people believe certain troop types should be better, usually because they are natives of that country
Picking a phrse like "The Dacians weer the most feared" out of content does nto really give an argument any weight. You need to see the entire history of the ancient world and understand how all the troops types interact to understand why the decisions were made.
But can't ignore the history and the real past events from Dacia/Getia. Do you get a look to my link above ? I strongly suggest to do so. It's the best compilation ever found on net related with the subject. And Europa Barbarorum mod of Rome Total War is renowed by it's realism.Thank you.
L.
-
IainMcNeil
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13558
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:19 am
I'm sure this has all been included in the research but if you want to confirm please go over to the tabletop forums as the designers & list writers live there and explain why they have classed them as they have.
One important thing to remember is that equipment is nothing to do with troop classification and medium/heavy foot nothing to do with armour. It is to do with fighting techniques.
But anyway - there is no point trying to argue with me
One important thing to remember is that equipment is nothing to do with troop classification and medium/heavy foot nothing to do with armour. It is to do with fighting techniques.
But anyway - there is no point trying to argue with me
If the infantry calssification is not based mainly on armor, but rather on fighting technique, then even more the dacian should have heavy infantry. I had a quick look over at the TT forum, but couldn't find any subforums/threads regarding the discussion for the FoG 2.0 (dacian) lists or of the heavy infantry classification one. Can you please point them to me?
leonardusius, please stop, you do dacians no service. I'm sure there's no one in here naive or ignorant, maybe excepting yourself, as pointing the Europa Barbarorum, which is a Rome Total War game mod forum, as a "source" for dacian army list is at least naive.. That's no history or evidence, is not even a 3rd hand source, it's a complete garbage and invention.
leonardusius, please stop, you do dacians no service. I'm sure there's no one in here naive or ignorant, maybe excepting yourself, as pointing the Europa Barbarorum, which is a Rome Total War game mod forum, as a "source" for dacian army list is at least naive.. That's no history or evidence, is not even a 3rd hand source, it's a complete garbage and invention.
-
IainMcNeil
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13558
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:19 am
-
leonardus68
- Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
- Posts: 81
- Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 11:43 am
[quote=leonardusius, please stop, you do dacians no service. I'm sure there's no one in here naive or ignorant, maybe excepting yourself, as pointing the Europa Barbarorum, which is a Rome Total War game mod forum, as a "source" for dacian army list is at least naive.. That's no history or evidence, is not even a 3rd hand source, it's a complete garbage and invention.[/quote]
I have no intentions to do service for the dacians. OK ? Only to restore some ''embarrassing'' facts. Like ones here who wants to be ''more'' tarabostes than other natives, fighting and argueing against them whenever they could, only to achieve a higher status amongst ''barbarians'', blinded to the external dangers. Do you recognize the situation my dear fellow ? And not to mention that finally the defeat of them was sealed by this kind of reaction. And seems to have no idea about EB, since you can't dispute the long list of worldwide magazine awards for it. Just because you don't like it it's no reason to criticize here.
And ''That's no history or evidence, is not even a 3rd hand source'' is a major abberation even more than ones mentioned previously by others, since that mod is a work of many enthusiast along many years with the objective of being as accurate as be possible, and with constant improvements (just for your informing, I was member of many lists where long debates took place about historical accuracy and sources, with some important historians natives or not ) 
And please stop your standing, I will not response in any way to future dissertation.
I have no intentions to do service for the dacians. OK ? Only to restore some ''embarrassing'' facts. Like ones here who wants to be ''more'' tarabostes than other natives, fighting and argueing against them whenever they could, only to achieve a higher status amongst ''barbarians'', blinded to the external dangers. Do you recognize the situation my dear fellow ? And not to mention that finally the defeat of them was sealed by this kind of reaction. And seems to have no idea about EB, since you can't dispute the long list of worldwide magazine awards for it. Just because you don't like it it's no reason to criticize here.
And ''That's no history or evidence, is not even a 3rd hand source'' is a major abberation even more than ones mentioned previously by others, since that mod is a work of many enthusiast along many years with the objective of being as accurate as be possible, and with constant improvements (just for your informing, I was member of many lists where long debates took place about historical accuracy and sources, with some important historians natives or not ) And please stop your standing, I will not response in any way to future dissertation.Bine, am sa'ti explic in romana mai intai, ca sa nu ne facem de rusine de tot pe aici. Atunci cand te'ai apucat sa'l faci pe Iain naiv si ignorant, adica exact pe omul de la care tu te astepti sa fie corecteze lista cu armata daca, nu arata decat ca esti prost, si'nca prost cu spume. Necipolit si nepoliticos, si in mod normal nimeni nu ar mai da doi bani de aici incolo pe tine sau pe ce spui tu. Noroc ca oamenii astia sunt chair oameni, si Iain a preferat sa se faca, ca nu vede ce ai spus, probabil ajutat si de reactia mea (care exact scopul asta l'a avut).
Back to english now, no one is trying to be tarabostes above you. That's only your young imagination playing tricks on you, lad. I have more idead about EB than you, for example, I've worked on RTR and participated in discussions with the guys at EB. Exactly the fact that the mod is a work of contemporary people, none of them professional historians as far as I know, without giving the sources for any of their claims in that list, makes it a pure invention.
Now, ignoring that and getting down to analyse the list, let's have a look, shall we?
- Komatai (Dacian Skirmishers) - you are aware that komatai is a "greek" form of the latin word comati (pletosi/with long hair), and was never used in the ancient primary sources, unlike the comati one? Even more, comati was a general term for the lower class of dacians, it has nothing to do with any military classification! so, naming dacian skirmishers as Komatai, is a forced greeked diversion from the original meaning of the latin word comati. Even more, there's no historical document stating the greekish names used to denote military classification in the dacian army (or in any other dacian structrue or language)
- Komatai Sphendonetai (Dacian Slingers) - see above
- Mezenai (Dacian Light Cavalry) - no really?!! and from where? Don't tell me is the thracian for horseman, because if even so, it has nothing to do with dacian light cavalry
- Komatai Toxotai (Dacian Archers) - no really?!! see above. Translating archers in greek doesn't make dacian archers Komatai Toxotai
- Drapanai - hmm.. from where? what's the etymology of this word?
- Komatai Agrianai (Dacian Elite Archers) - don't make me laugh, now what the hell were poor agrinians to do with dacians?
and so on..
History doesn't come from Discovery Channel, or from popular science books, from games or from people just saying "we say it is so!". Learn your ancient primary and secondary sources, and then we can talk.
Mindless fanaticism like yours is the one doing the greatest harm to real history by forcing the other turn from trying to shade a light over dacian history when bombarded with such inventions.
PS: you wrongly "cited" romans saying that "'the dacians were the most fierce warriors in the world", even though such a statement doesn't exists amongst the roman historians. probably you're confusing it with Herodotus' one, which said "Getae (to whom the romans are calling Dacians) are bravest and fairest of all the Thracians", which is a somewhat different thing. And also Herodotus is saying that they were also disunited, lazy, despising honest work and pricing above everything a plundering life-style. But I guess your "history" lessons stopped only at the bravest part..
Back to english now, no one is trying to be tarabostes above you. That's only your young imagination playing tricks on you, lad. I have more idead about EB than you, for example, I've worked on RTR and participated in discussions with the guys at EB. Exactly the fact that the mod is a work of contemporary people, none of them professional historians as far as I know, without giving the sources for any of their claims in that list, makes it a pure invention.
Now, ignoring that and getting down to analyse the list, let's have a look, shall we?
- Komatai (Dacian Skirmishers) - you are aware that komatai is a "greek" form of the latin word comati (pletosi/with long hair), and was never used in the ancient primary sources, unlike the comati one? Even more, comati was a general term for the lower class of dacians, it has nothing to do with any military classification! so, naming dacian skirmishers as Komatai, is a forced greeked diversion from the original meaning of the latin word comati. Even more, there's no historical document stating the greekish names used to denote military classification in the dacian army (or in any other dacian structrue or language)
- Komatai Sphendonetai (Dacian Slingers) - see above
- Mezenai (Dacian Light Cavalry) - no really?!! and from where? Don't tell me is the thracian for horseman, because if even so, it has nothing to do with dacian light cavalry
- Komatai Toxotai (Dacian Archers) - no really?!! see above. Translating archers in greek doesn't make dacian archers Komatai Toxotai
- Drapanai - hmm.. from where? what's the etymology of this word?
- Komatai Agrianai (Dacian Elite Archers) - don't make me laugh, now what the hell were poor agrinians to do with dacians?
and so on..
History doesn't come from Discovery Channel, or from popular science books, from games or from people just saying "we say it is so!". Learn your ancient primary and secondary sources, and then we can talk.
Mindless fanaticism like yours is the one doing the greatest harm to real history by forcing the other turn from trying to shade a light over dacian history when bombarded with such inventions.
PS: you wrongly "cited" romans saying that "'the dacians were the most fierce warriors in the world", even though such a statement doesn't exists amongst the roman historians. probably you're confusing it with Herodotus' one, which said "Getae (to whom the romans are calling Dacians) are bravest and fairest of all the Thracians", which is a somewhat different thing. And also Herodotus is saying that they were also disunited, lazy, despising honest work and pricing above everything a plundering life-style. But I guess your "history" lessons stopped only at the bravest part..
-
IainMcNeil
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13558
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:19 am
-
IainMcNeil
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13558
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:19 am