From: Torsten
Message: 67544
Date: 2011-05-13
>Crawford thinks the collapse of the Mithridates empire exacerbated the dearth of slaves with the inclusion within the Roman empire of vast territories which thereby theoretically ceased to be available as sources for the supply of slaves; I think the opposite was the case, since that meant renewed access for the Romans to the large slave market in
> >
> > > That accommodates the date at which I would like to place
> > > Burebista's expulsion of the Bastarnae: around 89 BCE, where
> > > Mithridates lines up his forces and allies to attack Rome,
> > > including the Bastarnae, cf
> > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/67060
> > > Nicomedes IV was in Rome in 90-89 and in 88-84 BCE, a good time
> > > to receive a poem praising your reign.
> >
> >
> > ****GK: There seems to be some confusion about Burebista's regnal
> > dates and his expansionism. Some say he started to rule in 82,
> > others in 70, still others in 60. I see you base your view on your
> > understanding of Jordanes' "when Sulla ruled the Romans".
>
> Yes. The whole quote is:
> http://www.harbornet.com/folks/theedrich/Goths/Goths1.htm
> 'Dehinc, regnante Gothis Burebista, Decaeneus venit in Gothiam, quo
> tempore Romanorum Sulla potitus est principatu. uem Decaeneum
> suscipiens, Burebistas dedit ei paene regiam potestatem; cujus
> consilio Gothi Germanorum terras, quas nunc Franci obtinent,
> populati sunt.'
>
> "Then when Burebistas was king of the Goths, Decaeneus came to
> Gothia at the time when Sulla ruled the Romans [ca. 82-79 B.C.].
> Burebistas received Decaeneus and gave him almost royal power. It
> was by his advice the Goths ravaged the lands of the Germans, which
> the Franks now possess."
>
> I imagined that the expulsion of the Bastarnae was the direct result
> of a war initiated by the Bastarnae as part of a harassment policy
> or a direct attack by Mithridates and his allies, but what Jordanes
> actually says is that the Burebista's Goths/Getae initiated the a
> war against the 'Germans' on the advice of Decineus. In order for it
> to make sense for Burebista to start on such a potentially
> catastrophic business on the advice of a single man, Decineus would
> have needed a number of years to prove the soundness of his advice,
> so you're probably right that 90/89 BCE is too early.
>
> > I don't find this too reliable, but don't particularly care about
> > the regnal start as such. As for the expansionism, I don't see
> > Burebista starting his empire-building when Mithradates was still
> > flexing his muscles. An expulsion of the Bastarnians from Moldavia
> > before 63 BCE is about as highly improbable as anything else in
> > world history. But from about 60 BCE he (Burebista) could
> > certainly do some territorial collecting. The destruction of Olbia
> > BTW is generally put at ca. 50 BCE. What are your arguments for
> > earlier dates?*****
>
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/66827
> 'In considering then the earliest hoards of Republican coins from
> Dacia, we are dealing with hoards composed for the most part of a
> block of common coins of the late second century B.C. and of the 80s
> B.C., with normally an isolated terminal coin or scatter of coins of
> the 70s and 60s B.C.; the vast majority of these hoards are not now
> known in anything like their entirety. Even were it not true that
> the 70s and 6os B.C. are for the most part a period of small issues
> from the Roman mint, it would clearly be extremely hazardous to
> argue that the hoards were deposited immediately after the date of
> the latest coin in them. Even if the hoards were Italian, all we
> could say is that the group as a whole is likely to have been
> deposited by the mid or late 60s B.C.26 In the case of Dacia, we
> perhaps have a timelag for travel to reckon with as well.27
>
> If we may with all due caution posit a beginning to the massive
> import of Republican denarii into the lower Danube basin from the
> mid or late 60s B.C. onwards, an anomalous and unique phenomenon, as
> I have already remarked, as well as a sudden one, I cannot think of
> any satisfactory explanation except in terms of the slave trade,
> forced in the immediate aftermath of the victorious campaigns of Cn.
> Pompeius against the pirates in 67 B.C. to find an alternative
> source of supply for Rome and Italy outside the Greco-Macedonian
> Mediterranean world. The problem was no doubt exacerbated by the
> fact that not only did 67 B.C. see a virtual end to the kidnapping
> and slave-raiding organized by the pirates, but 63 B.C. saw the
> inclusion within the Roman empire of vast territories which thereby
> theoretically ceased to be available as sources for the supply of
> slaves. Caesar's razzias in Gaul (see p. 122) did not begin until 58
> B.C. Italy had also of course in any case suffered severe losses of
> slave manpower in the revolt of Spartacus.
> ...
>
> 26 The general methodological point is made quite correctly by M.
> BabeÅ, Dacia XIX, 1975, 132-3 and 139 n. 61, against the argument of
> M. Chiţescu, ibid., 249, linking the burial of the hoards with the
> growth of the state of Burebista.
>
> 27 Assertions to the contrary without supporting evidence are
> valueless, as by M. Chiţescu, Dacia XVIII, 1974, I53; Stud. Cerc.
> Num. VI, 1975, 55; note the Stobi hoard, closing in the mid-120s
> B.C., probably buried in 119 B.C. (Stobi Studies i, I).'
>
>
> Ie. a massive trade in slaves in the period 67 - 63 BCE.
> BurebistaI have to account for the large number of Germanic slaves (at least 30,000 under Crixus + 12,300 under Gannicus and Castus) in the
> might have started with his own subjects, until Decineus pointed out
> to him that harvesting the neighbors might be better for the
> stability of his regime?