Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What if war:Cezar vs Burebista

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What if war:Cezar vs Burebista

    Hi Guys,

    I woud like your opinion on this,I think it's a very little known part of ancient history,although it is a very important part
    So,if Cezar woud have not been kiled, a clash between them woud have occured for sure,and the outcome woud have been deciseve for Rome and the Ancient World.

    PS;Sry for my bad english

  • #2
    What about introducing yourself in the appropriate thread,Dante.

    Anyway welcome on WAB.
    To answer your question,it's not important for the ancient world as a whole-it could be maybe for us.Even if it did happened it would not have been decisive for Rome unless you presume Burebista could have defeated all Roman armies and captured Rome.
    And we know next to nothing(I mean certain knowledge,not guesses,romantic visions and the like)about the Dacians,sadly,so there is no way to make any scenarios.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Dante View Post
      Hi Guys,

      I woud like your opinion on this,I think it's a very little known part of ancient history,although it is a very important part
      So,if Cezar woud have not been kiled, a clash between them woud have occured for sure,and the outcome woud have been deciseve for Rome and the Ancient World.

      PS;Sry for my bad english
      A clash may have occurred, but the outcome was only going to go one way. Caesar was simply the greatest of a string of Roman generals and dictators who came to power starting with Marius that saw the Roman Republic become very nearly as militaristic as Sparta and as land hungry as Alexander. Unless The Dacians could field a quarter of a million trained troops the Romans would have won though sheer numbers over time. The Sicilian proverb that revenge is a dish best served cold can be seen in Roman views 2000 years ago. beat them once, and they'll be back later with more and better stuff to emerge victorious.

      Rome did not yet believe that she could could be checked. It would Hadrian, the plague and a collapsing tax system to do that.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by zraver View Post
        A clash may have occurred, but the outcome was only going to go one way. Caesar was simply the greatest of a string of Roman generals and dictators who came to power starting with Marius that saw the Roman Republic become very nearly as militaristic as Sparta and as land hungry as Alexander. Unless The Dacians could field a quarter of a million trained troops the Romans would have won though sheer numbers over time. The Sicilian proverb that revenge is a dish best served cold can be seen in Roman views 2000 years ago. beat them once, and they'll be back later with more and better stuff to emerge victorious.

        Rome did not yet believe that she could could be checked. It would Hadrian, the plague and a collapsing tax system to do that.
        Well,the dacians(more exactly,the union of tribes under Burebista) could never have field close to 250k fighters,the realistic estimated force of his army was somwhere betwen 60-70 thousand fighters.

        Was that enough to win some victories against Cezar? Yes,for sure,Burebista was also a great general that defetead a roman army before(2 legions,exactly),

        Was that enough to totaly defeat/conquer Rome?No,for sure.

        But the situation was more complicated.Burebista suported Crasius in the civil war(with trops even,though this is not sure or verified),and woud have suported any side against Cezar,so this along with a defeat of Cezars armys woud have weeckend him in Rome and made a further,more concentrated atack,less of an option.

        One the other hand,in that curent stage,the army that Burebista had was superior in many ways to the Celtic army Cezar defeated,or to Partians that gave Rome such problems.

        All that Burebista actualy neded was time and a enemy.He had the enemy,and a victory against Cesar woud have bought him the time he neded to strenghten his position and his aliance,creating a danger to romans that surpased anything in Europe,at that time.

        Ps Sory for the long post

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Dante View Post
          Well,the dacians(more exactly,the union of tribes under Burebista) could never have field close to 250k fighters,the realistic estimated force of his army was somwhere betwen 60-70 thousand fighters.

          Was that enough to win some victories against Cezar? Yes,for sure,Burebista was also a great general that defetead a roman army before(2 legions,exactly),
          The army he beat was neither Pompey or Caesar.

          But the situation was more complicated.Burebista suported Crasius in the civil war(with trops even,though this is not sure or verified),and woud have suported any side against Cezar,so this along with a defeat of Cezars armys woud have weeckend him in Rome and made a further,more concentrated atack,less of an option.
          Crassus was already dead, he supported Pompey and Pompey lost.

          One the other hand,in that curent stage,the army that Burebista had was superior in many ways to the Celtic army Cezar defeated,or to Partians that gave Rome such problems.
          Quick history lesson. Julius Caesar beat the army that seized Asia Minor for Rome. Didn't just beat it but crushed it.

          The survivors of Crassus' army regroup under Loginus and beat the Parthians a year later. During the long course of the eternal wars Rome went east far deeper than the Persians went west and in the end after the last war the Persians were so weak they fell to the Arabs.

          All that Burebista actualy neded was time and a enemy.He had the enemy,and a victory against Cesar woud have bought him the time he neded to strenghten his position and his aliance,creating a danger to romans that surpased anything in Europe,at that time.

          Ps Sory for the long post
          Honestly the chance of him beating Caesar is slim to none in my opinion. Julius Caesar is one of history's Great Captains and one of the only such to defeat other Great Captains. Sulla vs Marius, Julius Caesar vs Pompey, Wellington v Napoleon etc.

          Comment


          • #6
            Dante

            Can we have a starting date for such a scenario ?
            And a motive perhaps ( pilage raids, punitive expeditions, etc... )
            J'ai en marre.

            Comment


            • #7
              It appears in Roman sources as an alternative to Caesar's planned Parthian campaign.There were some Roman moves in Illyricum and MAcedonia that suggested such a move was at least considered.And the Romans hardly needed a pretext to take on somebody.Of course everything was abandoned with Caesars death and Burebista's murder shortly thereafter.
              Those who know don't speak
              He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

              Comment


              • #8
                Mihais

                Any definitive figures on the number of legions in that area ?
                J'ai en marre.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I don't remember to encounter precise numbers.All I found was the vague term of ''reinforcements''.
                  More precise numbers exist for Trajan's Dacian Wars.There were 12 legions and vexillationes(a modern term would be task force)from other 2 or 3,+~60 to 70 auxiliary cohorts(some with 500 men,some with 1000)+the Praetorian Guards(no idea on how many of the 10 cohorts went with Trajan,probably the bulk)+riverine flotilla.

                  I made this enumeration to point that although we don't know much about the Dacian kingdom,the Romans considered them a formidable opponent.During Burebista it was double to triple in size compared to Decebalus era 150 years later and probably that was translated in military power,at least to an extent.It was also a recent creation,but one that was specifically created to resist Roman advance.
                  Those who know don't speak
                  He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Traian had 29 legions to begin with, Could Cesar deploy 12 legions in 44 BC ?
                    J'ai en marre.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Marcus Antonius went against the Parthians with ~80000men.At Phillipi each side had had some 90000 men,IIRC(which I won't bet my life on).There were some 20 legions on each side,but they weren't at full strength,most were at 40-50%.Trajan's were at full strength,or almost,which was 5500/legion.
                      Those who know don't speak
                      He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X