Slitherine

The Dacian list from Legions Triumphant appears as a a really strange choice to me.

Main problem is that, at this point, the dacian list is presented as a sort of barbarian tribes army, when in fact the situation was entirely different.

There is indeed 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.

Also, 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.

Was there any discussion regarding it, and if so, can someone point me to it, please?

Interesting points you raise, but what exactly do you think is wrong in the lists and where is the evidence for that?

I'm sure if there will ever be a FoG Siege Supplement, the Dacians get their stone fortifications. Until then, FoG is a game about field battles which does not reflect on historical numbers a state/kingdom could raise. If this were so, you'd have to allow the Romans 1000-1200 points against the 800 of Gauls or Germans.
Don't believe the Roman propaganda which made her enemies bigger than they were.

Where do you see roman proaganda in the above points?

The problem is the lack of heavy infantry and cavalry from dacian lists, and the omission of some of their allies during the daco-roman wars period.

cothyso wrote:Where do you see roman proaganda in the above points?

The problem is the lack of heavy infantry and cavalry from dacian lists, and the omission of some of their allies during the daco-roman wars period.

May I direct sir to the Player Designed Lists forum as the suitable place to post ideas for list revisions with the evidence - with v2 around it can make a difference.

The problem is the lack of heavy infantry and cavalry from dacian lists

And these are evident because?

Did they had heavy infantry because they could work with iron?=
I didn't got the connection between most of your points and what should be wrong with the list.

Historically even MF armies could bother Rome. Why do they need heavy foot for being a threat?

I don't think anybody would dispute that Dacia was a tough foe for the Roman empire to swallow.

Mind you, if you follow your apparent rather circumstantial line of logic...

Ancient Brits and Caledones should get heavy infantry and cavalry. The Romans took 3 attempts to establish themselves ashore in Britain beyond a single campaigning season. Large armies with considerable logistic support were required. There were a number of serious reverses, and the reigning emperor had to come with significant reinforcements when the campaign perhaps seemed on the verge of stalling. Seriouos revolts then inflicted major defeats on Roman forces and destroyed Roman towns. Many years were required to finish the conquest of the South-West and what is nowadays Wales, and the northern part of the island was never subjugated.

And the Ancient Spanish too, by a similar line of argument.



What you need is historical evidence in support of your assertion. If there is something not available in English that sheds more light on this, provide references and/or translations.

The big list above is exactly that, historical evidence: namely peace treaties (supplying dacians with military field machines and trainers), iron mines and ore found, iron workshops, armors, weapons found/represented on Trajan's column and Adamclisi's monument and so on

cothyso wrote:The big list above is exactly that, historical evidence: namely peace treaties (supplying dacians with military field machines and trainers), iron mines and ore found, iron workshops, armors, weapons found/represented on Trajan's column and Adamclisi's monument and so on

Why don't you put together an alternative list as you think it should be composed and post it in the player designed list forum? Along with that you can include specific notes about how you have interpreted this evidence in coming up with the list.

Chris

Above there is no evidence for heavy foot or heavy cavalry!
You have to come up with some evidence (that means posting the sources) for what you think should be in the list.

PS: Dacians get Roman bolt shooters already.

Hi Cothyso,

An interesting point of view, congratulations for putting your ideas forward for discussion. however do not get fixated on the idea of Heavy Infantry in FOG. The FOG army lists are an attempt to engineer the interactions between contempory armies. Your arguments would support all Chinese armies to be Heavy infantry but in Empires of the Dragon most are not. By default the majority of FOG players may be Western Europe/ Mediterranian centric but if my memory ie correct the major Roman / Dacian campaigns were due to Roman invasions in responce to Dacian border raids. The majority terrain I have seen in photos relate to the FOG Hilly, Mountains , Woodlands etc. This is not ideal for Roman heavy infantry but if the terrain goes down right will suit a Dacian army based on Superior Medium battlegroups. If you are recreating the original campaigns the interactions should be Ok, if you are using Dacians out of contect they may struggle but this is more to do with "warband" infantry based on impact foot (have you seen the discussions on the V2) rather than heavy v medium infantry. I do have sympathy with the idea that the Warband armies should have a limited number of heavy infantry battlegroups to reflect the elite of chieftans retainers etc but this would be very limited in number. National pride leads me to say at least the Ancient British distroyed 1 legion (the ninth?) although as usual the Germans are 3 - 1 up in this area.

There is some logic in what you are saying, and most probably usual dacian army would have been somewhat light.

Yet, they were preparing themselves for a war against Rome for many years. After the peace with Domitian in 89, the peace treaty was having Rome provide military trainers for the dacian army. Together with all the roman deserters and refugee, the dacian army was trained for more than 10 years in a roman style of battle, more than enough time to get a good grip of roman way of fighting.

Also, there's a huge, and I mean really huge discrepancy between the numbers used by the romans for invading other territories, and Dacia. Roman conquest of Gaul was done with 4 legions, roman conquest of Britain 4 again, roman conquest of Macedon with 2 and so on. Not even during the second punic war did the romans had so more legions participating in the war as in Trajan's dacian campaigns.

Domitian's Dacian wars started with general Oppius Sabinus leading I Italica (and vexillations from V Macedonica) killed and the legion destroyed (yet remade after that). Domitian's first campaign in Dacia had Cornelius Fuscus, general and commander of the Pretorian Guard, lead 6 legions into Dacia, which were badly beaten, with Fuscus killed and the V Alaudae being destroyed and losing it's eagle and most of the standards (including the standard of the Praetorian Guard). For the second dacian campaign, Domitian had general Tettius Iulianus lead more than 4 legions (we have clear confirmation only for 4, but actually, there should have been at least 6, as in precedent campaign, there is no logic to mount another campaign with less legions than in the first one in which you were badly beaten). Another roman legion (XXI Rapax) was destroyed in Moesia inferior in 92. For his dacian campaigns, emperor Trajan summoned no less than 17 legions. Seventeen!! Rome never ever did that before, or after.

Just as a short summary, 2-3 roman legions completely destroyed, an army of 6 legions beaten, with another 17 legions army summoned for the last invasion! No Rome's enemy got such a high treatment like this.

Also, dacian allies during these wars were not only the lose "Sarmatians", but Roxolani (sarmatians), Iazyges (sarmatians), Bastarnae (celts & germans), Boii (celts), Scordisci (celts) and Taurisci (celts).

Just as a short summary, 2-3 roman legions completely destroyed, an army of 6 legions beaten, with another 17 legions army summoned for the last invasion! No Rome's enemy got such a high treatment like this.

And again: What should that lead to? Then there were many Dacians in very difficult terrain. Why exactly must they have heavy cavalry now?

And again: What exactly do you think is wrong in the list? Why can't you answer this question in a concrete way? And then, provide evidence for that.


There were Roman military trainers in Numidia, too, and what did they achieve? MF with LS!
Bastarnae are in the main list. Roxolani and Iazyges are both covered by the Sarmatian ally.
If you think they need celtic allies, please provide the sources.

Try an analogy Cothyso.

Afghanistan has been at war in some form or other for many many years. During that time it has beaten The British Empire, the Russians and is now fighting NATO. Move this 2000 years down history and will your equivalent be saying that the Taliban must have been using Stealth bombers, MLRS and highly trained armies just because they were so good in their home terrain. Hopefully not. The authors of such a theory may think it makes sense but would need proof.

Mehrunes, I find your aggressive attitude disturbing, considering there was nothing I did or said to have caused it. Please restrain yourself.

Regarding the sources, as I've said above, ALL the main written sources regarding the Dacians were lost (like in we have at this moment none of them), with only some tiny scraps (mostly a few words citations) surviving in other works. The best ones we have today are from Dio Cassius and Jordanes, and the frescoes from the Adamclisi's Monument and Trajan's Column (beside the archeological sties).

Therefore, the main evidence we must rely on when talking about dacians and dacian wars is circumstantial, and must be deducted from archeological evidences. Do you really think that the biggest iron metal working center from outside the roman empire was there to make nails and hinges, or to make armors and weapons? Or that dacians could wreak fast havoc through all the Moesia with a pedestrian army?

"Analogies" proposals like the afghan-american guerrilla war must be a (maybe a non-intended, but still insulting) joke, right?!! There are three big pitched battles during the Domitian wars, and at least another 3 big ones during Trajan's dacian wars. How many "pitched" battled were in the afghan-american war you say?!!

Looking at the comlumn scenes, you'll find all the signs that the dacian army was a regular hellenistic combined army, using battle standards and acoustic signals, practicing combined arms battle tactics, laying advanced machinery sieges against stone-built roman castrums and town, using light and heavy armors, a large variety of weapons and missiles, and also using roman field artillery and trained by roman military instructors. Do you get this feeling from the dacian list, or rather a feeling of a barbarian army?

cothyso wrote:"Analogies" proposals like the afghan-american guerrilla war must be a (maybe a non-intended, but still insulting) joke, right?!! There are three big pitched battles during the Domitian wars, and at least another 3 big ones during Trajan's dacian wars. How many "pitched" battled were in the afghan-american war you say?!!

Afghan-American War. Nobody mentioned that. Was there one? Pitched battles fighting the Afghans. Lots by the British Empire and lots of set piece battles planned and executed by NATO and Russian forces in their time there. Unless divisional level is not that big. Try reading the biography of Ahmed Shah Masood, he was fighting the Russians and assassinated by the Taliban.

Looking at the comlumn scenes, you'll find all the signs that the dacian army was a regular hellenistic combined army, using battle standards and acoustic signals, practicing combined arms battle tactics, laying advanced machinery sieges against stone-built roman castrums and town, using light and heavy armors, a large variety of weapons and missiles, and also using roman field artillery and trained by roman military instructors. Do you get this feeling from the dacian list, or rather a feeling of a barbarian army?

I could get the feeling of Barbarian armies from many of the arab lists if you want to look at them that way. But they aren't. Some of the highest peaks of civilisation, law, learning, trade and the arts were in Syria, Iraq and Iran until the crusades. Thankfully they left a bit more behind than the Dacians, so there is little to base the Dacin army on. But it should not be based solely on conjecture from a few columns made by their conquerors.
Though their conquerors may have rightly or wrongly changed our perceptions

Also your bit about being aggressive and then having a go at me is a little hypocritical

Ok, it seems we need to define terms in here: Afghanistan never had a real field army. All the wars fought in there were actually won in a matter of days. The guerilla fights fought against occupations army on the other hand were lasting forever. Trying to propose an analogy between two totally different kind of warfare is actually the thing being a little hypocritical, don't you think?

I agree with arab being the most developed countries during the dark ages, but I don't know from where you got the barbarian feeling about those armies. Also, arab armies never relied on heavy infantry head on pitched battles. Not that they couldn't, but it wasn't fit with their perception and way of waging war. Same as for persians for example.

The most important evidence is the fact that for Trajan's Dacian Wars were required all the legions the empire could afford to dispose from border duties, almost 20, for around 150-200k manpower. You won't assembly an army of that kind if you go fight some untrained barbarian army employing simpleminded battle tactics. To beat the gaul, germanic, briton and celt barbarian armies the romans never needed that amount of manpower (see Caesar's capaigns in Gaul, or roman invasion of Britain).

cothyso wrote:Ok, it seems we need to define terms in here: Afghanistan never had a real field army. All the wars fought in there were actually won in a matter of days. The guerilla fights fought against occupations army on the other hand were lasting forever. Trying to propose an analogy between two totally different kind of warfare is actually the thing being a little hypocritical, don't you think?

I agree with arab being the most developed countries during the dark ages, but I don't know from where you got the barbarian feeling about those armies. Also, arab armies never relied on heavy infantry head on pitched battles. Not that they couldn't, but it wasn't fit with their perception and way of waging war. Same as for persians for example.

I don't claim to be an expert on the Dacians but you are obvioulsy an expert on the Afghan wars and the Arab Conquest. Best I shut up, or best you start reading up because there is obviously no reason or research in the above arguments so why should I believe there to be in any of your others.

Hi Cothyso,

I would contend a major difference in the size of the Roman armies used against the British Isles , Gaul and Dacia is that Dacia was a large unified state under a ruler Decebalus during the time of the Roman invasions. They also knew the terrain was against them and that they faced a well organised military force. They also had to win fast as I believe at least once a campaign against Dacia was cut short by pressure on the german frontier. When operating against the Gauls and "British" they were operating against confederations of tribes or at times individual tribes.

I don't believe I've ever seen an estimate of the forces Trajan took to Dacia as higher than 12 legiones present either as a whole or as vexillationes - and even that was based on looking at shields on Trajan's Column. Quite frankly other than saying it was a relatively large army for hard fought campaigns saying anything about numbers is speculation. Unless you could point me at some other info that is

Also not sure how you get Gaul conquered with 4 legiones - there were 8 at the Sambre for example

As for "Also, arab armies never relied on heavy infantry head on pitched battles" - untrue as the armies that won battle of the early conquest such as al-Qadisiyyah were mainly heavy infantry.

However, on the point of HF lets be honest and admit that the FoG list has them as MF pretty much that is what they have always been in wargames lists and without contra evidence we left them as that for players with existing armies. I'd certainly be open to any actual evidence for HF, or the possibility of such (and I'm afraid nothing posted so far is really such evidence).