Talk:Trajan's Dacian Wars

Troops
The number of troops for the Dacians and Romans was put to more realistic numbers, acording to ancient sources. User:Macedon19
 * The current number don't seem to be correct though since the whole roman army throughout including auxiliaries mustered around 300,000 men. That more than half of that participated in the dacian war seems highly unlikely to me. Though it is known that Trajan relocated troops from from the east and scotland for the dacian wars, the battle descriptions like usually mentioned only 4-5 legions to be involved. That means roughly 20,000-25,000 legionaires and you can probably add the same amount for auxiliary troops. With that we are are at > 50,000 troops but that is still far from the numbers currently claimed in the infobox (120,000-150,000). Also the version claims to have changed the number according to reknowned historians, but fails to cite them. --Kmhkmh (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Convoluted Speech
Can we change the line which explains how Trajan was a "true and honourable" emperor? It sounds a little moralistic and anachronistic to me.

Need an reorganization of series of articles
cross-posted of To-do dropped here 8 Nov 2007 and from here
 * Dacian Wars :re: Roman conquest of Dacia has a number of articles that are repetitive and need reorganized. Moreover, appear orphaned with stubs remaining unpolished and unfinished. (I just stumbled in there!)


 * Naming of articles like First and Second Dacian Wars is non-sensical in light of origin in the actual first war before Trajan, and redundant to the Dacian Wars article itself. Some standard needs be applied and materials moved, as needed.
 * There are three separate battles of Tapae (near the village of Bucova, Banat in Romania) with two separate peace treaties with two Roman Emperors.


 * Strongly suggest renaming First and Second as second and third respectively, leaving first for the 87 AD-88 AD now as the article "First Battle of Tapae" (which covers the first two (Battles of Tapae) despite the title!).


 * Further, I surmise that "Tapae" itself was an outlying bastion as my recent wording in Dacian Wars says, but that needs confirmed, and with three Battles there, some stub of an article ought to be created for the place.
 * If First Battle of Tapae is accepted as the first war, then that needs renamed and fleshed out, with division into the respective battles. Its currently very sparse, and the whole is reliant on only a single web source.
 * I'll be glad to pitch in a bit, but the naming issues (and ignorance of the standards for such names) suggests I yell for help before acting too WP:BOLD. Unfortunately, I'm also hip deep in other projects, so... Help! (Can someone drop me a link to where this discussion goes after this to-do list post! Thanks) // Fra nkB 20:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Naming the conflict
At the request of fabartus, from the Oxford Classical Dictionary:
 * "Decebalus": Decebalus, king of Dacia... In 88, Domitian...concluded a generous peace by which Decebalus was established as a king friendly to Rome. Trajan...invaded Dacia (101-2) and imposed a peace settlement...In 105 Trajan went to war again, apparently in response to Decebalus' infractions of the treaty.
 * "Dacia": was situated in the loop of the lower Danube, consisting mainly of the plateau of Transylvania, but extending in a wider sense eastwards to the Sereth and north to the Vistula. ... Conquest of Dacia was effected by Trajan in the First and Second Dacian Wars (101-2, 105-6). (emph mine)
 * More to come. Her Pegship  (tis herself) 22:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Some citations
From The Provinces of the Roman Empire: The European Provinces, by Theodor Mommsen, c1968, University of Chicago Press, LCCN 68-16708: the author refers to the conflict from c.85-90 BC as the "Dacian war of Domitian", and the later war, from 101-2, as the "Dacian war of Trajan", then the 105-6 war as the "second Dacian war" (footnotes, p. 231-235). Admittedly this tome is 40 years old, and nomenclature may have changed. But it's a start. Her Pegship  (tis herself) 23:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Confusing labelling
This article cannot make up its mind whether it is covering the 1st, 2nd or 3rd Dacian Wars. We should always use the conventional naming. Only Trajan's wars are known conventionally as the "Dacian Wars". So Domitian's war against the Dacians should not be called the "1st Dacian War". Trajan's wars should be known as the 1st and 2nd Dacian Wars.

Therefore, I propose to rename this article Dacian Wars (i.e. merge it with the existing article with that name); and to rename Battle of Tapae, which covers Domitian's war, Domitian's Dacian War Any comments? EraNavigator (talk) 06:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic Cleansing and genocide
The second Dacian war appears to have been more brutal than Rome's average conquest, with the rapid extinction of Dacia's language and culture occuring with Roman colonisation. This should probably be included with the consequences of the war rather than talking about Trajan as a gaining honour. M-Henry (talk) 11:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The first war (ending part, peace)
The peace at the first war with Trajan does not give the correct information. Actually the peace wasn't in favor for dacians how it's says here "... since the "peace" was actually lost by the Roman Empire. According to the peace terms, Decebalus got technical and military reinforcement from the Romans in order to create a powerful allied zone against the dangerous possible expeditions from the northern and eastern territories by hostile migrating peoples. The resources were, however, used to rebuild Dacian fortresses and strengthen the army. Soon thereafter Decebalus turned against the Romans once again.". If someone can, please search again and correct the information. P.S. This peace happened in A.D. 89 under Domitian's rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.100.58.196 (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyedit
Per request, took a run through this. Comments:


 * The footnotes should be complemented by more complete citations of the works. templates help link the two.
 * A clarification about the Roman's interest would be welcome. Was it purely a reaction to the Dacian's misbehavior or was it about their gold and other resources?
 * The article's title gives too much credit to the emperor. How about "Roman/Dacian wars"?

Feedback welcome. Cheers. Lfstevens (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

IP edits
Dear IP,

I see no reason to remove the percentage, please discuss here, thank you.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC))

The percentage was added by you quite recently without any citation to back up such a specific claim. Why should it stand? Where do you get it from? If one takes a look at edit history, it went from "Part of..." to "14-20%" to "Most of..." and now back to "14-20%". 188.148.74.60 (talk) 02:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see too this was earlier.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC))

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Europe1070811.png

Typo's in footnotes and citations.
This appears to be a problem with both the Italian and English versions of the article. Footnote 4 originally cited "Cassius Dio, LVIII, 14, 4-5." However, I checked Book 58 of Roman history by Cassius Dio, and both the book and section do not cover the prisoners, or the Dacian war. However, when I checked book 68, the section does comment on the prisoners. Therefor, I have fixed the typo by replacing LVIII with LVXIII in Footnote 4.

The Italian version of the article appears to have this problem. By using chromes auto-translate function to translate the quotes in the article attributed to book LVIII. Some of the quotes appear to be from "LVXIII" and not "LVIII". I do not speak Italian, so I have not attempted to fix the typos there due to the language barrier. However, I suggest that these typos get fixed in the Italian article, so they cite to LVXIII and not LVIII. Randitor (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)