Did the Conquest of Dacia Save Rome's Economy?

**Romano-Dacis** · 05-02-2008, 04:30

This is an honest question for all you well-read people out there. It's no big secret that after Traianus conquered Dacia, he had 123 days of nothing but celebrations in the city of Rome, where thousands of gladiators and animals were slaughtered. He also distributed 2,000 sesterces a head in 107AD, almost double the salary of a legionnaire. I've read in a few sources that Traianus' forum was built on gold brought from Dacia, which supposedly weighed in at 165 tons of gold from Decebal's treasury alone, coupled with another 330 tons of silver. It is unclear whether this is exaggerated or not, given Rome's ability to hold such a massive celebration, even after taxing its system to the limit by mobilizing 11 legions for the conquest of Dacia, not to mention that Traianus was soon after able to go after the Parthians in another massive campaign.

In short, what I'm looking for are answers to the question in the title. How significant was Dacia's conquest? Did it save the Roman economy, which at the time was having significant difficulties? On the one hand, it was an extremely vulnerable region, but on the other hand, the resources there were more than enough to convince the Romans to maintain occupation, often with 3 full legions acting as garrison. Alongside the massive gold and silver mines, there were also significant resources in salt, and other precious raw materials.

I'm also interested in images of Roman coins dating from before and after the conquest. I've heard the claim that after the conquest, Roman gold coins apperantly became much thicker, where as earlier they were extremely thin. If anyone has pictures of coins, say, from the time of Nerva, and then comparing them with coins from 107AD, I'd be really appreciative.

**Ayce** · 05-02-2008, 13:03

Well, the conquest did bring significant gold and salt resources, but I'm not so sure on the „saved” part. Maybe paullus can answer this. (and damn, you posted at 6:49 AM, no wonder the topic was so far back).

**Jolt** · 05-02-2008, 14:24

It would have saved Rome, but as you said, he wasted all that in booze and girls. (To be honest, and men too, since he payed his legionaries)

**QuintusSertorius** · 05-02-2008, 14:37

Arguably from the Third Punic War onwards Rome's continued success was paid for by conquest. And even before that at various points. I think the fact that it stopped collecting taxes from it's citizens in 167BC was a sign of where future finance would have to be levied.

**The Persian Cataphract** · 05-02-2008, 15:10

Actually, I think the saving of "Roman economy" came somewhat later, during Septimius Severus' campaign against the Parthians; After sacking Ctesiphon he carried enough loot (As well as enough slaves to rank upwards hundreds of thousands) to delay an economical crisis for several decades (Some estimate three to four). Dacia was rich and was pivotal for Trajan in order to transfer his campaign to waging war against the Parthians, but did not prove sufficient given Septimius' later expensive military enterprises.

This angered the Arsacids, but the drop that made the cup overflow was Caracalla's deception (Allegedly over a marriage with Artabanus' daughter, which proved to be a Roman invasion incognito), leading to the defeat of the Romans at Nisibis 217 CE (Many have shrugged it off as "Pyrrhic", due to Herodian's description of the battle, however given the bias we have no reason to dismiss that the Parthians nipped the Romans right in the bud). This lead to a costly reparation treaty, but the Arsacids were soon to be overthrown by the Sassanian clan, who clearly held a more pronounced anti-Roman attitude.