Academic literature on the topic 'Decebalus'

A fragmentary military diploma mentions an auxiliary prefect Cn. Domitius Corbulo as commander of the ala Gallorum et Thracum, which was stationed in Syria Palaestina. The constitution was issued under Antoninus Pius between 151 and before September 154. The prefect bears the same name as a highly famous senator of the Neronian period. It can be assumed that the prefect's father, who was also called Cn. Domitius, deliberately gave his son the cognomen Corbulo to commemorate Corbulo, who had defended Rome's eastern frontier under Nero. The diploma was given to a soldier called Dacus; his father bears the typical Dacian name Decebalus.

"1. About the legionary fort at Sarmizegetusa in AD 102–105 (Cassius Dio 68.9.7). Cassius Dio (68.9.7) writes that after the end of the first Dacian war of Trajan, in 102 AD, the emperor left a legion in Dacia at Sarmizegetusa and auxiliary troops in other locations. Over time, the fragmentary accounts of Cassius Dio have been interpreted in two main ways. On one hand, the presence of a legionary fort was presumed in Hațeg Country, on the territory of future Colonia Ulpia Traiana Dacica Sarmizegetusa. On the other hand, this fort (stratopedon) was presumed to have functioned in the Orăștie Mountains, in or next to the Dacian fortress at Grădiștea de Munte, the residence of King Decebalus. The debate has recently been reopened by F. Matei-Popescu and O. Țentea. They place this Roman fort in the Orăștie Mountains, in the close vicinity of the former residence of King Decebalus. Their arguments are based mostly on the recently acquired LiDAR images of the area in question. On these images appears an almost rectangular earthen structure which preceded the stone enclosure and was also ascribed to a Roman fort built after the conquest of Dacia. F. Matei-Popescu and O. Țentea consider that, if the stone enclosure belongs to the period after the second Dacian war of Trajan, the enclosure having an earthen wall must be older, belonging to the period between the two Dacian wars, that is, between AD 102 and 105, this being the fort mentioned in the fragmentary accounts of Cassius Dio. Analysing the available information, the author concluding that the earthen fort from Grădiștea de Munte was more likely built in the context of the second Dacian war, in 105/106 AD. The stratopedon mentioned by Cassius Dio was more likely located on the future place of Colonia Ulpia Traiana Dacica Sarmizegetusa. Finally, the name of the royal residence of Decebalus, it is less likely to be Sarmizegetusa. This was more likely the indigenous toponym of the place where Colonia Ulpia Traiana Dacica was later established. The possible identification with Ranisstorum, the place where Tiberius Claudius Maximus brought the severed head and right hand of King Decebalus to Trajan to be shown to the army, can be perhaps taken into the consideration as a working hypothesis. 2. The destiny of the “Dacian gold”. About a Koson-type coin reused in the 16th century in a Christian (Renaissance) context. The “Dacian gold” fired the imagination of many people each time a hoard emerged in the mountains hosting the ruins of the royal residence of King Decebalus. One of the largest hoards was discovered in 1543 (containing coins of Lysimachus and perhaps Koson-types). Before this great hoard, a document from 1494 mentions the discovery in 1491 of a hoard consisting of “small and big” gold coins by some gold panners in the vicinity of Sebeș. There was already a number of Koson-type coins “in circulation” among the Renaissance collectors of antiquities at the end of the 15th century or the beginning of the 16th century. In 1520 Erasmus of Rotterdam describes and tries to identify a Koson-type coin, an issue which have also caused difficulties to other scholars. In this context, the author is analysing a liturgical chalice of the first half of the 16th century, which was once in Alba Iulia and is now preserved in the collections of the Catholic Cathedral of Nitra, Slovakia. The chalice is decorated with ancient gold coins. Among them is a Koson-type coin. Both the manufacturing and the biography of the chalice are relevant from the perspective of the destiny of “Dacian gold” during the late Renaissance. The vessel was first mentioned in an inventory from 1531 of the treasury of the Catholic Cathedral at Alba Iulia. The chalice was donated by a certain Udalricus of Buda, who was the prebendary of a cathedral chapel between 1504 and 1523. At a later date, the chalice was owned by Paul Bornemisza, who was Bishop of Alba Iulia in 1553–1556. He had to leave Transylvania, becoming Bishop of Nitra in 1557. On this occasion he brought over the chalice decorated with ancient gold coins. Udalricus of Buda was a member of the Renaissance humanist circle from Alba Iulia, which included a number of scholars, publishers of ancient texts, epigraphists and antiquities collectors. It might be presumed that the Koson-type coin which Erasmus of Rotterdam attempted to analyse was received through the connections with the humanist scholars from Alba Iulia. This coin, as well as the one inserted into the chalice of Udalricus, could have belonged to a hoard which was perhaps discovered a few decades before the one from 1543. Perhaps the coins in question were found in 1491 by the gold panners from Sebeș. It is however certain that the interest of the Transylvanian and European humanist scholars in this kind of “exotic” discoveries arose during this period, alongside the interest in other types of antiquities of the pre-Roman and Roman Dacia. The chalice from Nitra includes probably the oldest discovery of a Koson-type coin for which we have so far the physical evidence."

Abstract The goal of this paper is to present the Roman products found in Arad County (West Romania), to analyse the Roman-Dacians connections, and the avenues by which the Roman goods made their way into the Dacian world, west of the Carpathians. Excluding the coins, Italian goods are sporadically found in Dacian sites dating from the 1st century BC to the 1st century AD: some fragmentary bronze and glass vessels, terra sigillata, and various ceramic plates. Most of the imports occur in settlements and hoards, but except for the coins, other types of Roman items were not treasured. The preponderance of the Republican denarii (and imitations) over the imperial ones can be easily distinguished – no matter where they were struck. The conspicuously high quantity of coins could indicate special donations received by the Dacians from the Romans, particularly during the reign of Burebista and Decebalus.

By the end of the 1st c. A.D., Dacia had been an intermittent thorn in Rome's side for almost two centuries. The ambitions of Burebista and the actions of his various successors continued to threaten Roman hegemony along the lower Danube, culminating in the rise of the powerful kingdom of Decebalus and a substantial Roman defeat in Moesia. Domitian sent troops against the Dacians to restore the dignity of Rome (85-86 and 88-88/89), but with mixed success, finally having to settle for buying peace at a substantial price in order to free himself to deal with threats to security in both Germany and Pannonia. No doubt both the costs involved and the perceived lack of success further contributed to the hostility of Roman authors towards Domitian and left unfinished business on the Danube frontier. It is no great surprise, therefore, that Dacia was the first area to which Trajan — to whom the attitude of contemporary sources (e.g., Pliny's Panegyricus) could not have been in greater contrast — turned his attention within three years of his accession.

Trajan's Column stands in the centre of Rome as a proud monument to Trajan's triumph over Dacia in the early second century. On its 29 m tall shaft, a helical frieze depicts the events of the two wars which won the province for the Roman Empire. There are 224 trees to be found throughout this relief, 222 of which are native to Dacia. These trees have traditionally been treated as scene dividers and background material to the column's action. This article, which begins by exploring the identification of the trees in previous scholarship, argues that they are in fact crucial to the column's narrative of industry and conquest. The discussion of identification is followed by an examination of the numerous tree-felling scenes on the column as a metaphor for conquest. The article closes with a detailed analysis of contrasting representations of the two leaders on the column, Trajan and Decebalus, one an urban emperor, the other a forest king. By directing attention towards the arboreal population of the column, this article argues that trees cannot be dismissed as mere background detail, but play an active and significant role in the communication of ideas about triumph, imperialism and the conquest of nature.

Abstract The Dacians, a very important Indo-European people of the ancient world, were, like all Indo-European peoples, highly trained in the art of war. The legends of the ancient world placed the worship of Ares/Mars, the god of war, in the world of the Thracians, the Dacians being the most important of the Thracians, by the creation of a state and by their remarkable civilization, where war generated rank. The Dacian leaders, military aristocrats, Tarabostes are similar to the Bharathi of the Aryans, therefore the accounts of Herodotus, the father of history, who called the Thracians (including the Dacians, the northern Thracians), “the most important of the Indo-Europeans, after the race of the Indians” (i.e. the Persians and the Aryans, their relatives), also have a military meaning. The totemic symbol of the wolf was much present in Europe, especially with Indo-European peoples, like the Spartans, the aristocrats of war, but mostly with the Romans, the gendarmes of the ancient world. But the Dacians honoured this majestic animal above all, not only as a symbol of the state, but also, apparently, as their eponym. As warriors, the Dacians lay under the sign of the wolf, their battle flag, and acted like real wolves against their enemies, whether they were Celts, during the reign of Burebista, or Romans, during the reign of Decebalus. The Dacians made history in the military art, being perfectly integrated, after the Roman conquest, in the largest and best trained army of the ancient world, the Roman army. Moreover, the wolf warriors, mastering the equestrian art, were a success in the special, though auxiliary troops of the famous equites singulares in the Roman army. If the Romans were the eagles of war, the Dacians were its wolves, these two symbols best illustrating the military art of all times.

This paper provides a diachronic overview of the history of the Djerdap Gorge (Porþile de Fier, Iron Gates) and the civilizations that have been associated with it from prehistory to modern times. The Djerdap Gorge had a very troubled history. In antiquity, it was thought to have divided the river into Danubius and Ister. Both banks of Djerdap were inhabited. The north was mostly inhabited by Dacians, and the south was eventually ruled by the Romans. From Emperor Trajan to Emperor Aurelian, the Romans held both banks of the Danube in that area. After the retreat of the Romans, numerous peoples took turns on the banks of the Danube: Byzantines, Slavs, Avars, Bulgarians, Hungarians, Romanians, Ottomans. The Danube was more often a border than a path to cooperation. With the establishment of modern states on its banks, the Danube was allowed to become a vector of trade and cooperation. The efforts of Romania and Serbia, later Yugoslavia, to regulate Djerdap were crowned with the construction of the Djerdap I and Djerdap II systems in the second half of the twentieth century.