From: Torsten
Message: 67548
Date: 2011-05-13
> > > ****GK: There seems to be some confusion about Burebista'sTadaa!
> > > 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.
>
> 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
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panticapaeon
> But anyway, I don't think pirates would have been a source of slaves
> reliable enough that the Rome could have used them as an only source
> at any time.
>
> > Burebista
> > 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?
>
> I have to account for the large number of Germanic slaves (at least
> 30,000 under Crixus + 12,300 under Gannicus and Castus) in the
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Servile_War , (73-71 BCE).
> Since the Romans had had no war with Germani in the preceding time,
> these are most likely POWs from Burebista's victorious campaigns
> against the Germani, paid for by the coin hoards Crawford mentions.
> In other words, I would place Burebista's victory over Bastarnae in
> the period 73-72 BCE. And not only over the Bastarnae, but also the
> Western Sarmatian alliance, see
> http://www.kroraina.com/sarm/jh/jh1_7.html
> The reason Harmatta places the end of the alliance so late as in 61
> BCE seems to be the same as the reason given for placing the rise of
> Burebista's empire to after 63 BCE, the year of Mithridates' death.
> But Mithridates was in trouble from the onset of the
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Mithridatic_War
> it is absolutely not a given that he was able to defend his
> possessions on the Northwestern coast of the Black Sea; the Greek
> cities there were taken by
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Terentius_Varro_Lucullus
> in the mid 70s BCE, and according to
> Konrat Ziegler,
> Die Herkunft des Spartacus
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/66474
> Spartacus himself was taken prisoner in those parts by
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appius_Claudius_Pulcher_(consul_54_BC)
> in 76 BCE.
>
> In conclusion, I think it's safe to say the Burebista's elimination
> of both the Bastarnae and the Western Sarmatian Alliance took place
> in the mid 70's BCE.