Effects of an Unconquered Dacia

The effects of Dacia's conquest on the later empire is an interesting thing to ponder. It kind of left a power vacuum in the region, Roman control never being complete in the late 2nd to 3rd centuries. The power vacuum of course was filled by migrating tribes, namely the Marcomanni and the Goths.

So let's assume for a moment that Trajan does not go on a campaign of conquest of Dacia. Since I don't want to alter too many other variables, Trajan is still in power, but instead he attempts a much more limited venture against Decabalus, aimed at stopping the raids across the Danube and maybe forcing Dacia to give some form of tribute (as for his reasoning, assume he views Dacia as a distraction to a far more lucrative prize in the east). Trajan still gets sick and dies in the east before he can solidify his holdings and Hadrian still pulls back.


Now what effects does this have on the Roman Empire? How does it affect the migrations south (namely, the Goths), now that there is a strong, wealthy, and centralized independent state in Dacia?
 
Assuming that Dacia doesn't collapse with the Goths invading . Then the Goths head west earlier and try to cross the Rhine in the late 300s (for argument's sake lets say 376AD). However they would probably have had more problems with Gratian than Valens!
 
Someone brought this up on a thread way way back (Probably LSCatalina) and the gist of it was that Dacia served as bulwark against the East. So a surviving Dacia may just lead to a stronger empire, if for no other reason than they can keep a lid on any migratory peoples. So long as Dacia sticks around and doesn't piss Rome off too much they can hold on for centuries, certainly long enough to hold off any migrations.

I don't think anyone coming from that direction would have the ability to break the Dacians, at least not with the Romans meddling in their affairs.
 
Someone brought this up on a thread way way back (Probably LSCatalina) and the gist of it was that Dacia served as bulwark against the East. So a surviving Dacia may just lead to a stronger empire, if for no other reason than they can keep a lid on any migratory peoples. So long as Dacia sticks around and doesn't piss Rome off too much they can hold on for centuries, certainly long enough to hold off any migrations.

I don't think anyone coming from that direction would have the ability to break the Dacians, at least not with the Romans meddling in their affairs.
Agreed. The Goths who arrived in the 3rd century were scattered and no match for a Dacian Kingdom. Actually, Dacia could have been a powerful partner for Rome in the Marcomannic Wars already, a Dacian Empire sure would have liked to expand a little Westwards, especially since the Quadi sat on silver mines and ore and fertile land.
In a best case scenario, Dacia takes care of a lot of Germanic trouble. It remains a threat for Rome in itself, though, likely alternating between loyal alliance and the pursuit of independent and antagonistic goals.
 
Agreed. The Goths who arrived in the 3rd century were scattered and no match for a Dacian Kingdom. Actually, Dacia could have been a powerful partner for Rome in the Marcomannic Wars already, a Dacian Empire sure would have liked to expand a little Westwards, especially since the Quadi sat on silver mines and ore and fertile land.
In a best case scenario, Dacia takes care of a lot of Germanic trouble. It remains a threat for Rome in itself, though, likely alternating between loyal alliance and the pursuit of independent and antagonistic goals.

And with that last point you have to ask how the Dacians don't get conquered in the future. They're a benefit to the Romans so long as they stand on their feet, but if they're standing they're just as likely to deal with Barbarians as they are to harass Rome.

It's a mutually beneficial arrangement for Rome and Dacia to coexist so long as they don't step on each other's toes and I don't think anyone here misunderstands just how hard it is to keep Roman-Dacian relations stable and positive through successive Kings and Emperors, overmighty generals, and simple opportunism. The two dominions are going to fluctuate in power over the course of history and keeping one to hold the line when they easily go on the offensive for glory and wealth and influence (especially in Rome's case) is just nigh impossible.

Rome's a hungry beast and Dacia's a cornered animal it's just not within either's mindset to maintain the status quo, nevermind if it helps anyone or not. The best you can hope for is some realpolitik on the part of both parties until a sense of comradery could be built.
 
And with that last point you have to ask how the Dacians don't get conquered in the future. They're a benefit to the Romans so long as they stand on their feet, but if they're standing they're just as likely to deal with Barbarians as they are to harass Rome.

It's a mutually beneficial arrangement for Rome and Dacia to coexist so long as they don't step on each other's toes and I don't think anyone here misunderstands just how hard it is to keep Roman-Dacian relations stable and positive through successive Kings and Emperors, overmighty generals, and simple opportunism. The two dominions are going to fluctuate in power over the course of history and keeping one to hold the line when they easily go on the offensive for glory and wealth and influence (especially in Rome's case) is just nigh impossible.

Rome's a hungry beast and Dacia's a cornered animal it's just not within either's mindset to maintain the status quo, nevermind if it helps anyone or not. The best you can hope for is some realpolitik on the part of both parties until a sense of comradery could be built.

I disagree. Dacia is a wealthy land, yes, but what Roman emperor is going to have an interest in conquering them? Following Trajan you have Hadrian, then Antononius Pius and Marcus Aurelius. You'll still have problems in the third century, though they'll be much easier to manage with the Dacians effectively guarding the Danube frontier from any external invaders (though no doubt they'll raid opportunistically when they have the chance). You'll have the problems with the Sassanians, you'll have the plague, you'll have problems on the Rhine frontier. The Roman Empire's window for expansion pretty much effectively closed by the time of Marcus Aurelius's death. And the emperors between Trajan and Aurelius didn't show much interest in expansion, Aurelius only wishing to expand to protect control over Dacia.


So I think the Dacians could very easily survive and alternate as a client and foe of the empire.
 
I don't think Dacia can be this airtight seal on Rome's danubian frontier - the core of the state was centered on the Carpathians in what today is Transylvania, with outlying areas submitting to central authority (Burebista or Decebal) only when the threat of Roman invasion was acutely real - basically, it was this odd blend of tribal confederation and centralized classical state. And it;s really those outlying, poorly-controlled areas that stand in the way, not the core, which can easily be bypassed.

If the Goths come in and find it difficult to cross the Carpathians, they would most likely cross the Danube around where Belgrade is today; Steppe peoples meanwhile would have little trouble entering what we now call the Romanian Plain, and cross the Danube from there.
 
I don't think Dacia can be this airtight seal on Rome's danubian frontier - the core of the state was centered on the Carpathians in what today is Transylvania, with outlying areas submitting to central authority (Burebista or Decebal) only when the threat of Roman invasion was acutely real - basically, it was this odd blend of tribal confederation and centralized classical state. And it;s really those outlying, poorly-controlled areas that stand in the way, not the core, which can easily be bypassed.
Why would the same not apply when the threat of an invasion from the north is real?
 
Why would the same not apply when the threat of an invasion from the north is real?

It could, but it wouldn't necessarily make a big difference - no Dacian King is going to risk his entire army for a bunch of Tarabostes who couldn't be arsed to even formally acknowledge him the previous year.

Sure, he'll defend the centralized core to his dying breath, but its unlikely IMHO to expect him to put everything on the line to support the outlying tribes.
 
It could, but it wouldn't necessarily make a big difference - no Dacian King is going to risk his entire army for a bunch of Tarabostes who couldn't be arsed to even formally acknowledge him the previous year.

Sure, he'll defend the centralized core to his dying breath, but its unlikely IMHO to expect him to put everything on the line to support the outlying tribes.
The outlying tribes might be faring better than OTL, though.
IOTL, the first major raids in the 3rd century were still led by Dacian Carpi. It took several decades for the power balance within the barbarian hordes to tilt towards Gothic groups. With a strong Dacian kingdom around, the Carpi-Goth relations are likely to look different. IOTL, the Romans attempted to play one group against another. ITTL, Dacian kings would participate in this game, too, and it´s quite clear where their bets lie, I´d say.
 
Surviving Dacian Kingdom means that Rome as to keep more troops on the Dacian border than it did in OTL.

Also given that historically the roman empire gave gold and weapons to the tribes that were behind the tribes that were bordering them, expect the Goths to receive more than OTL because in the roman view they would serve to distract the Dacians from the Roman border.

There is nothing to stoop the Dacians and Goths to play the game and ally themselves against the Empire.

Overall Rome would end with a Strong enemy on the Eastern and Danubian borders which for a state going into the 3rd century crisis, admitting that it would still happen, there is no stooping the Dacians from forming an alliance with the Goths and other tribes to attack Rome, and for the Emperor to stoop this he would be force to pay huge amounts of gold to keep the Dacians on his side or give that gold to the Goths so that they could attack the Dacians and then you would only be replacing a problem for another.
 
The outlying tribes might be faring better than OTL, though.
IOTL, the first major raids in the 3rd century were still led by Dacian Carpi. It took several decades for the power balance within the barbarian hordes to tilt towards Gothic groups. With a strong Dacian kingdom around, the Carpi-Goth relations are likely to look different. IOTL, the Romans attempted to play one group against another. ITTL, Dacian kings would participate in this game, too, and it´s quite clear where their bets lie, I´d say.

Or the Carpi might merge into the greater Gothic force. The Goths were really numerous, and if professional Roman armies had immense difficulties stopping them, I'm very skeptical the Dacians would.

Ultra best case scenario for the Dacians is the Goths allow them to mostly keep their lands in return for safe passage towards Roman territory.
 
As everything, it could go either way.

However, a surviving Dacian Kingdom could lead to massive butterflies. Sadly, there is extremely difficult to keep the two entities in good relations.

Rome will not bear to have any kingdom with descent power at his borders, especially if that kingdom is obscenly rich. If they will not try again a conquest, they will definitely meddle in their internal affairs, playing one faction against other, encouraging other tribes to invade them at least to keep them in check. Rome is a very bad neighbour.

The dacians also are not quite the most wished neighbour. They are warlike and will never miss the smallest sign of weakneness or troubles.

However I beleive that they could survive the migrations (with a good dose of luck). Or they will be force to migrate themselves (unlikely).

Most probably they will join the Goths and others to pillage th Empire.

With a strong Dacia, Rome will be forced to keep at least a couple of legions more on the Danube to guard te border. that could imply overextension but also a less permeable frontier. Or a even stronger base for the Danubian usurpers.
Without the insanely spoils of war Trajan come back, Rome will have less monuments (Trajan said that he had found a city of bricks but left a city of marble).
 
I wouldn't look at the world with unconquered Dacia in terms of "the Dacian Empire vs. the Roman Empire(s)".

I mean in a century or so after Trajan, Dacia would be heavily romanized; there's no other way - Dacia has no other 'civilised' neighbors to look at.
The Dacians would copy the Roman way of life, culture, crafts, sciences, laws, languages, philosophy, religion, trade, everything, you name it.
Of course, that amalgamation would work both ways, the Romans would get somewhat Dacinized, but this Dacian influence on the Romans would be far less, may be mostly in military spheres.

So in a century that will be one one world, one civilization - the Romano-Dacian world/civilization:

I don't mean that the Dacians would speak Latin (or Greek), though the Dacian elites would be fluent in these both languages, no doubt.
I don't mean that there will be three Roman emperors: the "Eastern" Roman Emperor, the "Western" Roman Emperor and the "Dacian" Roman Emperor; though under certain circumstances the Dacian ruler might take the title of Augus/Caesar/Emperor to show that he's equal to his 'true Roman' imperial colleagues.

So this Dacian-Roman confrontation of ATL would be very different from the Parthian(Sassanian)-Roman confrontation of OTL.
The Iranian world, the Iranian civilization felt hostility against the Roman World, these were different, the Iranians felt themselves different, superior.
It was 'us and them' situation.
With the Dacians the situation would be slowly moving towards 'us (the Romano-Dacian civilisation) and them (the 'uncivilized Barbarians')'

So whatever happens the 'Roman' civilization having three centers (the West, the East and Dacia) would be stronger and more stable. More chances to oppose the Germanic migrations and especially the Hunnic invasion.

just an opinion though
a scenario which is probable under some circumstances
Why not...
 
Although I would not go so far as to say that the Dacians would consider themselves Romans or that Rome had three centres, I think Russian has it right.
The Sassanians were really the exception around that time; other than them, the pattern was like this:
Rome did not have trouble with Meroe after a while, they had problems with the nomadic Blemmyes.
Rome did not have trouble with the Colchean petty kingdoms, they had trouble with the Huns.
Rome did not have trouble with the Bosporan Kingdom, but with the Goths.
Rome did not have trouble with the Garamants adter a while, but with the still nomadic Berbers further West.
Therefore, I think Dacia would have been a neat buffer.
 
Although I would not go so far as to say that the Dacians would consider themselves Romans or that Rome had three centres, I think Russian has it right.

I chose the broad 'umbrella' term the Roman World for the lack of a better word.
And the Dacians would not consider themselves Romans.

As an our TL analogue we may compare it to the French-German relationship in the XIX century. During some periods the Germans might hate the French guts and vice versa.
But whatever they felt towards each other, theirs was one civilization, whatever you call it - European civilization, the civilized world, Europe, Christendom, whatever.
And in a broader civilizational sense (putting aside some nationalistic patriotic hurt feeling) it didn't matter too much if France had conquered some 'German' territories or the "Germans" occupied part of France. I mean it was one and the same civilization.

The same with the Dacians and the Romans of ATL 'unconquered Dacia world' - they might squabble within themselves, but in a civilization sense it wouldn't matter too much who is having an upper hand at any given moment. That's one and the same civilization irrespective of what language they speak - Latin, Greek or Dacian. Or whatever they call themselves: the Romans or the proud mighty Dacians.

* I guess the ATL Dacians themselves would avoid calling their culture and civilization 'Roman' in order not to give these snobbish Romans anything to be too proud about.
The Dacians would call their (Romano-Dacian) civilization 'Civilized world', the Enlightened world or something like that as opposed to the 'uncivilized world', the 'Barbarian world' or something like that.
 
Last edited:
Top