Roumania Past and Present

J >> James Samuelson >> Roumania Past and Present

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27

[Illustration: TRAJAN ADDRESSING HIS ARMY.]

As we have already stated, the story of Trajan's expeditions into Dacia
is recorded in the bas-reliefs of the column bearing his name and still
existing in Rome. These bas-reliefs have been subject to various
readings and interpretations, but we have so far avoided referring to
them under the impression that they can only be taken in a general sense
to represent the exploits of Trajan, and that any attempt to extract
from them the names of localities is at best a hazardous experiment.
With these reservations, however, it is safe to say that they vividly
represent incidents of the campaign and bring us face to face with the
warlike character and customs of the contending nations. The progress of
the expedition, as shown on the column, is divided into sections, placed
one above another, and separated by stems of trees which coil round the
column; in the first of these sections we see the passage of the army
across the Danube over two bridges of boats. The Roman soldiers are
chiefly bareheaded, carrying their shields and helmets, and many bearing
standards with eagles, images of the gods, and other devices. Some of
the objects carried are supposed to be lanterns, from which it is
inferred that the passage took place at night. In advance are the
trumpeters bearing long curved horns, and the led horses of Trajan and
his generals. The last-named have already crossed the river, and Trajan
is seated on a platform surrounded by his officers, haranguing his men.
Next we find ourselves in the enemy's country, although there are no
signs as yet of the Dacians, and the two succeeding sections of the
column are occupied by the progress of the Roman arms. The soldiers are
felling timber, removing obstructions, and building forts and bridges,
over all of which operations Trajan is seen to preside in person. In the
fourth division the Dacians appear, suing for peace; the emissaries are
clad in long robes, and Trajan meets them outside a fort. Then follow
further incidents in the campaign; encounters take place between the
opposing forces, in which the Dacians are defeated and their dead lie
scattered on the ground. They are then seen retreating with their women
and children, devastating the country and slaying their cattle which are
heaped up in piles. Trajan is again present, sparing the old men, women,
and children, and making prisoners. Now the Dacians are the attacking
party, and the Romans defend themselves behind forts; and then again the
army is in motion with Trajan at its head, crossing rivers, and erecting
fortifications. In the next section the Dacians have made a stand, and
the scene represents a pitched battle in which they are again defeated
with great slaughter. All the incidents of the fight are vividly
depicted: Romans fighting from their chariots, Dacians and their allies
mounted and on foot, prisoners brought in, and a man, apparently a spy,
bound before Trajan himself. Then follows a further advance, which
occupies some of the succeeding scenes of the panorama. Here the Romans
fall into an ambuscade, from which they extricate themselves; there
they pass a post of danger, apparently a wooden stronghold of the
Dacians, under cover of a wall of shields held aloft by the soldiers;
and at length they arrive before a fortified town, where Trajan is again
seen seated upon a platform, surrounded by his generals, whilst the
Dacians, one of whom is supposed to be Decebalus himself, kneel round
about, suing for peace. In this scene the attire, emblems, and
accoutrements of the two contending nations are presented in marked
contrast. The Roman standards and eagles have already been mentioned;
those of the Dacians generally represent serpentine monsters at the end
of a long pole.[93] Whilst the Romans carry their tall, curved, oblong
shield, the oval ones of the Dacians ornamented with floral devices lie
heaped in confusion. Most of the Dacians are bareheaded, but some,
supposed to be chiefs, wear a head-dress resembling a cap of liberty.
Another section completes the panorama of the first expedition,
representing the embarkation and landing of Trajan; the sacrifices,
triumph, and rejoicings in the capital.

But Decebalus had no more intention of abiding by the terms of his
treaty with the Roman emperor than had Trajan with that of his
predecessor. The Dacian king had no sooner seen his enemy's back than he
repaired his fortresses, armed his people afresh, sought new alliances
with his neighbours, and commenced depredations upon the territories of
Rome and her allies. Then it was that Trajan prepared to chastise the
barbarians, and this time he determined to crush the Dacian power
completely, and to annex the conquered country as a Roman province.
Although he is said to have been in Moesia in A.D. 104, the actual
movements against Dacia only commenced the following year, and in this
as in the preceding expedition the routes pursued by the Roman army have
not been clearly defined. The bridge across the Danube from Gladowa to
Turnu-Severin was most likely completed, and part, if not the whole, of
Trajan's army crossed there. Those writers who believe that in the first
expedition a portion of the forces entered from Pannonia, say that,
knowing the geography of the country better, Trajan now sent a division
up the valley of the Theiss, crossing the Danube at Viminacium; whilst
there is little doubt that a 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 Nicaea 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 Tapae. 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 (Siebenbuergen), 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 by Aurelian,[102] affords little to
interest the reader. Dacia was, so to speak, the outwork of the Empire
which served to hold the barbarians at bay during its 'decline and
fall;' and the country was more prosperous than during the period of its
independence, when the tribes were constantly at war with one another
and there was no settled government. That the attitude of the barbarians
was threatening even a few years after the death of Trajan is, however,
more than probable, for his immediate successor, Hadrian, contemplated
withdrawing his legions, and destroyed the bridge across the Danube, 118
or 120 A.D. Some writers, indeed, attribute this act to his
jealousy of Trajan, others to his hatred of Apollodorus, the architect;
but most probably the cause assigned by Dion Cassius, that it was to
prevent its being used by the barbarians for making inroads into Moesia,
was the true one.[103] During the reigns of Antoninus Pius and Marcus
Aurelius for about half a century, the barbarians were kept in check,
although even during that period they had managed to encroach upon the
Roman territory.

At the beginning of the third century, however, the Roman hold on Dacia
began to be very precarious, and we approach the time when the dark veil
of the so-called barbarian ages is drawn over the history of Europe.
That the Roman emperors had to contend, with very varying fortunes, with
barbarous tribes is certain, and that their arms were still frequently
successful is proved by the erection of fortresses and towns, named
after their emperors, on the borders of their possessions. For example,
Caracalla defeated certain barbarous hordes about A.D. 212, and
assumed the name of 'Geticus,' but whether the conquered tribes were
Dacians or Goths is uncertain.

A few years later the Quadi and Marcomanni made inroads into Western
Dacia, but they were held in check by the proconsul Varus, who built a
tower or fort in close proximity to Trajan's bridge, of which the ruins
are still visible to travellers on the Danube, and which has given its
name to the modern town of Turnu-Severin. But the Goths, a people of
Scandinavian origin, had been for some time previously drawing nearer to
the borders of the Roman Empire. Between the beginning of our era and
the end of the second century they had spread themselves, associated
with the Vandals, in the direction of the Carpathians and the Ukraine,
and in the reign of the Emperor Philip (243-249) they made irruptions
into Moesia. In that of Decius they invaded the Roman territory a second
time under a chief, Cniva, and, after defeating the Romans and
compelling the emperor to flee, they took and sacked Philippopolis.
Shortly afterwards Decius met them again, but he was again defeated and
slain. The barbarians then retired with their plunder.

The next event of importance was the defeat of the Goths (about 268 or
269[104]) by Marcus Aurelius Claudius. They had once more entered Roman
territory, had overrun Moesia and Illyria, and were approaching the
capital; it was therefore found necessary to raise a powerful army and
drive them over the frontier. This time they were defeated with great
slaughter at Naissos in the Balkans and elsewhere, and were then driven
across the Danube. Marcus Aurelius, who took the name of 'Gothicus,'
describes the fate of the enemy in these terms: 'We have annihilated
320,000 Goths, and have sunk two thousand of their ships. Everywhere
rivers are covered with their shields, all the banks with their swords
and spears, whilst the fields are sown with their bones. The roads are
indistinguishable; much baggage is taken. We have captured so many women
that every soldier is able to possess two or three of them.'[105] And
yet, notwithstanding this decisive victory of Marcus Aurelius, his
successor Aurelian found himself very shortly afterwards in deadly
conflict with these same Goths, and his contests were so doubtful in
their results that he was glad to make a treaty of peace with them and
leave them in undisturbed possession of Trajan's Dacia. That he decided
to withdraw the Roman legions (about 270 or 275 A.D.) from
Dacian territory, that he offered protection to all colonists who were
prepared to follow them across the Danube, and that a new colony, called
Dacia Aureliani, was founded along the south bank of the Danube: these
are uncontradicted facts. But when we come to enquire into the details
of the withdrawal and the composition of the remaining population, we
find such a conflict of authorities that it is impossible to come to a
definite conclusion. Nay, not only do the historians differ from one
another in regard to the conditions under which Aurelian evacuated Dacia
Trajana, or Dacia north of the Danube, but in some cases they even
contradict themselves, and, after a careful perusal and comparison of
the statements of many of them, we are quite disposed to accept the
opinion expressed by our own historian Gibbon, who, after saying that
Aurelian withdrew the Roman legions from Dacia and offered the
alternative of leaving to those colonists who were disposed to follow
him, adds:--

'The old country of that name (Dacia) detained, however, a
considerable number of its inhabitants who dreaded exile more than
a Gothic master. These degenerate Romana continued to serve the
Empire whose allegiance they had renounced by introducing amongst
their conquerors the first notions of agriculture, the useful arts,
and the convenience of civilisation. An intercourse of commerce and
language was gradually established between the opposite banks of
the Danube, and after Dacia became an independent State it often
proved the firmest barrier of the Empire against the invasions of
the savages of the north. A sense of interest attached these more
settled barbarians to the alliance of Rome, and a permanent
interest very frequently ripens into sincere and useful
friendship.'[106]

And Gibbon, who had read and studied the works of Eutropius and his
successor Vopiscus, as well as other more recent historians, gives us
further details of the negotiations that took place between Aurelian and
the Goths, which remove any doubts as to the accuracy of his views.
Aurelian treated with the barbarians after a battle had been fought
which was by no means adverse to the Roman arms, and he stipulated with
the Goths that they should contribute an auxiliary force of 2,000 men to
the Roman army. He moreover secured a large number of hostages, being
the sons and daughters of Gothic chiefs, whom he sent to Rome to be
educated. He adds, concerning the constitution of the province north of
the Danube: 'This various colony which filled the ancient province, and
was insensibly blended into one great nation, still acknowledged the
superior renown and authority of the Gothic tribe, and claimed the
fancied honour of Scandinavian origin.'[107]

But this is not all. The great historian, whose views can only be
rejected on what we may call a political or partisan theory, believed
the Roman colonists to have been industrious agriculturists; for when he
speaks, in another place, of the temptations which led the wandering
Goths in the first instance to cast longing eyes upon Dacia, he says:
'But the prospects of the Roman territory were far more alluring, and
the fields of Dacia were covered with a rich harvest, sown by the hands
of an _industrious_, and exposed to be gathered by a warlike
people.'[108]

In bringing the history of the Roman occupation of Dacia to a close, we
have therefore to acknowledge that, far from being inhabited by the scum
of the earth as Carra supposed, the country was at first in the hands of
an industrious, though probably a sparse peasantry, and, as Gibbon has
said, 'only those who had nothing to lose accompanied the Roman army,'
leaving the remainder, a large body of industrious Daco-Roman
agriculturists, ruled over by a tribe of warlike barbarians. What these
and their posterity suffered, will be seen from the narrative in our
next chapter.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27