Roumania Past and Present by James Samuelson (lightweight ebook reader .TXT) 📖

portion of the army continued the march eastward along the Moesian bank of the Danube, crossed at a station opposite the mouth of the Alutus (now Oltu), landed near the modern Celeiu, and, crossing the plain, entered the mountain fastnesses through the Rothenthurm pass.[94]

By whatever routes Trajan's army invaded the dominions of the doomed king, it is known that his advance was prompt and successful, and that this time the fame of the Roman arms prevented Decebalus from securing many allies. He once more sued for peace; but Trajan's terms being a virtual relinquishment of his independence, he prepared himself for a supreme and desperate effort for the defence of his kingdom. At first it is said that he attempted to remove Trajan by assassination, but that his emissaries were detected and put to death. Another expedient seems to have been temporarily successful. He managed to decoy into his power Longinus, a Roman general, said to have been a great favourite of Trajan, and, holding him as a hostage, Decebalus demanded extravagant terms of peace. To this proposal Trajan gave an evasive reply, in order, if possible, to save the life of his officer. The last-named, however, with true Roman patriotism, had a message conveyed to Trajan by his freedman, advising him to proceed with his operations, and at the same time he himself took a dose of poison in order to relieve his master from further perplexity on his account. Decebalus then offered to give up the body of the Roman general and certain other captives in return for the escaped freedman, but Trajan returned no answer to his proposal. Very little is known of the incidents of this campaign, excepting that Trajan forced the passes of the Carpathians, and, taking one defended post after another, drove the enemy into the vicinity of his capital; that the tribes who had allied themselves with the Dacians, amongst whom the Sarmatians, Jasyges, and Burri are named, deserted them one by one, and that the Romans at length laid siege to Sarmizegethusa, where Decebalus had taken refuge. After a brave but ineffectual defence the king, rather than yield himself a prisoner, committed suicide with his sword; whilst his followers, after setting fire to the town, imitated the example of their leader by taking poison. The head of Decebalus was cut off and sent to Rome by Trajan, who discovered and divided amongst his soldiers vast spoils and treasures which the Dacians had endeavoured to conceal, and then returned to Rome, where (A.D. 106) a triumph was celebrated on even a grander scale than after the conclusion of his first expedition.[95]

[Illustration: DACIANS SETTING FIRE TO THEIR CAPITAL. (FROM TRAJAN'S COLUMN.)]

Before drawing to a close this hasty survey of the rise and fall of the Dacian monarchy, let us turn again for a moment to the bas-reliefs upon Trajan's Column, the indelible and, after all, the most trustworthy record of his second expedition.[96] Passing hastily over the first scenes, which comprise tho landing of his troops, the assault and capture of a fortified place, the defeat of the Dacians, and what appears to be a refusal on the part of Trajan to grant them peace, we have a very faithful and circumstantial picture of a halt, where the emperor is present at the offering of a bull as sacrifice. Then there is a continuance of the march inland, followed by fierce contests between the two armies. At length the Romans arrive before a walled city (probably Sarmizegethusa) where all the incidents of a siege, including personal adventures, are portrayed. A Roman soldier, standing at the top of a scaling ladder, has struck off the head of one of the Dacians on the wall, whilst the latter are seen hurling stones and other missiles at those engaged in the assault. Then comes another application for peace, a Dacian prince kneeling at the feet of Trajan; whilst in the same section, separated only by a couple of thin trees, we have the scene of the Dacians setting fire to their city, and in close contiguity is their dying leader. The remaining scenes depict the Roman soldiers dividing the spoil. Trajan is addressing them, distributing rewards, and bidding them adieu. Then follow secondary incidents; the building of fortresses by the Romans; one or two more contests in which Trajan's generals defeat the Dacians, driving them into the mountains, whither they are seen fleeing with their flocks, women, and children. One of the last scenes represents the second triumph of Trajan, with soldiers who arrive bearing the head of Decebalus. Some of the minor incidents in the panorama are intended to exhibit the barbarity of the Dacians, one being the exhibition of a row of heads stuck upon spears on the walls of a town or fortress; another the burning and torturing of naked Roman prisoners by Dacian women. Altogether these bas-reliefs, which are said to be the work of several artists, present anything but an edifying spectacle of the ancient mode of warfare.

[Footnote 79: Dion Cassius (Cocceianus), the Roman historian, was born 155 A.D. at Nicæa in Bithynia, where he also probably died in retirement after a long and eventful political life; the date of his death is unknown. He was governor of Pannonia under Severus, and had opportunities of learning about Trajan's expeditions into Dacia. He wrote a history of Rome, including one of Trajan, but of the latter there is only an abridgment by Xiphilinus made in the eleventh century; our extracts are from the French version referred to in the Appendix.]

[Footnote 80: See initial letter, and vignette at the end of this chapter.]

[Footnote 81: Bohn's Tacitus , vol. ii. p. 164. This occurred 70 A.D. under Vespasian. Moesia had been formally constituted a Roman province 9 A.D. (or 2 B.C., Merivale).]

[Footnote 82: According to Merivale, vol. vii. p. 103 note (Longmans, 1862), it was a title: 'interpreted by some writers "The Strength of the Dacians," by others "Dakhi-Valhus," the Scythian for the Day Falcon.' Smith ( Biography , article 'Decebalus') says it was probably a title of honour amongst the Dacians equivalent to chief or king, since we find that it was borne by more than one of their rulers, and that the individual best known to history as the Decebalus of Dion Cassius is named Diurpanus by Orosius, and Dorphaneus by Jornandes. Roesler and Dierauer expend a large amount of research and learning upon the name. The former (p. 35) believes that 'the Dierpaneus of Jordanes' is a king Duras from whom Decebalus received his crown, and he leaves the question an open one. Dierauer says (p. 67) that Decebalus was his name, and quotes an inscription in which he is spoken of as 'Regem Decebalum.']

[Footnote 83: Bohn's Agricola , p. 382.]

[Footnote 84: See historical map.]

[Footnote 85: The fullest account of the probable number and constitution of his army, his generals, &c., is to be found in Dierauer, pp. 76 et seq. and the numerous notes appended.]

[Footnote 86: See map.]

[Footnote 87: Erected after the final subjugation of Dacia, probably upon the designs of Apollodorus, who also designed the bridge across the Danube.]

[Footnote 88: This is by no means the unanimous view as to the course which was taken by the army, although most are agreed that it was divided into two sections.]

[Footnote 89: This must not be confounded with the Iron Gates (sunken rocks) in the Danube. The reader will find all the leading places referred to in our historical map.]

[Footnote 90: Nothing certain is known as to the position of Tapæ. By some writers it is said to be identical with Crossfeldt near Thorda; but this hardly agrees with the account of the operations against Decebalus after his first defeat.]

[Footnote 91: Dion Cassius, lxviii. 8.]

[Footnote 92: Dion Cassius, lxviii. 9.]

[Footnote 93: See vignette at the end of this chapter.]

[Footnote 94: All these places, along with the lines indicating existing remains of Roman roads, will be found on our map.]

[Footnote 95: Full details of games, gladiatorial fights, coins struck, &c., in Dierauer, pp. 105 et seq. ]

[Footnote 96: Those of our readers who desire to follow these superficial outlines of the story, as represented on the column, will do well to inspect the beautiful line engravings of Piranese, without however accepting his interpretations as conclusive.]


III.

Whatever uncertainty attaches to the details of Trajan's expeditions, there is none as to their ultimate result, nor concerning the chief operations of the conqueror and his successors in the newly-acquired territory, which was formally annexed as a province of the Empire. Some historians have attempted to define with great minuteness the boundaries of the new province, but more cautious writers content themselves with naming approximate limits; and these have done wisely, as there is no doubt that the movements of the neighbouring tribes and even of the conquered Dacians (for it is a mistake to suppose, as some do, that they went out of existence) prevented any strict line of demarcation. The nominal boundaries of Roman Dacia were the river Theiss on the west, the Pruth on the east, 'barbarians' on the north, and the river Danube on the south. The country actually colonised embraced the Banate of Temesvar, Transylvania (Siebenbürgen), and Roumania as they exist to-day. There were several centres of colonisation, of which the chief was Ulpia Trajana, including the old capital of Decebalus, Sarmizegethusa (now Varhely), and other important centres were Apulum and Cerna or Tierna.[97]

Trajan and his successors built fortifications, walls, and towns; and, attracted partly by the fertility of the plains and partly by the gold mines of the Carpathians, the Roman colonies soon swelled in numbers and importance.[98] Different opinions have been expressed concerning the character of these colonists. One modern writer, Carra, who is considered an authority in Roumanian history, says that the Romans regarded Dacia as the French, Cayenne, and sent thither a colony consisting of the scum of the principal towns of Greece and the Roman Empire. Their descendants, he adds, who inherited their vices and cowardice, were turn by turn conquered and enslaved by the Sarmatians, Huns, and Tartars.[99] This is a statement which rather affects the feelings of modern Roumanians than the current of historical events, and it brings us face to face with an enquiry which we shall have to handle with great circumspection, namely, the descent of the modern Roumanians from the old Daco-Roman colonists, lest we find ourselves involved in a controversy that would fill volumes. So far as the records of Roman history enable us to judge, Carra has done great injustice to the colonists of Dacia. It is true that the Romans banished some of their malefactors, and especially political offenders, to their colonies, as Ovid was expatriated; and that Trajan colonised Dacia from various parts of the Empire; but the custom of the Roman generals, which Trajan would doubtless have followed, was to divide the most fertile districts amongst their veteran soldiers,[100] and therefore, if the charges of cowardice and debauchery made by Carra were true, they would apply to the bravest in the legions who had conquered the almost indomitable Decebalus. But Carra lived and wrote at a time (A.D. 1777) when cool judgment could hardly be expected in a writer on Roumania, and if he were alive to-day he would be surprised to hear that there is a school of modern historians who, using his very authorities, deny that the descendants of the Daco-Roman colonists were ever to be found on Dacian ground during the incursions of the eastern barbarians. But of that more hereafter.[101]

The history of the Roman occupation of Dacia, which lasted from the time of Trajan until it was evacuated