What if Julius Caesar invaded the kingdom of Dacia under Burebista

[Archon of Thessaly]

When we think of Dacia, we mainly focus on the massive invasion of the country by Trajan in 108 AD which finally crushed the kingdom which for centuries had been a thorn in Romes side.

However, this was by no means the first time the Romans had put designs on Dacia. The first planned invasion was 89BC when the consul Curio planned attacking the Dacians but upon arriving at the Danube he was too scared of them and decided not to ( a bit unlikely on the face of it, and more likely it was because of local revolts, although the Dacians even at that point had a fearsome reputation as superb horse riders.)

However, another famous roman general who was made governor of Illyria near Dacia was none other then Julius caesar who, i was surprised to learn, had not always intended to attack Gaul-but rather Dacia.

It was not without good cause. The dacians, under their brilliant king Burebista had crushed their Getae, Bastarnae, Boii, Tuerusci and scythian rivals, made an alliance with the Suromatae and made Dacia the dominant power north of the Danube in the Balklands. Under his role, Dacia was the most powerful it would ever be, being at least 5 times larger then at the time of Trajans invasion, and was so confident that raided Roman land with apparent impunity and backed a revolt in Illyria.

As Strabon wrote:

"Burebista, the Get, Having become the leader of a people exhausted by frequent wars, the Getic Burebista raised it so much through drilling, abstention from wine and obedience to orders that he achieved a powerful state within a few years, he created a great kingdom and brought almost all of the Getai's neighbors under their rule; coming to be feared by the Roman themselves, as he crossed the Danube without care of anyone and looted Thrace up until Macedonia and Illyria, while the Celts whom mixed with the Thracians and Illyrians were devastated, while the Boii who listened to the king Cristasiros, as well as the Taurisci were wiped off the face of the earth." As can be seen the Romans feared the Dacians, but the Dacians didn't fear Rome. It was not mutual according to Strabon.

Strabon also claimed that the Dacians could muster 200,000 warriors ( probably a major exaggeration) as well as Scythian and Thracian allies, making any planned conquest no pushover. And, as we have already seen, Burebista was a shrewd and experienced commander.

So then, let us suppose that Caesar decided to fight the Dacians instead of Gaul, could he win? Does this enable Gaul to survive ( or more likely, delay conquest.) How this change the tone of future conquests. Could the Dacians defeat caesars legions?

 

[JedidiahStott]

Did not Domitian attempt the conquest of Dacia about 20 years before Trajan and get well whopped ?

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Did not Domitian attempt the conquest of Dacia about 20 years before Trajan and get well whopped ?

Yeah, but this is Caesar.

 

[JedidiahStott]

I realize that, just suggesting that (even for Caesar ) it may not be a cakewalk.

 

[Shogun]

I realize that, just suggesting that (even for Caesar ) it may not be a cakewalk.

It wasn't exactly a 'cakewalk' for Caesar to conquer the Gauls either. And he found the Germanic warriors that he encountered in far northern Gaul to be the fiercest enemies he ever had to fight.

The question is, will the conquest of Dacia unfold much like the OTL conquest of Gaul?

 

[Falecius]

I wrote a scenario like that, in Italian, some years ago.
I doubt I would go the same way now (it was rather wankish).
In general, logistics in Dacia would be rather problematic (though not unsormontable) for the Romans. Note that Dacia does not border directly any Roman province at this point. Caesar could surely conquer it, but keeping it in line as a province might prove tricky.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

I realize that, just suggesting that (even for Caesar ) it may not be a cakewalk.

Neither was Gaul, or the civil war.

 

[Pachac]

Dacia is far more difficult than even Gallia to conquer. This was a difficult geographic area inhabited by an organized and prepared kingdom with a single, powerful leader.

 

[Romanus696]

Dacia is far more difficult than even Gallia to conquer. This was a difficult geographic area inhabited by an organized and prepared kingdom with a single, powerful leader.

But fewer men, and less complicated in terms diplomacy. It is a simple here is the enemy, kill. No one to stab you in the back

 

[SlyDessertFox]

But fewer men, and less complicated in terms diplomacy. It is a simple here is the enemy, kill. No one to stab you in the back

I'm not an expert on Dacia, and indeed, I don't know much about it, but this would make things less complicated. Kill the king (or better yet capture him) and you win. One, maybe two decisive battles.


I could be horribly wrong though.

 

[Sevarics]

If Dacia were conquered by Caesar, I wonder how much greater its degree of latinization would be and the effect thereof

 

[Anaxagoras]

Dacia is far more difficult than even Gallia to conquer. This was a difficult geographic area inhabited by an organized and prepared kingdom with a single, powerful leader.

In some ways, that might make is easier to conquer. If the army of the kingdom were to be destroyed in a single decisive battle, the war would be over. I'm inclined to think that Caesar would have emerged victorious because. . . well, because he's Caesar.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

In some ways, that might make is easier to conquer. If the army of the kingdom were to be destroyed in a single decisive battle, the war would be over. I'm inclined to think that Caesar would have emerged victorious because. . . well, because he's Caesar.

I'm thinking it would be similar to his battles against Vercingetorix. Maybe one major screw up, then he wins that big climactic battle.

 

[Magnum]

I'm thinking it would be similar to his battles against Vercingetorix. Maybe one major screw up, then he wins that big climactic battle.

Or alternatively he looses it and gets killed. The Carpathians have some really rugged terrain, which the Dacians often took advantage of. Look what happened to Cornelius Fuscus and his legions.

The very reason Burebista had as much power was because the nobles really feared an imminent Roman invasion. As soon as that threat died with the death of Caesar and the civil war, the nobles had Burebista killed. If there is an invasion, they'll band together, meaning Burebista also has to means of replacing losses after 1 or 2 big losses.

So, basically, anything can happen.

 

[Jan Gronvik]

In some ways, that might make is easier to conquer. If the army of the kingdom were to be destroyed in a single decisive battle, the war would be over. I'm inclined to think that Caesar would have emerged victorious because. . . well, because he's Caesar.

To Conquer and hold on to Burebista's Dacia which stretched from the Danube to the Black Sea and do it almost 150 years before Trajan could have changed a lot of the later Roman history.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Or alternatively he looses it and gets killed. The Carpathians have some really rugged terrain, which the Dacians often took advantage of. Look what happened to Cornelius Fuscus and his legions.

The very reason Burebista had as much power was because the nobles really feared an imminent Roman invasion. As soon as that threat died with the death of Caesar and the civil war, the nobles had Burebista killed. If there is an invasion, they'll band together, meaning Burebista also has to means of replacing losses after 1 or 2 big losses.

So, basically, anything can happen.

True, but then again, the same can be said for Vergingetorix. The Gauls only rallied behind him to push out Caesar. After that, I doubt they'd keep much semblance of unity.

 

[usertron2020]

I admit to little knowledge of the times, so I am asking for the sake of instruction, mainly.

Didn't Caesar's invasion of Gaul cause him all kinds of political problems back home in the Senate, in terms of the more conservative Cato Faction? And was this based on Caesar violating treaties of alliance/peace/neutrality with the Gaullic tribes, thereby threatening Rome's standing with other tribes? As well as with the still technically independent Egypt, Rome's granary?

If so, would invading Dacia instead, or simply delaying a Gaullic War until after Dacia is pacified and set up to be Provinced, mean less trouble for Caesar?
Or more?
Or unaffected?

Would having won triumphs in Dacia AND later Gaul make his assassination more certain?

Or less?

Opinions?

 

[SlyDessertFox]

He was planning on invading Dacia after he became dictator (as in the idea for the invasion was created after the civil war was over). He was leaving for a campaign in Dacia and then Parthia when he was assassinated.

 

[eliphas8]

But fewer men, and less complicated in terms diplomacy. It is a simple here is the enemy, kill. No one to stab you in the back

No, they could never do that. Then theres no one left to enslave.

Besides which Dacia was almost certainly more densely populated than Gaul at the time and its geography works in favor of its defense.

 

[usertron2020]

Is it to be assumed then that for purposes of discussion here that Caesar's assassination is more or less immutable?