What becomes of the conquered?

[duncan.gill]

I was wondering what happened to people once they were conquered in EB times. After the Dacian conquests did they cease to exist as a cultural identity (i.e. were the people who identified as being "Dacian" simply become incorporated into new groups) or were they annihilated (i.e. are there no current decedents of the Dacians) or a combination of both?

I find it interesting that in the “dark” ages that “barbarian” cultures (Vandals etc) appeared – obviously they had to come from somewhere; whether it was a small group that became larger through breeding or whether it was a composed of groups of people from diverse cultural identities who began to identify as being from the same culture over time.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Because of previous difficulties with barbarians (Varus) among other reasons, the Romans all but genocided the Dacians. Complete genocide was not very common, however.

Most peoples simply subjugated the local population. There was no such thing as nationalism and being conquered back then, for the majority of the people, simply meant different people were taxing them.

[Uticensis]

Lots of different things happened to conquered people, but most that were conquered by the Romans (Gauls, Spanish tribes, ect) were fully Romanized. A big exception to this are the Greeks, who maintained their culture to a large degree, and, as Horace said, in being captured conquered their captors (spreading Greek culture to the Romans).

Its hard to say what happened to the Dacians. Many Romanian nationalists claim their people are directly descended from the Romano-Dacians, but archeology doesn't really back this up.

As for the dark age "barbarian" tribes, both factors you mentioned are accurate. Groups like the Vandals almost certainly existed during EBs time (the Vandals were likely the people known as the Lugii), but more as loose confederations dedicated to the cults of a specific god. What hapened was, in the later Roman period, there were a lot of developments in Germania, including improved agriculture, hence greater populations. Also tribes joined together into more tightly allied groups for mutual defense or offense (usually against the Romans), so more people identified as members of these groups. The population pressures (among other factors) led to migrations, and the larger, more centralized confederations had some military power, so they were able to invade the crumbling Roman Empire. There are also some indications that as these groups entered the Roman empire, slaves and under-class Romans adopted Barbarian culture, so they too would have led to the growth of these groups.

[Romano-Dacis]

The notion that Dacians died out after the Roman conquests sounds ridiculous once you realize that the Romans never conquered all of the Dacian lands. They were constantly fighting with the Carpi and Costoboci.

Many people were Romanized after being conquered by the Romans, though the Greeks are an exception. Others were annihilated, like the Carthaginians. When a barbarian nation conquered another barbarian nation, usually the only result was something akin to vassality, where they had to provide soldiers for the conqueror, as well as some economic tribute; there was no real cultural imperialism among barbarians.

Its hard to say what happened to the Dacians. Many Romanian nationalists claim their people are directly descended from the Romano-Dacians, but archeology doesn't really back this up.

I'm not going to open up a can of worms, but your interpretation on the archaeological artefacts is... odd. From what I recall seeing at the National History Museum in Bucharest, there even exist gravestones showing Romans married to Dacian women, so it's kind of hard to make such a blanket statement. Maybe it's not clearly spelled out, but I personally believe there is enough to go by, especially when combined with linguistics, to reach such a conclusion.

I find it interesting that in the “dark” ages that “barbarian” cultures (Vandals etc) appeared – obviously they had to come from somewhere; whether it was a small group that became larger through breeding or whether it was a composed of groups of people from diverse cultural identities who began to identify as being from the same culture over time.

Well, some Dark Age barbarians did simply appear out of nowhere, at least in the European context, including the Avars, Huns, Arabs, Magyars, Bulgars etc. Others of course existed, but only became a threat when they reached a sufficient level of development, and as such, were ignored in history before then. This includes Goths, Gepids, and Vandals.

[Uticensis]

I'm not going to open up a can of worms, but your interpretation on the archaeological artefacts is... odd. From what I recall seeing at the National History Museum in Bucharest, there even exist gravestones showing Romans married to Dacian women, so it's kind of hard to make such a blanket statement. Maybe it's not clearly spelled out, but I personally believe there is enough to go by, especially when combined with linguistics, to reach such a conclusion.

I'm not denying the Romans interacted and intermixed with the Dacians. But Romanian nationalists seem to minimize the fact that those lands were conquered by the Goths, Huns, Gepids, Slavs, Avars, ect., probably severing any continuity with the Romano-Dacian past. The Romans did evacuate Dacia, presumably relocating anyone with ties to Rome south of the Danube. Then Carpi were driven out of Dacia by the Goths, and were resettled within the Roman Empire around year 300. These two events alone would, I would guess, significantly reduce the Romano-Dacian character of the people north of the Danube.

[Tiberius Nero]

Just a note, when we talk of "Romanization", one shouldn't think this happened at the tip of a sword; the Romans couldn't care less about the culture of the people they subjugated, most of the Romanization for the conquered was really adapting to a new governmental structure and the processes by which Roman authority was expressed.

The only cultural aspects Romans forcibly suppressed were 1) human sacrifice by the druids (and probably everywhere), not because of religious grounds but simply because it was considered plain homicide under Roman law, 2) religio-political movements, because these in their experience tended to lead to revolts, like the movement of Eunus, prophet of the Syrian Goddess (Atargatis), in Sicily (135 BC); again this wouldn't lead to religious bans, as the cult of Atargatis for example was never outlawed.

[QuintusSertorius]

Just a note, when we talk of "Romanization", one shouldn't think this happened at the tip of a sword; the Romans couldn't care less about the culture of the people they subjugated, most of the Romanization for the conquered was really adapting to a new governmental structure and the processes by which Roman authority was expressed.

The only cultural aspects Romans forcibly suppressed were 1) human sacrifice by the druids (and probably everywhere), not because of religious grounds but simply because it was considered plain homicide under Roman law, 2) religio-political movements, because these in their experience tended to lead to revolts, like the movement of Eunus, prophet of the Syrian Goddess (Atargatis), in Sicily (135 BC); again this wouldn't lead to religious bans, as the cult of Atargatis for example was never outlawed.

Indeed as long as a peoples admitted defeat after a victorious war, paid tribute and then taxes, and subjected itself to Roman law and government the Roman state didn't much care what they did. Often as far as religion went, "new" gods would become a fad amongst the idle rich at Rome.

The harshness towards religio-political movements is also why Jews and later Christians suffered under Roman rule. Not because of the god they chose to believe in, but because of their denouncement of all other gods as false and the frequency with which agitators would appear and foment trouble.

It's worth reinforcing what MAA said about many "conquests" just changing who you paid taxes to, in many Hellenic conflicts all that really happened after a set piece battle or two was a peace treaty where alliegances of settlements were changed. Until the next war when everyone had recovered. Total war was never the object, and major loss of life was to be avoided by both sides.

[Ayce]

I'm not denying the Romans interacted and intermixed with the Dacians. But Romanian nationalists seem to minimize the fact that those lands were conquered by the Goths, Huns, Gepids, Slavs, Avars, ect., probably severing any continuity with the Romano-Dacian past. The Romans did evacuate Dacia, presumably relocating anyone with ties to Rome south of the Danube. Then Carpi were driven out of Dacia by the Goths, and were resettled within the Roman Empire around year 300. These two events alone would, I would guess, significantly reduce the Romano-Dacian character of the people north of the Danube.

Well, genetically, The entire area dates back to the Thracian period, even earlier, but that's to be expected, cultural change happens from the top down. Romania most obviously has uninterrupted links to that past because of language preservation, it did not go through the same process that the modern nations of Hungary and Bulgaria went through, where the local people got culturally absorbed by the ruling class, but genetically, 60% are still local. Of course Romanians were influenced by all the transiting nomads (especially Cumans and Slavs), but no more than 25%, because Romanian nobility saw itself as Romanian, rather than Cuman or Slav or Hungarian, even though they did have blood ties to them.

That said, the way in which a population group is affected depends on how the new nobility considers the relation between itself and the populace (distant = little linguistic influence, close + foreign = assimilation, close + native = local culture is kept intact)

[Uticensis]

Well, genetically, The entire area dates back to the Thracian period, even earlier, but that's to be expected, cultural change happens from the top down. Romania most obviously has uninterrupted links to that past because of language preservation, it did not go through the same process that the modern nations of Hungary and Bulgaria went through, where the local people got culturally absorbed by the ruling class, but genetically, 60% are still local. Of course Romanians were influenced by all the transiting nomads (especially Cumans and Slavs), but no more than 25%, because Romanian nobility saw itself as Romanian, rather than Cuman or Slav or Hungarian, even though they did have blood ties to them.

Agreed. The question was about whether there are any people who are descended from the Dacians, so I took that to mean a direct genetic descent.