The Dacian/Getae Civilization and Military

Aug 2016
977
US&A
#1
I am curious about the Dacian civilization under King Decebalus. Essentially, how "civilized" were the Dacians? How well-organized was their military? Did they live in a feudal society? How were their soldiers organized in a battle?
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,533
Europix
#2
I am curious about the Dacian civilization under King Decebalus. Essentially, how "civilized" were the Dacians? How well-organized was their military? Did they live in a feudal society? How were their soldiers organized in a battle?
It's 1st century. I would be surprised about much feudalism in their society.
 
Jan 2015
2,948
MD, USA
#4
Well, Decebalus is called a king so I thought the society might be similar. How did society work then? It seems like Feudalism is a natural consequence of tribes being united under a ruler.

Dacians aren't really my thing, but I've never heard any suggestion that they were anything besides a typical tribal culture. Obviously not all tribal cultures were the same! But we don't necessarily know enough about the details to say how one was different from another.


Feudalism is a very specific description of the system of oaths and obligations between nobles in medieval Europe. While you might try to compare tribes to noble families or holdings, I think it would mostly be a stretch! They just aren't the same.



I don't think there is much evidence that the Dacian military was much different from most other tribal armies, either. Leaders would supply warriors according to their rank and place in the hierarchy, and warriors would equip themselves according to their status and wealth. There would be a general knowledge of formations and simple tactics, but whether there was any sort of chain of command or training beyond that is really iffy. We know there were signaling horns, various sorts of standards, etc., but it is perilous to go from that to thinking of some kind of organization even remotely comparable to the Roman army. Very different worlds.


Matthew
 
Jun 2012
7,407
Malaysia
#5
My understanding is that Dacian & Getae were like two very closely related offspring tribes from Thracian. So close that they're even often considered as virtually the same one single tribe.
 
Aug 2016
977
US&A
#6
My understanding is that Dacian & Getae were like two very closely related offspring tribes from Thracian. So close that they're even often considered as virtually the same one single tribe.
Well, according to the Divide Et Imperum mod for Rome II: Total War (great source, I know :p) Dacians is what the Romans called them, and Getae is what the Greeks called them. Also, rather than two separate tribes, they were a collection of tribes with similar cultures around modern Romania.
 
Jun 2012
7,407
Malaysia
#8
Well, according to the Divide Et Imperum mod for Rome II: Total War (great source, I know :p) Dacians is what the Romans called them, and Getae is what the Greeks called them. Also, rather than two separate tribes, they were a collection of tribes with similar cultures around modern Romania.
Just a thought. Cud it hv been possible that the name Dacia came about from a corruption of Thracia, perhaps via something like Thacia, while Getae derived from a Greek rendition of Goth?
 
Last edited:
Aug 2016
977
US&A
#9
Just a thought. Cud it hv been possible that the name Dacia came about from a corruption of Thracia, perhaps via something like Thacia, while Getae derived from a Greek rendition of Goth?
Potentially, but I would have no idea about that. AFAIK, the term, “Goth” only seems to enter the lexicon around the end of the Western Roman Empire.
 
Aug 2016
977
US&A
#10
Dacians aren't really my thing, but I've never heard any suggestion that they were anything besides a typical tribal culture. Obviously not all tribal cultures were the same! But we don't necessarily know enough about the details to say how one was different from another.


Feudalism is a very specific description of the system of oaths and obligations between nobles in medieval Europe. While you might try to compare tribes to noble families or holdings, I think it would mostly be a stretch! They just aren't the same.



I don't think there is much evidence that the Dacian military was much different from most other tribal armies, either. Leaders would supply warriors according to their rank and place in the hierarchy, and warriors would equip themselves according to their status and wealth. There would be a general knowledge of formations and simple tactics, but whether there was any sort of chain of command or training beyond that is really iffy. We know there were signaling horns, various sorts of standards, etc., but it is perilous to go from that to thinking of some kind of organization even remotely comparable to the Roman army. Very different worlds.


Matthew
Wasn't feudalism used to describe Japan's old system of governance?
 

Similar History Discussions