PC/WI: Dacians defeat the Roman Empire

[GauchoBadger]

The Dacian Wars (80's-100's AD) were one of the many wars, famous or obscure, fought by the romans in their drive for expansion. These in particular were fought against the Dacian tribes of modern-day Romania, led by the king Decebalus.
As Domitian's reign followed through, Decebalus amassed a following of anti-Roman tribes and dissidents, and strengthened his country to become a significant threat to the Roman Balkans. He managed to defeat Domitian's armies in multiple ambushes, even as the latter was celebrating "preemptive triumphs" in Rome. It seems that he wished to restore Dacia to the borders of Burebista's kingdom, back in the age of Caesar.
Decebalus arranged a peace treaty with Domitian, and even managed to get material concessions from the Romans in order to fortify his capital, Samizegetusa.
Eventually, Domitian was deposed by Nerva, who was succeeded by Trajan, who would prove to be a more committed enemy of Decebalus. Trajan properly defeated the Dacians in a large campaign, immortalized in Trajan's Column, which still stands in the city of Rome. As Dacia had large reserves of gold, its conquest by the empire provided a new source of revenue, which would last for many decades beyond, until the province became too costly to defend in the Third Century Crisis.
So, my question is: could Decebalus have properly defeated the Romans and prevented them from conquering his kingdom? Could he possibly pry off Moesia and Thrace from the empire?
What are the effects of there being no Dacian province over the empire?
How does a surviving Dacian kingdom affect the Germanic migrations, assuming they still happen?

 

[GauchoBadger]

Bumping.

 

[Bassarion Korax]

The Dacian Wars (80's-100's AD) were one of the many wars, famous or obscure, fought by the romans in their drive for expansion. These in particular were fought against the Dacian tribes of modern-day Romania, led by the king Decebalus.
As Domitian's reign followed through, Decebalus amassed a following of anti-Roman tribes and dissidents, and strengthened his country to become a significant threat to the Roman Balkans. He managed to defeat Domitian's armies in multiple ambushes, even as the latter was celebrating "preemptive triumphs" in Rome. It seems that he wished to restore Dacia to the borders of Burebista's kingdom, back in the age of Caesar.
Decebalus arranged a peace treaty with Domitian, and even managed to get material concessions from the Romans in order to fortify his capital, Samizegetusa.
Eventually, Domitian was deposed by Nerva, who was succeeded by Trajan, who would prove to be a more committed enemy of Decebalus. Trajan properly defeated the Dacians in a large campaign, immortalized in Trajan's Column, which still stands in the city of Rome. As Dacia had large reserves of gold, its conquest by the empire provided a new source of revenue, which would last for many decades beyond, until the province became too costly to defend in the Third Century Crisis.
So, my question is: could Decebalus have properly defeated the Romans and prevented them from conquering his kingdom? Could he possibly pry off Moesia and Thrace from the empire?
What are the effects of there being no Dacian province over the empire?
How does a surviving Dacian kingdom affect the Germanic migrations, assuming they still happen?

The Romans had a problem accepting defeat, and so while I'm not saying it is impossible for Dacia to remain independent, I think it would be best accomplished in another context, perhaps with Dacia acting as a buffer state between Rome and the hostile Scytho-Sarmatian tribes at an earlier date. Maybe we butterfly away Domitian's paranoid and decadent rule for a longer-lived Titus, perhaps long enough for Titus to get an heir in, or for him to adopt a nephew by Domitian. But, if we are going to run with a Roman defeat under Trajan, then this certainly presents some difficulties in terms of Trajan's Parthian Campaign (Mesopotamia is wealthy, but you need the money to invade it first), and perhaps might spread the perception among the Eastern Mediterranean Jewry that they were in a good position to revolt sooner (the oft-forgotten Kitos War). Trajan might come down a LOT harder on the Jews than he did IOTL in such a context, because he doesn't have the riches of his Dacian, Mesopotamian/Parthian victories to show off this time around. It could also make for a good pretext to invading Mesopotamia, as the region had a large and powerful Jewish community, and was arguably the center of Jewish intellectualism at the time. The Kingdom of Adiabene is known to have sent gold and troops to the Jews in the Jewish Revolt of the 60s AD. This war I imagine would go a little bit differently than Trajan's invasion of Mesopotamia IOTL I think, because the funds are a problem, and he doesn't have the same imperialistic vigor behind him. He will almost definitely have to take more drastic measures in debasing the currency in this context, which will hurt the economy down the road, but if he can subjugate Parthia the way he did this time in this context (as opposed to having to rescind his conquests after the Jewish community went bananas), he might just be able to hold onto Mesopotamia and reduce Parthia into a client state, or perhaps a series of client states, which would... actually be great for the Empire long term. I've seen the case for the benefits of holding onto Mesopotamia made a few times on this forum, and I agree, especially if the Parthians are reduced. However, this would probably result in some sort of a collapse of Parthian authority pretty quickly, maybe in the next 50 years, and open up the Iranian Plateau to invasion from Central Asia.

The Romans will probably come back for the Dacians though, sooner or later, and with the wealth of Mesopotamia at their disposal, I think they'll be able to take it pretty easily. Or, MAYBE they offer to take them in as a client? Dacia will have its own problems after defeating Trajan. There are a lot of tribes on the move who are well aware of their gold, and the Dacians and the Romans could help each other out, but that's a hard sale after a defeat for the Romans, at least.

 

[Avrorrange]

snip

If the Romans are beaten badly enough for the Dacians to declare victory,then Trajan himself would have been either killed in battle or thoroughly discredited in front of his remaining troops.It’s very possible that Trajan himself would have been murdered by the defeated Roman troops and a new round of civil war breaks out,badly weakening the empire.Plenty of emperors who were initially successful and popular with their own troops were murdered after the first signs of military failure.

 

[Atamolos]

I think you answered your own question in the OP. The Dacians did defeat the Roman Empire during the reign of Domitian, for all the good it did them. They got conquered eventually, if not by Domitian then by Trajan, and if not by Trajan then by one of his successors. In the long-run, Dacia just isn't sustainable as a country. They're sandwiched between the migrating Goths (who would certainly knock them out in the 3rd century if Rome hadn't already) and an empire with orders of magnitude more wealth and manpower than Dacia could ever dream of having. Sure, the Romans abandoned Germany when they got beaten at the Teutoburg Forest, but the cost-benefit analysis of conquering Dacia is significantly different. Firstly, it's an organized state with a ruling class that would be easy to co-opt, meaning the cost of absorbing Dacia is significantly lower than it would be for Germania or other peripheral areas. Secondly, the gold reserves in Dacia tip the scale in favor of conquest, regardless of the cost. Thirdly, the sunk cost fallacy will kick in eventually if the Romans are beaten enough times (as was seen during the 2nd Punic War), and the legions will demand conquest over humiliation at the hands of the Dacians.

 

[CalBear]

Bumping.

You have been here long enough to know better than to do this.

Do not repeat.

 

[GauchoBadger]

You have been here long enough to know better than to do this.

Do not repeat.

I have been warned once for bumping a thread, but i can't remember any other occasion in which i was warned for such. I'm afraid i was just taking it for granted that people tolerated it, since warnings against bumping are rare, at least for me.
But, since you're a mod and this is your second warning on the issue, i'll stop.

 

[CalBear]

I have been warned once for bumping a thread, but i can't remember any other occasion in which i was warned for such. I'm afraid i was just taking it for granted that people tolerated it, since warnings against bumping are rare, at least for me.
But, since you're a mod and this is your second warning on the issue, i'll stop.

The fact that you got two warning, knowing that the Mods generally react to reports should be an indicator.

 

[aegis03florin]

IMO, the best outcome for the Dacians in order to succeed is to become a client state of Rome. But we'll need a different emperor than Trajan... or Trajan to be very focused on other fronts so he will not have time to focus on Dacia.

My bet is to have the Parthian war starting sooner, with initial severe Roman setbacks (Antioch burn, Syria over-run, Judea revolt... etc.). the war will drag longer and will be bloodier... maybe will become a quagmire for Rome. After the wars during Domitian, Decebalus largely kept the peace and acted as "friend of Rome". Only his understood of what a "friend of Rome" means was different than of Romans... So, with Romans messing with the Parthians, there will be a strong incentive to raid Moesia. This will mean a vindicative Rome that will not let this unpunished.

But fortunately, Hadrian, or any of Trajan's successors, will continue the occupation of Mesopotamia, at least for a while, as being the only conquest that Trajan left. Yet, war with the Dacians will be unavoidable, but, with little luck, there will be only punishing expeditions, forcing Dacia to pay tribute, surrender prisoners and "enemies of Rome", etc. That could continue for a while, with the Dacians centrifugal trends will be kept in check by a strong enemy... or not, but encouraged.

Then the barbarians will hit and Rome will see more benefit in having a Dacian Kingdom to shelter their frontier. By then, Dacia will be very "civilized" and strong enough to defend itself from the Barbarians... or will make a common front and invade the Empire...

So... I think will be very hard to keep a powerful Dacian Kingdom at the Rome door for a long time, and for it to survive the migrations.