Really, Trajan? Not even going to bother conquering Dacia properly?

Really, Trajan? Not even going to bother conquering Dacia properly?
Why do people still call this fucking lazy autistic hack "Optimus Princeps"?

Because those were the lands where most of the gold mines were.

Trajan didn't invade Dacia because it was a beacon (Although in comparison to the germanics they were), but because they had a shit load of gold.

they were connected with nature and wise people

I have a couple of books with illustrations on dacian history. They had plenty and fully developed (for the time) cities modeled by the greek city-states, a complex society and religion. Definitely not some stoned warriors living in the wild sacrificing themselves to Zamolxis.

Suna interesant, bastarnae. Spune mi si mie numele cartilor.
Sunt mereu curios cand vine vorba de carti despre antici

...

>tfw ywn be Trajan's Legate and watch Quietus and his mighty Mauri saddle-less cavalry charge the filthy dacian hordes head-on

>Become emperor
>conquer some irrelevant, indefensible barbarian territory for gold
>do literally nothing for the next 18 years
>Conquer Mesopotamia from the Parthians while they're in a civil so he never even fights a single battle
>Dies on the way home
>Goes down as one of the greatest emperors and generals of all time
All of the 5 good emperors are overrated but Trajan is the most.

...

>neagu djuvara
Rip
Also, my history teacher said that the other, free dacian tribes were also in close contact with the romans and did trade and did share a culture with the roman-controlled dacians, but they refused roman colonization, like the costoboci, for example.

I hope your professor is aware of the kind of fundamental problems his theory poses over romanian historiography

Carpathian mountains got in the way

Really? Why? The romans did trade with non roman tribes that they were on friendly terms outside of dacia, so why wouldnt they be in contact with the free, albeit resistant, dacian tribes? If its about cultural contact, then it makes sense , at least after the fall of the empire for short. The aurelian retreat is enough proof that the north danubian colonies were not worth maintaining, so why would it be impossible for the old dacian tribes to be at least in contact with each other?

Since romanian historiography is centered heavily on the concept of sprachbund, the burden of proof lies on the academians to answer the logical question, as well as proof on the continuity idea after the aurelian retreat. Because that raises the question, if the romanian "nation" is made up out of Moldova, Transylvania and Wallachia, how exactly did the "romanians" reach Moldova in the first place? From the 11th to the 14th century, we know for a certain that there were absolutely no sign of romanians around the future medieval kingdom of Moldova

Tell me how do we know certainly that. Because it’s totally implausible, in my opinion, not to exist any mention on romanians on that land, and then romanian leaders and personalities suddenly appearing after the 13th century like snails after the rain, si suddenly. And any migration of them would be documented, look at Europe’s history, we know which people migrated in the continent and when, so in my opinion it’s very unlikely that romanians migrated from south of Danube, because there are no sources I know to mention that.

I replied to OP instead of you, eh, everyone makes mistakes.

>it’s totally implausible, in my opinion, not to exist any mention on romanians on that land

It is implausible, actually. Prior to the foundation of the kingdom, on the territory of Moldova lived 3 populations, the Brodnici, Berladnici and Bolohoveni, which historian Victor Spinei does not identify with anything related to romanian culture or language, and they were most likely semi-nomadic populations of turano-slavs who acted as mercenaries for various Kievan rus factions (We know this because they are first mentioned in the Primary Chronicle)

>And any migration of them would be documented, look at Europe’s history, we know which people migrated in the continent and when

That's possible in western Europe because there are multiple sources written by multiple people reporting multiple versions of the events that happened, so it's easier to sketch how the past looked like. Sources on romanian history on the territory of Romania, prior to the 13th century are very, very scarce, if they even exist at all.

Between the Aurelian retreat and the first ever mention of romanians on the territory of Transylvania exists a gap of almost 1000 years, in the form of a letter sent to the Knights of Malta. Until then, there were numerous mentions of Vlachs in history, but they were all placed deep within the Balkans, where they even had their own state, Wallachia. But this doesn't help the narrative at all, since romanian historiographers are very much against the hypothesis that the ethnogenesis happened southward of the Danube.

...

At least how I see it and how I was taught goes like this:
-Aurelian retreat happens, leaving a Romano-Dacian population in Dacia
-The Huns ravage much of the cities in the region, people flee south towards the Byzantines (like the Slavs) others take refuge in the Carpathians
-The Vlachs in both the Carpathians and the Balkans continue to maintain their traditions and languages, largely isolated from other forces around them
-Nomads like the Bulghars, the Pechenegs, the Cumans & the Kypchaks than inhabit Wallachia & Moldavia are mostly pagan, but adopt some parts of Orthodox Christianity, leading to a form of syncretism
-Through the Second Bulgarian Empire the Vlachs finally take a leading role in the region, leading to the assimilation of many nomadic population in Wallachia & Moldavia
-The Vlachs in Transylvania remain a minority in Hungary, and only with the Ottoman invasion that led to massive depopulation in the region, do they being to settle in the lowlands forming a slight majority

>-Aurelian retreat happens, leaving a Romano-Dacian population in Dacia

This is debatable, since Aurelian didn't want it to seem as a retreat of the empire in front of some barbarians, so he created another two regions called Dacia south of the Danube, as to make the rhetoric that citizens of Rome from Dacia are simply taken to another region of Dacia for safety purposes.

>-The Huns ravage much of the cities in the region, people flee south towards the Byzantines (like the Slavs) others take refuge in the Carpathians

This mostly took place during the slavic migrations, where the proto-romanians took a north, south and even western migration route. This is why we have istro-romanians as far as Croatia, Aromanians in deep parts of greece and Serbia. You are correct in asserting that others took refuge in the Carpathians, because there are regions in southern poland that bare names derived from "Vlach", meaning they probably reached those regions either as nomadic pastoralists or mercenaries.

>Through the Second Bulgarian Empire the Vlachs finally take a leading role in the region, leading to the assimilation of many nomadic population in Wallachia & Moldavia

The bulgarians didn't reach as far as Moldova tho. I know some maps will show Bulgaria over the entire carpathian basin, but that's just stupid bulgarian revisionism, as most of the future-Moldova was under the influence of the Halych principality.

...

>The bulgarians didn't reach as far as Moldova tho. I know some maps will show Bulgaria over the entire carpathian basin,
Boi , I've seen bulgarian maps in which they owned all Eastern Europe. You cant even believe how WE WUZ are those niggers.

>Muh Vlachs settling in Slav nations
Can't wait to pull the old "Vlachs->Lachs, therefore we wuz ruling Slavs and sheeeit" card

Vlachs around those parts were mostly used as mercenaries tho


Don't tell them they have anything to do with Romania tho, they'll get upset

>>do literally nothing for the next 18 years

To be fair, ruling that long as a Roman Emperor is a pretty good acheivement in and of itself.

Honorius ruled for a long time and he was quite literally retarded