diegis

More like Scipio Africanus is one of the most underrated generals (at least for the general public, not the historians). His plans and actions at both tactical and especially strategical level (where he defeat Hannibal) were brilliant, and the battle of Ilipa can be considered a victory about the same level of Hannibal's one at Cannae (and I do consider Hannibal one of the greatest generals, and both him and Scipio as at same level and slightly over Alexander or Caesar)

You should better be more aware of your own fantasies. This is really embarassing but you probably dont even realize in your quest to prove that everything in Thracia and even Dacia is Celtic. Gosh, i am wonder if Thracians knew how to make a fire before Celts comes around, or how to walk on two legs. Those are sica, a Thraco-Dacian weapon, and from ancient authors to modern historians everyone will tell you that. Did you ever wonder why they show up just in Dacian and Thracian areas, but not in Gallia or other Celtic areas in Central and western Europe? I know, is just a rethorical question

Gosh Cavaros, those daggers are Thracian/Dacian sica. Most of the pics and the idea with having too a possible sacrificial role come from Borangic, which clearly said they are of Thracian-Getae/Dacian origin. It is possible of course that some Scordiscii to adopt them as well (as Thracians or Dacians used Celtic like swords too), but they surely arent Celtic in origin (and you will not find them in other Celtic areas as far as i know).

Cavaros, i think you miss few elementary things Thracians was probably the first individualized people among so called "indo-europeans" and civilization was present well before the arrival of Celts in Balkans. Dacians was part of Getae (as Gauls for ex. was part of Celts from western Europe, and in both cases the names was used intermingled, like Getae=Dacians and Gauls=Celts). Getae themselves are considered the northern branch of Thracians, and both branches was well developed before any Celtic people comes around or be mentioned. See for example the Thracian influence over Greeks, like Peltasts and even some religious or spiritual influence. Getae (mentioned in writings since Herodotus and Darius I invasion in Europe) stoped actualy the spread of Hellenistic world north of Balkans, with their king Dromichaites defeting Lisimachus, one of the Diadochi (but another clashes occured before). Look what Paulus Orosius write: https://sites.google.com/site/demontortoise2000/orosius_book1 "On the contrary, recently these Getae, who are at present also called Goths (Alexander publicly said that they must be shunned, Pyrrhus dreaded them, and even Caesar avoided them), after stripping their homes bare and abandoning them, united their forces in one body and invaded the Roman provinces. By proving themselves to be a menace over a long period of time, these barbarians hoped upon their request to obtain an alliance with Rome

Isn't a contradiction betwen "I'm not going to get into the whole Dacians or no Dacians argument" you start with and the ending of your post, "Unless you propose that today's Bulgaria was also part of 'Dacia'?" The article clearly say: "What can be said however is that these coins were used by people(s) within the Dacian social and economic sphere, or by outlying groups of the Dacians themselves. These imitations are not an independent development. In the Dacian heartland, the production and circulation of denarius imitations continued at least into early Imperial times and perhaps later. 55 Little can be said about the production of imitations in the outlying areas discussed here, as no actual dies have been unearthed, but their circulation seemingly ended somewhat earlier in these regions. With the exception of the Gradeshnitsa III hoard, which closed with denarii of Trajan and contained a single plated imitation, the hoards included here all close with coins struck during the reign of Augustus or earlier. This is consistent with the known contraction and fragmentation of the

First of all, interesting blog But the article you posted (didnt have time to read others) is kinda biased and with quite few mistakes. First of all the sources you chosed, like Boia, arent quite the best to discuss in detail the history of Dacians or ancient Romania. He isnt a specialist in that field, he is a "historian of ideas" and (as few others too) write inspired by the "new" ideas of so called "demythization" of history. Even that inspiration may come from the fact he received some courses abroad and was invited to classes and symposiums by Soros foundation which have a clear policy all over eastern Europe. Meaning it try to "rewrite" the history of the region, to promote "multiculturalism" (not necessary a bad thing, except when is enforced and have hidden purposes) and abandoning or desconsidering things that relate with nation, nationalism and such. The book of Boia from where you quote there was published in Budapest/Hungary by Soros foundation publishing house This "rewriting" of history is as bad as the one done by communists before. About the communists and their interpretation of history, as appear in your aticle too, the Dacian significance in Romanian history started to be presented in works from XIX century, before communists appeareance in history, let alone in Romania. I dont know (and i kinda doubt actually) about Bulgarians moving away from the Soviet protectorate, but during communist times in Romania (who moved away quite agressively from Soviet views, indeed) the official history maintained the view that Romanians have a Daco-Roman origin (similar with French Galo-Roman) and speak a Latin based language, Dacians wasnt that blown up of importance as some may imply. In fact new discoveries (archeological or in other sources interpretation) may show an even greater importance for them in Romanian history. Now coming to your article, the source you used http://www.academia.edu/1516327/Imitations_of_Republican_denarii_from_Moesia_and_Thrace disprouve what is write in that blog article Just few quotes: " The imitation of the denarii of the Roman Republic in Central and South-eastern Europe, primarily by the Dacians, has received long overdue attention in recent years. 1 Most of this has focused on discoveries in Romania, the heartland of the Dacian polity, where these coins are most often found. The fact that these imitations are also encountered further south in Moesia and Thrace, within the borders of modern Bulgaria, is almost unknown. 2 This article is primarily an attempt to compile a corpus of all known examples of these Moesian and Thracian imitations." "What can be said however is that these coins were used by people(s) within the Dacian social and economic sphere, or by outlying groups of the Dacians themselves. These imitations are not an independent development. In the Dacian heartland, the production and circulation of denarius imitations continued at least into early Imperial times and perhaps later. 55 Little can be said about the production of imitations in the outlying areas discussed here, as no actual dies have been unearthed, but their circulation seemingly ended somewhat earlier in these regions. With the exception of the Gradeshnitsa III hoard, which closed with denarii of Trajan and contained a single plated imitation, the hoards included here all close with coins struck during the reign of Augustus or earlier. This is consistent with the known contraction and fragmentation of the

I think was several reasons, one political, as mentioned by Caldrail, another one was that in 85/86 a Dacian army invaded Roman province of Moesia, making big destructions (Roman troops are defeated and governor Oppius Sabinus was beheaded), so Domitian called back any available troops and rush to Moesia to deal with the problem. Another reason is that Caledonia wasnt probably considered too worthy to be transformed in a province, as it wasnt either a rich teritory, nor a strategic one, and the costs of start building towns, fortresses, roads, aqueducts and so on and keep troops there was too big compared with benefits (similar with what happened in some Germania teritories betwen Rhine and Elba)

Well, it wasnt unstopable or invincible, but for sure had for quite a long period, a crushing dominance. I must say that Assirians for ex, employed first trully multifunctional army, with rapid deployment of assault chariots, psichological warfare, dedicated engineers units who provide suport for crossing rivers, or build all kind of stuff, use of incendiary weapons as burning pitch tar and so on, but Romans set a kind of standard who have many similarities with modern times, or is praised in modern times.

Yes, and we might add as well the medical services that legions had, including what we call today "field doctors" who go on battlefield or close by and treat the wounded right there, then evacuate them to what we can call hospitals. Where even surgery (and sometimes quite complicate interventions) was done for the wounded or sick legionars

Yes, he talk mostly about what was in the prime time of the legions, he mention even foreign nations from which Romans of his time can inspire, Dacians, Thracians, Macedonians, and couple more others. Fact is that those things was usualy done in Roman legions, and wasnt Vegetius inventions Sure it was a necessity, and this discipline (sometimes or usualy less harsh today) is still imposed in modern armies, and have its roots to the legions. From perfect marches to clean up your guns or your uniform, your boots, until they shine (especialy on inspections or parades), to punishments for diysobeing the orders or not doing your mission. Sure, not like decimation or lashing or beatings (this last one might still be around in many armies) Well, if you dont believe is one thing, but they surely existed, because other way they wouldnt be mentioned. And their paralels with modern armies are clear. About a chaotic ambush situation, i dont think any modern regular army unit will do much better then a Roman legion back then. Yes, but more times this helped them and surprised the enemies. I think Caesar said that Germans for ex. was quick runners, but have a weak resistance or stamina, and wasnt able to stand much physical work, especialy compared with his legionars. I think a guy called Nero (not the emperor ofcourse), if i am not mistake, made a spectacular quick (and long) march with his army, from Rome to somehwere north of Italia, and took by surprise the Carthaginian army led by Hanibal brother (Hasdrubal was his name if i remember correct) who come in his help from Hispania. This Carthage army was destroyed, and Hannibal lost all his reinforces. So yes, Roman soldiers (still not "profesional" at that time) was able to fight even after those marches, but usualy was not the case that a battle to start imediatly after a march I think modern professionals arent too diferent from Roman ones. Sure, diferences exist, but Romans are somehow the roots for any profesional force

Well, if we read what Vegetius i think, writed, and many others, Roman Army was indeed what might call an example for today armies. Discipline was harsh usualy (ofcourse, less during peace time but much more during war), training was hard, including runing, marches (even swiming) with all equipment on the soldier, wrestling, boxing, use of individual weapons (and colective ones as balistae and catapults) and fight in bigger formations as well, engineering works etc. This is exactly what a modern army do as well Organization was clear and flexible (decuria, centuria, cohors, legions etc. similar with group, platoon, companies, battalions, regiments/brigades/divisions), there was a chain of comand quite well established, signals was used on the battle field, both visual and in sounds, to give orders during battle. This again is similar with modern armies Logistic was very good, soldiers have with them all their personal stuffs, weapons, tools extra clothes, armour and food for a period of time, and they was trained to march quite long distances equiped like that (this is quite above average armies today, as physical request) They used even specialized inteligence networks, use spies, bribes and politics to resolve some problems, again, as modern powers do. Soldiers was all profesional and equiped by state, again as modern armies, which inspire quite a lot from Romans.

I came across to a website, and a map they did, with DNA subgroups of Europe, not sure how realistic are, but is interesting http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-europa.html

Dacians had too the right, short sword similar with Gladius, but aparently most spread was the Sica, somehow similar in lenght, maybe a little shorter, but having a curvature (looking like a giant claw) and able to be used not just for slashing, but even for stabbing too in diferent angles, easier then a right sword, especialy when your sheild is pushing in the enemy shield and the space of the battle was full of peoples. Falx was a bigger Sica i think, and was designed to bypass the shield. Due to shape and weight it can pierce a helmet with its tip, from above, it can easily cut legs (in a kind of schyte or hook and pull move) and arms, and, due to same shape and system of use it can used in more confined space, dont need the same space as a long Celtic like sword. It was possible as well to hook and pull the enemy shield, unbalancing him and drag him down Gladius was however very good for Roman formations and warfare style

Yes, IF. I do not believe those legions should ever have been sent on campaign with Rome's military strength so low. Those three legions should never have gone on campaign in the first place, because as we saw, they needed heavy axillary support in Germania. I think the entire campaign was doomed, especially since they were lead by such a naive commander. The fact the Romans before the battle were in such a long column was just asking for trouble. But yes, I agree that if they had succeeded, it would have been better. But it was obvious they would not succeed (in my opinion). ~I agree with that. The desert was not the best position for a Roman army, as it was too open for the Parthian tactics of attack. If Rome has gone further into the East, I am certain it would have only lead to ruin. Carrhae shows us that even the strongest Roman army can be defeated relatively easily in the east. In fact Rome pretty much conquered Germania with Germanicus campaign, it was just that the emperor, for diferent resons, call it back. It was a land with little importance for romans i think, mostly swamps and forest, no infrastructure, no cities, no fortreses, no rich gold or silver mines, no significant agriculture land, and, at that point in history, no strategic value either. The investments to make there a province will be way to huge compared with benefits. Romans controled however the area thru client rulers, a much cheaper way of control and even in III century AD (a bad century for empire) they was able to send the legions deep in northern Germania to punish the rebel tribes. Traian i think was the only one in position to conquer Parthia, but fortunately he was too old at that moment, and died during campaign (a heart attack i think, he was ill) About the answer on topic, i think that yes, first and most known is Iulius Caesar, even if i like more Scipio Africanus and strangely, i am interested in Catilina too. It was interesting if Caesar wouldnt be killed and he make that expeditions against Parthia and Dacia (not sure in which order), both of them being pretty strong too. Traian manage to conquer big parts of them, but i am not sure Caesar might have the same succes, with his fantastic battle plan in MEsopotamia and around the Black Sea

Well, its a very interesting debate, and it seem that the oldest "Homo Sapiens" remains found until now in Europe have some features who point in the direction that Homo Sapiens interbreeded with Neanderthal after all This is the article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3129654.stm