Roman colonization of Dacia and Balkans

[Zmey Gorynych]

The old Dacian core region was Moesia and Severin region around the Danube. The Dacian power was shifted towards north slowly because of the Roman conquest of the Balkan. Finally the Dacians won and conquered and colonized huge Celtic lands. But the majority of the population were Celtic here and after the Daco-Roman wars mostly Sarmatian and German.

There was no old dacian core before Burebista ... dacians were present in what is now northern Romania and Republic of Moldova well before the romans conquered/started to conquer the Balkans.

Nobody rebuilt those cities. Means it: no survivors there. And yes, there was a difference between Dacia and Carthage and this was the political situation: the third war against the Puns was the war against a city, while the final Daco-Roman war was a war against a country and the Romans devastated a great area here. The war was brutal and the devastation was a good business for them. Or more punctually for the slave-traders and the soldiers.

It was one city the other cities continued to exist. Punics prospered as merchants and continued to exist as a group, they even gave a roman emperor (Septimius Severus)

[Arbërori]

Sorry, but aren't Romanians Dacian? It wouldn't make sense for Albanians and Romanians to have so many words incommon, when the Romanians would've been Roman colonizers or Celts or whatever.

It's clear that Romanians seem to be native to the land, the proof is in spoken language aswell, a lot of words share either the similar or same etymology both in Albanian and Romanian.

[Bloodnigger]

Trajan's second Dacian War was indeed a war of extermination. These were frequent both in Rome and Byzantium. (see 2nd jewish revolt, Germanicus' campaign in germany, Nikephoros Phokas campaign in syria and lebanon, john komnenus' extermination and mass enslavement of the Pechenegs etc)

I do not know about whether the Dacians were indeed a minority in their kingdom but their capital, Sarmisegetuza, was stormed, destroyed and the population either completely killed or enslaved. The survivors were also attacked by their former Sarmatian allies as well.

[Xanthias]

Very different stories. But we know the Dacian story and that was devastating, basically the Romans repopulated the province after a huge scale ethnic cleasing. The new population of Dacia was mostly Celtic origin from Pannonia and the Balkan with significant pan-Roman (Romanised peoples from the empire) and Oriental elements. Good example in Dacia is the discontinuity of the Dacian settlements. The new Roman settlemenst built in other space with sometimes the old Dacian names, but the Dacian settlements stopped existing. This is one of the great problem with the Daco-Roman theory. This was a Romanization process without Dacians. The Dacian folk was slaughtered or it was forced into slavery escept the Free Dacians who were the survivor refugees outside the Roman rule.

According to you it was devastating in an other way. How come Romans did repopulated the area and withdrwal shortly afterwards in comparison to other regions ? And where is the supoposed celtic incursion or repopulation atfer the romans withdrawl ? And what Oriental elemnts ? You mean Macedonians/illyrians legionnaries that were stationed there and were perhaps of full balkanic stock ? and how come dacian "settlements" (lol) stopped to existing when romans itself took only 25% of the lands and did not made any other incursion/raids outside of it ? (was quite the opposite, they were harassed by the locals). and where is the record of entire masslaughtering or entire civilians (must have been a huch war seeing the importance it took nearby the emperors) being forced into slavery ? I'm going to be surprised what kind of other fabricated theories you have in your mind.

[blogen]

There was no old dacian core before Burebista ... dacians were present in what is now northern Romania and Republic of Moldova well before the romans conquered/started to conquer the Balkans.

The Dacians were an ethnic group, relatives of the Thracians.



The Roman conquest of the Balkan facilitated the tribes' unification politics.

[Styrian Mujo]

Very different stories. But we know the Dacian story and that was devastating, basically the Romans repopulated the province after a huge scale ethnic cleasing. The new population of Dacia was mostly Celtic origin from Pannonia and the Balkan with significant pan-Roman (Romanised peoples from the empire) and Oriental elements. Good example in Dacia is the discontinuity of the Dacian settlements. The new Roman settlemenst built in other space with sometimes the old Dacian names, but the Dacian settlements stopped existing. This is one of the great problem with the Daco-Roman theory. This was a Romanization process without Dacians. The Dacian folk was slaughtered or it was forced into slavery escept the Free Dacians who were the survivor refugees outside the Roman rule.

To you know what was the size of the oriental/pan-Roman population in Roman Balkans? Based on some phenotypes found among Balkan peoples including Romanians there seems to be some middle eastern influence.

[blogen]

According to you it was devastating in an other way. How come Romans did repopulated the area and withdrwal shortly afterwards in comparison to other regions ? And where is the supoposed celtic incursion or repopulation atfer the romans withdrawl ? And what Oriental elemnts ? You mean Macedonians/illyrians legionnaries that were stationed there and were perhaps of full balkanic stock ? and how come dacian "settlements" (lol) stopped to existing when romans itself took only 25% of the lands and did not made any other incursion/raids outside of it ? (was quite the opposite, they were harassed by the locals). and where is the record of entire masslaughtering or entire civilians (must have been a huch war seeing the importance it took nearby the emperors) being forced into slavery ? I'm going to be surprised what kind of other fabricated theories you have in your mind.

To you know what was the size of the oriental/pan-Roman population in Roman Balkans? Based on some phenotypes found among Balkan peoples including Romanians there seems to be some middle eastern influence.

About the devastation and repopulation.

[Zmey Gorynych]

Trajan's second Dacian War was indeed a war of extermination. These were frequent both in Rome and Byzantium. (see 2nd jewish revolt, Germanicus' campaign in germany, Nikephoros Phokas campaign in syria and lebanon, john komnenus' extermination and mass enslavement of the Pechenegs etc)

I do not know about whether the Dacians were indeed a minority in their kingdom but their capital, Sarmisegetuza, was stormed, destroyed and the population either completely killed or enslaved. The survivors were also attacked by their former Sarmatian allies as well.

The population of the Roman Dacia was about one million, if they killed all the dacians this must've been the greatest genocide in the ancient world and the biggest colonisation of the time. Something that never happened.

Dacians lived on both sides of Tisa river well before the rise of celtic tribes which were defeated and absorbed by the dacians so the idea of dacians being a minority int those lands is ridiculous.

The devastation and repopulation is hard fact.

Who's the author of this wonderful bed time story ?

The Dacians were an ethnic group, relatives of the Thracians.



The Roman conquest of the Balkan facilitated the tribes' unification politics.

Nobody disputes that dacians were related to thracians. We're talking of their presence in todays northern Romania, eastern Hungary and western Ukraine well before the roman conquest of the Balkans. The Carpi (one of the dacian tribes) lived in the territory west of austrian galicia (that's Ukraine and Slovakia)

I know you like to draw maps but how about one backed by historians !?

[Xanthias]

Celts. The Dacians were a minority in their kingdom. Basically this kingdom was an alliance with their vassals and the greatest Dacian war was not the Daco-Roman war, but the Dacian's war with the Celtic powers. The old Dacian core region was Moesia and Severin region around the Danube. The Dacian power was shifted towards north slowly because of the Roman conquest of the Balkan. Finally the Dacians won and conquered and colonized huge Celtic lands. But the majority of the population were Celtic here and after the Daco-Roman wars mostly Sarmatian and German.

You are talking insane gibberish and I thnik havbe already debunked you in a previous thread about the Celts (who were mostly chased out) no need to come back with this. and there can't have been any celts there since Hallstat (which way before Rome and anything lnked with this). And Dacians were surely a minority in their own kingdom with appointed Dacian kings and rules, not to talkoing about the Dacian ruler class who were also the upper rulers class of some Sarmatian tribes alonside the balck sea. and what power shift do you even talk about ? Dacians kings made several allainces with tribes such as the Marcomannii, Quadii in order to weak Rome position. There has never been any power shift in any region anywhere.

[blogen]

Who's the author of this wonderful bed time story ?

Wrong question since this is the scientific consensus outside Romania. This is what the antique authors write about this and the archaeological finds prove this too.
Look at the links on the front of the topic for example!