WI: Burebista's Getae kingdom survives?

Burebista was a Getic/Dacian ruler, whom ruled between 82-44 BCE, and subjugated a number of tribes, including some Thracians groups and the Celtic Scordisci and Danubian-based Boii and Taurisci, and also a number of Greek colonies on the Black Sea coast. He all but succeeded in centralising the Dacians, but was eventually murdered by Tarabostes (Dacian tribal nobles) as his absolutist rule was detrimental to their personal liberties. The capital of this short-lived kingdom was the city of Argedava, located near modern Costesti in Wallachia, Romania.

Burebista's Getic state was so powerful and wealthy, that its believed Caesar actually planned to invade Dacia in 59 BCE, since he was appointed as Proconsul of Illyria in addition to being the governor of Cisalpine and Transalpine Gaul. Burebista was also said to have supported the Pompeian/Optimate faction against Caesar during the civil war in the 40's BCE.

According to Strabo, Burebista was advised by a holy man named Decaeneus, whom was the high priest of the powerful monotheistic Dacian cult of Zalmoxis, and that Burebista reset the calender from the alleged birthdate of Zalmoxis (believed to have lived in the 700's BCE), and to have ordered a general prohibition against the manufacture of wine in accordance to his religious beliefs.

Even after the break-up and reunification of Dacia by King Decebalus, whom ruled between 87-106 CE, Dacia was a civilized urban culture on par with the Greeks and Romans, possessing paved roads, piped water, literacy, coinage, and other arts and crafts.

What could have been the fallout if Burebista's powerful Getic Kingdom had outlived him?
 
Not sure about Burebista's but Decebalus's could have survived if Trajan had died before or during one of his invasions as Roman Dacia became increasingly difficult to defend afterwards. Trajan's successor Hadrian eventually pulled back to the more realistic Danube frontier.

One of the reasons for the invasion of Dacia was that the Roman Imperium desperately needed all their cash to remain afloat financially. If Dacia isn't invaded and looted who else can be?
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Burebista was a Getic/Dacian ruler, whom ruled between 82-44 BCE, and subjugated a number of tribes, including some Thracians groups and the Celtic Scordisci and Danubian-based Boii and Taurisci, and also a number of Greek colonies on the Black Sea coast. He all but succeeded in centralising the Dacians, but was eventually murdered by Tarabostes (Dacian tribal nobles) as his absolutist rule was detrimental to their personal liberties. The capital of this short-lived kingdom was the city of Argedava, located near modern Costesti in Wallachia, Romania.

Burebista's Getic state was so powerful and wealthy, that its believed Caesar actually planned to invade Dacia in 59 BCE, since he was appointed as Proconsul of Illyria in addition to being the governor of Cisalpine and Transalpine Gaul. Burebista was also said to have supported the Pompeian/Optimate faction against Caesar during the civil war in the 40's BCE.

According to Strabo, Burebista was advised by a holy man named Decaeneus, whom was the high priest of the powerful monotheistic Dacian cult of Zalmoxis, and that Burebista reset the calender from the alleged birthdate of Zalmoxis (believed to have lived in the 700's BCE), and to have ordered a general prohibition against the manufacture of wine in accordance to his religious beliefs.

Even after the break-up and reunification of Dacia by King Decebalus, whom ruled between 87-106 CE, Dacia was a civilized urban culture on par with the Greeks and Romans, possessing paved roads, piped water, literacy, coinage, and other arts and crafts.

What could have been the fallout if Burebista's powerful Getic Kingdom had outlived him?

Getae is acctually a constant pest for my Macedonian Kingdom in EU: Rome. Good riddance they perished.
 
Even after the break-up and reunification of Dacia by King Decebalus, whom ruled between 87-106 CE, Dacia was a civilized urban culture on par with the Greeks and Romans, possessing paved roads, piped water, literacy, coinage, and other arts and crafts.

Literacy? You know better than that.

Trajan's successor Hadrian eventually pulled back to the more realistic Danube frontier.

No, that was Aurelian over a century later. Hadrian just pulled out of the harder to defend lowland in the southeast of Dacia, which had been added to the province of Lower Moesia. Though he did apparently consider abandoning all of Dacia.

Getae is acctually a constant pest for my Macedonian Kingdom in EU: Rome.

They never bothered me when playing as one of the Roman factions.
 
Last edited:

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
You playin Vanilla? In Lofman's mod Barbarian nations are much stronger and tend to form alliances (sigh, the current Getae- Illyria- Dacia alliance is a tough nut to crack).
 
You playin Vanilla?

Used to, it's been ages since I last touched a video game.

In Lofman's mod Barbarian nations are much stronger and tend to form alliances (sigh, the current Getae- Illyria- Dacia alliance is a tough nut to crack).

It has the Getae and Dacians as separate factions? That doesn't make much sense considering the 2 were either closely related peoples (the former in the Greek-influenced plains and the latter in the mountain fortresses) or the same people under different names.
 
Not sure about Burebista's but Decebalus's could have survived if Trajan had died before or during one of his invasions as Roman Dacia became increasingly difficult to defend afterwards. Trajan's successor Hadrian eventually pulled back to the more realistic Danube frontier.

One of the reasons for the invasion of Dacia was that the Roman Imperium desperately needed all their cash to remain afloat financially. If Dacia isn't invaded and looted who else can be?

I think it would have been better for Dacian political and cultural longevity if the original Dacian state survived past the First Century BCE. Burebista died in the same year as Caesar, and the old tribal nobility took over and divided the states. Had either Burebista survived the plots against his life, or if there was someone other among the Tarabostes (Getic aristocracy) whom could take his place, the following civil wars of the Roman Republic might be advantageous for the Getae to influence events in their favour, to persuade the defection of Roman officials and engineers to their side, or even cause a situation similar to that of Quintus Labienus in 40 BCE when he assisted the Parthian invasion of the Levantine provinces by offering tactical advice and convincing Roman garrisons into switching sides.

Decebalus OTOH, whom lived in the late 1st Century CE, managed to reunite Dacia when Rome was at its military height and then untroubled by civil war. I think Burebista's Dacia has better prospects than Decebalus' Dacia.
 
Not sure about Burebista's but Decebalus's could have survived if Trajan had died before or during one of his invasions as Roman Dacia became increasingly difficult to defend afterwards. Trajan's successor Hadrian eventually pulled back to the more realistic Danube frontier.

One of the reasons for the invasion of Dacia was that the Roman Imperium desperately needed all their cash to remain afloat financially. If Dacia isn't invaded and looted who else can be?

I think it would have been better for Dacian political and cultural longevity if the original Dacian state survived past the First Century BCE. Burebista died in the same year as Caesar, and the old tribal nobility took over and divided the states. Had either Burebista survived the plots against his life, or if there was someone other among the Tarabostes (Getic aristocracy) whom could take his place, the following civil wars of the Roman Republic might be advantageous for the Getae to influence events in their favour, to persuade the defection of Roman officials and engineers to their side, or even cause a situation similar to that of Quintus Labienus in 40 BCE when he assisted the Parthian invasion of the Levantine provinces by offering tactical advice and convincing Roman garrisons into switching sides.

Decebalus OTOH, whom lived in the late 1st Century CE, managed to reunite Dacia when Rome was at its military height and then untroubled by civil war. I think Burebista's Dacia has better prospects than Decebalus' Dacia. Would the
 
Not sure about Burebista's but Decebalus's could have survived if Trajan had died before or during one of his invasions as Roman Dacia became increasingly difficult to defend afterwards. Trajan's successor Hadrian eventually pulled back to the more realistic Danube frontier.

One of the reasons for the invasion of Dacia was that the Roman Imperium desperately needed all their cash to remain afloat financially. If Dacia isn't invaded and looted who else can be?

I think it would have been better for Dacian political and cultural longevity if the original Dacian state survived past the First Century BCE. Burebista died in the same year as Caesar, and the old tribal nobility took over and divided the states. Had either Burebista survived the plots against his life, or if there was someone other among the Tarabostes (Getic aristocracy) whom could take his place, the following civil wars of the Roman Republic might be advantageous for the Getae to influence events in their favour, to persuade the defection of Roman officials and engineers to their side, or even cause a situation similar to that of Quintus Labienus in 40 BCE when he assisted the Parthian invasion of the Levantine provinces by offering tactical advice and convincing Roman garrisons into switching sides.

Decebalus OTOH, whom lived in the late 1st Century CE, managed to reunite Dacia when Rome was at its military height and then untroubled by civil war. I think Burebista's Dacia has better prospects than Decebalus' Dacia. Would the Principate-Era Romans want to tolerate an
 
Not sure about Burebista's but Decebalus's could have survived if Trajan had died before or during one of his invasions as Roman Dacia became increasingly difficult to defend afterwards. Trajan's successor Hadrian eventually pulled back to the more realistic Danube frontier.

One of the reasons for the invasion of Dacia was that the Roman Imperium desperately needed all their cash to remain afloat financially. If Dacia isn't invaded and looted who else can be?

I think it would have been better for Dacian political and cultural longevity if the original Dacian state survived past the First Century BCE. Burebista died in the same year as Caesar, and the old tribal nobility took over and divided the states. Had either Burebista survived the plots against his life, or if there was someone other among the Tarabostes (Getic aristocracy) whom could take his place, the following civil wars of the Roman Republic might be advantageous for the Getae to influence events in their favour, to persuade the defection of Roman officials and engineers to their side, or even cause a situation similar to that of Quintus Labienus in 40 BCE when he assisted the Parthian invasion of the Levantine provinces by offering tactical advice and convincing Roman garrisons into switching sides.

Decebalus OTOH, whom lived in the late 1st Century CE, managed to reunite Dacia when Rome was at its military height and then untroubled by civil war. I think Burebista's Dacia has better prospects than Decebalus' Dacia. Would the Principate-Era Romans want to tolerate a powerful and organized "barbarian" state so close to home?!
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Used to, it's been ages since I last touched a video game.



It has the Getae and Dacians as separate factions? That doesn't make much sense considering the 2 were either closely related peoples (the former in the Greek-influenced plains and the latter in the mountain fortresses) or the same people under different names.
It mainly has them as two different factions to make expansion hard in northern Balkans.
 
Could we see a Burebistan Dacian Kingdom survive by manipulating the fractious Republican bigwigs? Maybe Dacia seizes more land in the Balkans, with the Parthians of Pacorus I permanently conquering Anatolia, Syria and Judea, and Cleopatra of Egypt rebuild her kingdom with the help of both Greek and Roman exiles?
 
Could we see a Burebistan Dacian Kingdom survive by manipulating the fractious Republican bigwigs? Maybe Dacia seizes more land in the Balkans, with the Parthians of Pacorus I permanently conquering Anatolia, Syria and Judea, and Cleopatra of Egypt rebuild her kingdom with the help of both Greek and Roman exiles?
It is a very fascinating alternative, indeed. But I think he failed to motivate his generals. Instead a alliance with Pompei, generals probably expected to invade roman cities, for booty. Romans were divised, and Burebista probably had time enough to strenghten his army, economy, internal affairs.
 
It is a very fascinating alternative, indeed. But I think he failed to motivate his generals. Instead a alliance with Pompei, generals probably expected to invade roman cities, for booty. Romans were divised, and Burebista probably had time enough to strenghten his army, economy, internal affairs.

By Pompey, perhaps you are refering to Sextus Pompey, Gnaeus Pompey's younger son, whom governed a seccessionist state in Sicily between 45-36 BCE, before his defeat by Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa and subsequent capture and execution in 35 BCE.
 
Top